Friday, February 08, 2013

Matt 24 watch, 192: The homosexualist watershed/wedge in action as Britain votes in homosexualised "marriage" 400:175 even as the Boy Scouts in America -- under donor withdrawal pressure -- contemplate homosexualising scouting

This week, Parliament in Britain voted -- 400:175 -- to create a legal fiction, homosexual "marriage," which was hailed as a breakthrough for "equality" and "rights." 

At the same time, in the USA, the Boy Scouts, under severe pressure of major donor abandonment [apparently objecting to homosexual behaviour as morally questionable is seen by many as "discrimination" and "bigotry" so boycotts are viewed as appropriate], have been proposing to remove the national policy on homosexuality in the ranks and among scout masters. 

Somewhere in the mix, homosexualist indoctrination of the culture, the non-negotiable nature of Christian Biblical objection to homosexual conduct as sin, and the rise of pedophilia -- which contrary to many talking points is disproportionately homosexual -- have been lost sight of.  

Thus, we are seeing an Isaiah 5:20 - 21 moral inversion, and twist-about turnspeech rhetoric that seeks to  falsely accuse that which is morally justified as being hateful, and to promote that which is objectively disordered and self destructive, as good and wholesome. 

Let us hear the Word of the Lord:

Isa 5:18 Woe to those who draw sin along with cords of deceit,
    and wickedness as with cart ropes,
19 to those who say, “Let God hurry,
    let him hasten his work
    so we may see it.
Let it approach,
    let the plan of the Holy One of Israel come,
    so we may know it.”

20 Woe to those who call evil good
    and good evil,
who put darkness for light
    and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
    and sweet for bitter.

21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
    and clever in their own sight.

22 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine
    and champions at mixing drinks,
23 who acquit the guilty for a bribe,
    but deny justice to the innocent.
24 Therefore, as tongues of fire lick up straw
    and as dry grass sinks down in the flames,
so their roots will decay
    and their flowers blow away like dust;
for they have rejected the law of the Lord Almighty
    and spurned the word of the Holy One of Israel . . . . 

26 He lifts up a banner for the distant nations,
    he whistles for those at the ends of the earth.
Here they come,
    swiftly and speedily!
27 Not one of them grows tired or stumbles,
    not one slumbers or sleeps;
not a belt is loosened at the waist,
    not a sandal thong is broken.
28 Their arrows are sharp,
    all their bows are strung;
their horses’ hoofs seem like flint,
    their chariot wheels like a whirlwind.
29 Their roar is like that of the lion,
    they roar like young lions;
they growl as they seize their prey
    and carry it off with no one to rescue.
30 In that day they will roar over it
    like the roaring of the sea.
And if one looks at the land,
    he will see darkness and distress;
    even the light will be darkened by the clouds. [NIV, 84]

The anticipated reaction is obvious: you are a superstitious, anti-science ignoramus, full of homophobia and hate. Get over it. And dump that silly old book that you want to cling to. Or at least, learn that your Jesus never said one word about being gay anyway. God made us that way, we are here, we are queer and we are proud!

(Before I go further, thanks to media campaigns it is so ingrained in many minds that somehow science has "proved" that homosexuality is a natural and benign characteristic, that I need to refer the questioning reader to the survey of evidence here that utterly explodes this pervasive myth. Notice, that there are three main forms of particularly male homosexuality, the Classical/Greek model of corrupting boys or youth, the Western model that has become prominent in the past several centuries in the aftermath of effective law enforcement against pedophilia, and the culturally compulsory Melanesian form that in several cultures effectively vanished within decades through the effect of the Christian call to discipleship and reformation. The incidence of homosexuality is too high, too variable and too culturally correlated to be a rare genetic pattern, is too correlated with cultural patterns and is too uncorrelated with biological  life stages to fit a genetically determined model. Similarly, female forms are observed to be part of a largely bisexual pattern, which immediately points to a personal pattern of attitudes and habits, not a genetic pattern. And more, much more. That is, the first thing we need to understand, there is simply no good reason to see that homosexual behaviour is a genetically stamped and determined, morally neutral, benign behaviour. Next, we need to understand that -- as the Apostle Paul recounts in 1 Cor 6:9 - 11 -- for thousands of years, there has been a recovery road that has allowed people caught up in twisted forms of sexual behaviour, ranging from fornication and adultery to homosexuality and worse, to find a road of recovery. In our day, this road has been summed up in the highly successful and well known 12 step programme for recovery from destructive addictions and life dominating sinful habits. Also, it is quite clear that Jesus taught within and approved the Hebraic scriptural tradition that family based on the permanent marital bond between man and woman is the creation order -- and biologically obvious -- pattern for sexuality, child nurture and thus also the stabilising foundation of society. Indeed, he said of marriage that what God has joined let not man separate.)

Watersheds, which divide and
separate water flows leading
from drops falling on two
sides of an imaginary line
all the way to oceans
a continent apart.
In a certain sense, all of this we have examined before, this is just the further playing out of the watershed/wedge tactic of splitting the society on a perceived matter of "rights" and "equality" in order to radically break down the Judaeo-Christian heritage and replace it with a new secularised, radically relativist, nihilist might and manipulation make 'right' order. Which, predictably, will end in ruin and in the persecution of those who will not yield to the propaganda agendas under false colour of anti-discrimination, anti-hate speech, anti-bigotry law.

{Let me add (Feb 12th) a discussion  that popped up with son X, which came up because of the news reports and assertions of progress in 'rights' and 'equality' in the teeth of 'homophobia' -- these last being loaded and tendentious, question-begging words. For instance, from the days of Freud on, a phobia is by definition and connotation an IRRATIONAL fear. But principled, thoughtful concern about or even objection to a destructive set of sexual behaviours, and linked questioning/ challenging of or principled resistance to ideological agendas tied to same, is not to properly be assumed an IRRATIONAL fear.

In effect, the discussion -- filling in a few gaps -- went more or less like this:

One and the same object
cannot be circular and
square in the same
sense and place at the same time
[HT: Peter Cech]
What is all of this about?

Ruthless ideological agenda, with serious consequences, including marginalisation and eventual Criminalising of our Faith as alleged hate and bigotry.

But, what about equality [and by extension, rights]?

 These need to reflect Creation-rooted reality.

What does that mean?

Put it this way: Say 'square circle.'

 Square circle.

Now, draw me one.

Cannot be done, of course. These are inherently contradictory figures and no object blending their characters exists. This is of course different from the feasible task of finding the area of a circle, i.e, "squaring" it. That cannot be done in a finite number of steps as a geometric construction with  compass and un-ruled straight edge only, but it can be calculated and approximated as a drawing.

Just so, marriage reflects a Creation-rooted complementarity of the sexes, and saying that the un-natural is a 'right' or 'equal' cannot make it so. Imposing this absurdity by force under false and unjust colours of law, will simply further drive a wedge through our civilisation, thus ever further weakening our ability to see or think and act soundly and resolutely in the face of the existential crises that so plainly loom out of the fog banks ahead. In short, we are right back at the Fair Havens challenge of Acts 27.}

But I need to do a bit more than report on the further progress of the watershed/wedge designed to destroy our civilisation -- that is what making it over in the radical new utopian image of the radical secularists, cultural marxists etc implies -- and to marginalise, stereotype and scapegoat the church as the centre of opposition to such agendas.

David Horowitz, speaking of the radical progressivists in America, allows us to see a bit deeper, with a slight adaptation:
Elections are necessarily about “us” and “them.” [Radical progressivists, Alinskyite nihilists and cultural marxists]  are as adept at framing “them,” as [traditionalists] are not. [Radicals] know how to incite envy and resentment, distrust and fear, and to direct these volatile emotions towards their [traditionalist] opponents . . . . To counter the [Radicals'] attacks on them as defenders of the comfortable and afflicters of the weak, [traditionalists] really have only one answer: This is a misunderstanding. Look at the facts. We’re not that bad. On the infrequent occasions when they actually take the battle to their accusers, [traditionalists] will say: That’s divisive. It’s class warfare.

Even if voters were able to “look at the facts,” these are not exactly inspiring responses. They are defensive, and they are whiny, and also complicated. Of course elections are divisive – that is their nature. One side gets to win and the other side loses. But even more troublesome is the fact that responses like this require additional information and lengthy explanations to make sense. Appeals to reason are buried in the raucous noise that is electoral politics. Sorting out the truth would be a daunting task, even if voters were left alone to make up their minds.

But voters are not left alone. They are barraged by thousands of TV and electronic media messages, which confront them with contradicting data and malicious distortions. These deceptions are not inadvertent. They are the work of the professionals who run political campaigns and who are hired because they are experts in disinformation and misrepresenting the facts. In the world outside politics this is called lying; in politics it’s called spin . . . . 

The [radicalism-dominated major party]  has been moving steadily to the left since . . . 1972. It is now a party led by socialists and progressives who are convinced that their policies are paving the way to a “better world.”
This vision of moral and social progress has profound consequences for the way [radicals] conduct their political battles. Unlike [traditionalists], [radicals] are not in politics just to fix government and solve problems. They are secular missionaries who want to “change society.” Their goal is a new order of society— “social justice.” They think of themselves as social redeemers, people who are going to change the world. It is the belief in a redemptive future that accounts for their passion, and their furious personal assaults on those who stand in their way . . . . 

[Traditionalists] see [radicals] as mistaken. [Radicals] see [traditionalists] — whatever their individual intentions and behaviors—as enemies of the just and the good [as they imagine this to be].
He then adds:
Progressives are not in politics to tinker with the existing system, although they understand that tinkering and fixing problems along the way gets votes. They are in politics to achieve “social justice” – to transform the system and the way [we all] live . . . .

It is the very grandeur of the progressive ambition that makes its believers so zealous in pursuing it. Through government programs they are going to make everyone equal and take care of everyone in need. They are going to establish social equality and create social justice. It is an intoxicating view and it explains why and how they are different from conservatives . . .   In their hearts, progressives believe that if they can secure enough money and accumulate enough power they can create a future where everyone is taken care of and everyone is equal. Everything [radicals] do and every campaign they conduct is about mobilizing their political armies to bring about this glorious future, about advancing its agendas one program and one candidate at a time. No [traditionalist] in his right mind thinks like this.

The vision of the glorious future puts urgency into their crusades and encourages them to hate their opponents. A [traditionalist leader] may be a decent person, but he stands in the way of their impossible dreams. Therefore, he is hateful. The very grandeur of the dream . . .  is so inspiring it motivates them to seek the promised land by any means necessary. If this requires lying, voter fraud, or demonizing their opponents as racist, selfish and uncaring, so be it. The beautiful ends justify the not-so-beautiful means.
In short, the media-driven spin based intoxication of idolatrous political messianism rooted in radical secualrisation and its fellow travellers energises dechristianisation agendas and the politics of destruction to usher in utopia. Those who are caught up in this sort of bewitchment either don't know or reject the lesson of history that such utopias predictably fail and in failing they crush a lot of ordinary people under a mountain of injustice. So, we need to consolidate our understanding of nationhood and government under God, and to firmly resist this latterday form of idolatry. Yes, idolatry: putting loyalty to men portrayed as messiahs and propounding ideologies that are false gospels before our duty to and under God.

In the particular case in view, homosexualisation, we have to brace ourselves to become hated, slandered, scapegoated, reviled and subjected to prosecution and persecution under false colour of law.  But that does not remove form us the duty to systematically and consistently teach the truth, explain the facts through organised popular and public education, and expose the destructive, deceitful big lie propaganda tactic nature of the radicalism we deal with. In so doing, let us never forget what a genuine expert on the subject, Hitler, advised: ordinary people are used to telling and detecting small lies, but cannot bring themselves to believe that apparently credible authorities in honourable and respectable positions would smoothly and deliberately lie on a colossal and planned scale, in order to push forward agendas that could not stand on the truth. Agendas that are to their advantage. 

This, BTW, is one reason why I strongly believe that we need to teach the lessons of Acts 27 as a case study on the dangers in a democracy and among decision makers, and do so repeatedly until the point is hammered home in a critical mass of the public as well as becomes pervasive among Christians. (Cf the recent KF blog posts here, here , here and here on this subject.)

Yes, even here in the Caribbean, as the pressure form the places our tourists come form and aid money comes from, is brought to bear.

And of course, charitable organisations must learn a lesson from the way the Boy Scouts and the Catholic Church have been attacked. 

We must carefully police ourselves so that when the scandal mongers come to discredit us, they will find that we have been consistently serious about moral discipline and have dealt firmly, compassionately and redemptively with wrong doing, especially among trusted leaders. 

That is not going to stop them from manufacutring scandals, out of whole cloth if necessary, we are dealing with ruthless radicals here. So, where necessary, frankly, while we have the effective right, we must be willing to sue slanderers, exposing heir reckless disregard for plain duties of care to truth and right. 

When it comes to journalists, let us note the following code of ethics requisites, as a sampler:
IFJ, International Federation of Journalists: Declaration of Principles on the Conduct of Journalists
“This international Declaration is proclaimed as a standard of professional conduct for journalists engaged in gathering, transmitting, disseminating and commenting on news and information in describing events.”
1. Respect for truth and for the right of the public to truth is the first duty of the journalist.

ASNE: American Society of Newspaper Editors: Statement of Principles:
ARTICLE IV – Truth and Accuracy. Good faith with the reader is the foundation of good journalism. Every effort must be made to assure that the news content is accurate, free from bias and in context, and that all sides are presented fairly. Editorials, analytical articles and commentary should be held to the same standards of accuracy with respect to facts as news reports. Significant errors of fact, as well as errors of omission, should be corrected promptly and prominently.

APME: Associated Press Managing Editors: Statement of Ethical Principles:
Responsibility: The good newspaper is fair, accurate, honest, responsible, independent and decent. Truth is its guiding principle…
Accuracy: The newspaper should guard against inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortion through emphasis, omission or technological manipulation…
Integrity: The newspaper should strive for impartial treatment of issues and dispassionate handling of controversial subjects…

SPJ: Society of Professional Journalist: Code of Ethics:
Journalists should:
— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting.
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
— Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
— Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others. [HT: UB at UD]
In exposing and correcting, we must be willing to point out the hypocrisy and the Alinskyite tactics being used, making the reporters, editors, newspapers etc pay the price for their wickedness. It will probably take several cases like this to get the message through, that these wicked tactics will meet steel, not soft underbelly.

We must also be careful to build on a broad and participatory pool of volunteers and donors, so that we do not become addicted to big money from concentrated donors. Such big money as it comes in, should go to endowments and critical capital projects, these projects being scrutinised to see that they do not have poisonous terms.

And, we must recognise that we are in this for the long haul. 

Whether this is a sign of the imminent Day of the Lord, or simply of yet another collapse and dark ages era in our civilisation, we must be prepared and we must be found diligent about the work of our Lord and his gospel. END