Posted by: inforodeo | September 14, 2009

The Unholy Distraction

     I’m watching Alanis Morissette performing on PBS right now. Despite her Canadian origin, I used to be a big fan. I remember when Jagged Little Pill came out, and my friend rushed to me and emphatically declared “She’s the female Morrissey! I mean that because of her lyrics, not just the name!”  I’d been a big Morrissey fan, and this friend was pretty good at uncovering new music I might like, so I borrowed the CD. It was pretty good, and, at the time, pretty original. Since then, legions of young alternative pop starlets have methodically copied Morissette’s screechy whine, man-hater lyrics, and white-girl-gone-eastern-mystic style.

     When I was an “earth conscious”, “open-minded”, alternative protesting liberal, her music really was kind of an unintended soundtrack to our lives and ideologies. I had fond memories of lifestyle-moments when her music was present, like the time some of us sneaked into a cemetery near Queen Anne at night to smoke cigarettes and drink a couple bottles of red wine. The funeral-home was on-site, and in that warm early-fall night, the basement window was open, and the mortician was singing along with “Thank U”.

     Over time, however, I found other musicians to be a fan of, and Morissette slipped from my mind. 

     I can’t deny that had it not been for the distaste in specific persons, my eyes may never have been opened to the white-washed ugliness of liberalism. After dating green girls, new-age girls, man-hating girls, bisexual girls, “healers”, tarot readers, independents, protestors and the like, I’d had quite a bit of exposure to the philosophies of man and their detrimental effect on the wholeness of individuals and humanity collectively.

     The online-editable dictionaries regularly equate liberalism with “open-mindedness”, “non-discrimination”, and “action”, while conservatism is linked to “closed-mindedness”, “stubbornly traditional” and “slow to act”.  While in varying degrees these may represent some hint of accuracy, I think it pertinent to examine some of the more basic strategies behind liberal and conservative activity. “Liberal” means “much”, “without restraint”, and often “quickly, without forethought”.  “Conservative”, on the other hand means “cautiously”, “discerning”, “rationed”, “planned”, and “contingency”. Politically, this translates into a couple things for each: Liberals tend to implement dramatic, quick change – but at the expense of little foresight to the consequences of those actions; conservatives tend to act more cautiously, implementing small but deliberate change, usually with tremendous foresight. The policies created by each represent the “Tortoise and the Hare” fable: liberal policies usually take off quickly, gain a lot of support or press, nap for awhile, then are uncovered for what they are, and have to backtrack, usually unsuccessfully. Tortoise policies of conservatives generally do just the opposite: they may get off to a slow (and much murmured-against) start, seem to not be accomplishing much, but are eventually discovered to be working quite efficiently. A very real example of such a liberal plan was the “Community Reinvestment Act of 1977” , which set up and paved the way for the housing collapse in 2008.  Conservative plans are a little more difficult to point to because the more successful they are, the more we assume they’ve “always been here”, but some major examples: the three-pillared government of the United States (well planned out, with massive foresight), or the successes of Reagan’s tax reform.

     Part of the difference between the two schools of thought has to do with the “glass half-full/half-empty” differences in approach. While accused of “stubborn traditionalism”, a more accurate description of this facet of conservatism is “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”  Liberals tend to believe the world is unceasingly imperfect and broken, and search high and low for things to “change”, believing that change is always better. This perspective may be significantly linked to the division of the “religious” and the “non-religious” between the two: conservatives tend to have more “believers” while liberals don’t. Perhaps the belief in a perfect creator causes conservatives to feel secure in making as little change as possible, while the fear of chaos and the unknown drives many liberals to frantically make adjustments, patch up holes, patch up holes in the patches that patched the holes, and so forth.

     In their quest for a fulfilling form of self-adoration, these people seek out strange philosophies, imperfect music, pornographic art, and controversy wherever they can find it because it allows them to feel as if they have some level of intelligence above everyone else, some special corner hidden away in secret from the world, a reason to be contentious, but all at the same time a way to connect to others who are like-minded. It seems like a contradiction … all this “uniqueness”, “open-mindedness” and the “road less travelled” leading to a kind of ultra-conformity that leads one to pierce their nose, get tattoos of Chinese characters on their neck and ankles, have two-tone hair, experiment sexually, have multiple abortions, use illegal drugs, rabidly support Apple computers, the Green party (or Democrats, for moderates), hate “organized religion”, burn incense and pretend to study Buddhism, go vegan … (I think you get where I’m going with this).

     Had I only met one or two people fitting these particular criteria, I might be in the wrong to make such “assumptions”, but you have to realize I lived among these people and speak from vast experience! In fact, I have far more hard-evidence to support these accusations than evolutionists have to support their view – and theirs is taught in schools!

     One of the reasons “they” (what do I call them? “Liberals” seems over-used) despise what they call “Organized Religion” above all other things is that the truth stings. Deep inside they know that there is a God, and they also know the very real truth that all the randomness in the universe could not have happened to come together just right on its own to create so many diverse life-forms, some capable of the consciousness it took to build computers and spaceships and examine existence in the first place. They know that there is more to that “tissue” they aborted, because they felt the touch of the supernatural when they were carrying that child. They know that the largest majority of “Christians” are not judging them … that the scorn they feel is the searing of their own conscience each time they turn away from God.

     Too much of the time, I sit back and accept comments from friends who are of the opinion that they are somehow “different” and do not “need” religion to “feel spiritual”. I usually just smile and let them be … but you know what? Everyone needs religion. Being “spiritual” on your own just doesn’t cut it! The idea that one can “be spiritual” without the structure of a church is a falsehood partially rooted in the false doctrine that the only thing one need do to “be saved” is believe in Jesus.

     Belief alone is important, but it is not sufficient without acting on that belief.  “Faith without works is dead” we are told in the scriptures (James 2:14-18), and elsewhere we learn what some of those works are. Not only are those works following the commandments of the Lord (including but not limited to the famous ten), but we are commanded to have “faith in the Lord Jesus Christ”, to “repent”, to be “baptized”, and to “receive the Holy Ghost”, among other things. While most of those who describe themselves as “spiritual” do sincerely try to be good people, simply “being spiritual” won’ting  fulfill most of these requirements.

     It is my belief that pride is one of the most dangerous of sins. Pride creates a false sense of security and completeness, which prevents growth. Without the knowledge that we still need growth, we turn away from those opportunities that would benefit us (religion, having a family, getting an education, performing service), and we become violently defensive when anyone or anything seems to conflict with our false esteem. Pride is fertile ground for false doctrine because it makes us more susceptible to flattery.

     Many of the most damaging doctrines masquerade as “enlightenment” or use sophistry to twist a lesser law of good into a cover or justification for grievous transgression.  While the “enlightenment” plays to the pride of an individual, the intentional misinterpretation of goodly doctrine is a tool of the contentious side of a devilish nature. An obvious contemporary example of such misuse of scripture is the use of “love” to “justify” homosexual marriage.  In attempting to misuse the good institution of marriage to further promote the abomination of homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), some teachings of Christ are taken and misused.  Those who oppose “gay marriage” are told to “judge not” – when the true situation is that those who righteously oppose gay marriage are not judging the “sinner” but the sin. Despite accusations of not”loving thy neighbor”, those who oppose the government sponsorship of abominable sin are in fact displaying true love of their neighbors by trying to prevent more of them ripening themselves unto destruction.  They are showing their love for God by defending his Church and doing their best to preserve, un-corrupted, His doctrine and sacred institution of marriage. Sadly, even their own claim of “love” is a misuse of the term, for pure love cannot exist in a sin so deeply rooted in devilish lusts (the same goes for heterosexual adultery and fornication). Even social doctrines are corrupted and turned around: Those who oppose the disrespect and contamination of their sacred “rite” by proponents of “gay marriage” are accused of bigotry, of not supporting “diversity”, and of violating the human rights of homosexuals.  In making these accusations, the fact that the pro-“gay marriage” people are themselves not promoting diversity in their prejudiced and bigoted exclusion of the rights of those who hold man-and-woman marriage sacred.

     In twisting these pure truths into something rotted and adulterated, such people are fulfilling some very specific prophesies of those very same prophets who preached against these sins in the first place:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:
Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him! (Isaiah 5:20-23)

      I singled out the “gay marriage debate” (more specifically, the acts and arguments of those who are promoting it) because it has been in the news most recently, but it is certainly not an isolated example.


Welfare programs claim to be for the good of man, helping the poor and the needy, but they are fundamentally against God’s plan for us. Yes, we should help the poor and the needy, and yes, some people suffer hard times. Yes, God wants us to be happy. It is necessary, however, for each man to choose to help the poor and the needy or choose not to, because our mortal existence is designed for us to learn to choose from right and wrong (and hopefully pass these tests successfully!). Any time freedom is taken away, however, our ability to exercise choice is taken with it. When the government taxes us and uses some of those funds to “help” the needy, we are robbed of the choice to choose wrong, and, as “there must needs be opposition in all things”, when the ability to do wrong is taken from us, there is no longer choice involve in doing “good”, and we don’t learn from the situation (having not made any choice), nor do we derive any blessings from it. Also, contrary to the assumptions of men, the poor don’t derive any lasting benefit from such an arrangement, either, and are instead slowly stripped of their ability of self-reliance, as illustrated in the following:

“In our friendly neighbor city of St. Augustine great flocks of sea gulls are starving amid plenty. Fishing is still good, but the gulls don’t know how to fish. For generations they have depended on the shrimp fleet to toss them scraps from the nets.

Now the fleet has moved. …

“The shrimpers had created a Welfare State for the … sea gulls. The big birds never bothered to learn how to fish for themselves and they never taught their children to fish. Instead they led their little ones to the shrimp nets.

“Now the sea gulls, the fine free birds that almost symbolize liberty itself, are starving to death because they gave in to the ‘something for nothing’ lure! They sacrificed their independence for a handout.

“A lot of people are like that, too. They see nothing wrong in picking delectable scraps from the tax nets of the U.S. Government’s ‘shrimp fleet.’

But what will happen when the Government runs out of goods? What about our children of generations to come?

“Let’s not be gullible gulls.

We … must preserve our talents of self-sufficiency, our genius for creating things for ourselves, our sense of thrift and our true love of independence.” (“Fable of the Gullible Gull,” Reader’s Digest, Oct. 1950, p. 32.)

When we are forced to rely on anything – be it cigarettes, alcohol, credit cards or government – we give up a part of our freedom, and with that loss of freedom we lose our ability to choose.  It naturally follows that when we lose our ability to make choices, we can no longer grow and learn, even if we wish to do so.


     The first argument to cross your mind was probably, “without legalization of drugs, someone can’t make a choice!” (unless of course your mind is fogged by drugs, in which case you’re probably preparing to talk about the government and taxes, prohibition and crime, the industrial value of hemp, etc).  This would be a valid argument if it weren’t for the primary and universal danger of all drugs (including those which are legal): They are addictive, and addiction robs a person of their ability to choose.

     While the tax benefits, the medical benefits, and the impact on public safety are debatable, no one, even the worst affected users can deny that drugs all have some measure of control over the lives of users. Even if (you sure think so!) not physically addicted, the daily costs of such a habit are financially restrictive, and the added drama that comes with addictive materials (having to hide them from addict-roommates, making sure you don’t do something socially or morally wrong while under the influence, not breaking any public-safety laws, etc) are prohibitive in themselves.


     Like my argument against legalized drugs, my argument against abortion is centered on choice. While my religious background believes somewhat in a “right to choose”, that choice comes with a caveat: “only, perhaps, in instances of rape or if the mother’s life is in danger, and even then only with much fasting and prayer”. I tend to look at this “permissiveness” in the same way I look at divorce: if mankind were perfect, it would not be allowed, because ultimately it is contrary to God’s law and a painful diversion or stumbling block to man’s joy.

     Abortion robs more people of choice than it “helps”. When a woman who is pregnant chooses abortion, she robs her child of the choice to live, and potentially robs the father, his parents and family, her own parents and family, the community, and her child’s future children of their choice for that child to be born. Mothers who have chosen abortion also rob themselves of peace, of motherhood, and the unexplainable joy of having children. In essence, the only one who benefits in an abortion by that “choice” is the adversary of all that is good – for it is in the sacrifice of an innocent child to his will that the mother finds her “freedom” to pursue impure and dangerous activities -  activities which ultimately lead her to that great fraud, the father of lies, and the only one who will smile at her destruction and eternal sorrow.

     When the argument is put forth that it is “her body, her choice”, that great banner of liberal selfishness, hypocrisy  and double-standard could not be more clear. While in most other instances where someone asserts their “right” liberals are prone to attack by claiming ‘selfishness’, or that someone is “pushing their beliefs”, in asserting a woman’s choice to kill based on her possession of her body, great ignorance must be used to divert attention from the misuse and poor stewardship of that same body that put her in that predicament in the first place. To be in a position to have an abortion, such a woman must have first fallen to the deception and evil strategies of the adversary. She must have ignored the truth that her life and body were gifts to her from God, and have chosen mock God in choosing to abuse the natural use of that body. She must have chosen to violate her chastity. In many cases, she chose to sicken her body and cloud her mind with harmful substances. Most often, her “choice” was to succumb to the wicked strategy of a man filled with impure intentions.  When these choices were made to abuse and devalue her body, it is exceedingly strange to later mouth a slogan that implies a reverence and value to that which was previously wasted and carelessly disposed of.


     While not anywhere near the moral weight of abortion, the issue of “gun control” is another area where what is good has been named “evil” and evil “good”. Throughout the scriptures, war, defense and weapons have been a normal and natural part of life. If we are to equate “swords” with “guns” (in their use as weapons against man), we can look to examples in the scripture that look upon them favorably, or even as essential, like when Christ told the apostles:

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. (Luke 22:36)

     Most of those who are active in the “gun control” movement exhibit a high amount of bias and prejudice in proclaiming there being “no use” for guns, except in the hands of criminals.  These groups seek to disarm America by painting lawful gun owners – like hunters, collectors, and persons who wish to defend their families and their freedom should the government overstep its bounds – as “trigger-happy”, “redneck” “terrorists”.  Liberal messiah Barack Obama even inadvertently equated guns to the much hated “organized religion” while making use of other liberal stereotypes of non-liberals when he famously said:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." (Barack Obama)

     There is nothing wrong with firearms ownership, and it is, in fact, a vital part of maintaining our freedom from oppressive governments, which is why it is written:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (US Constitution, 2nd Amendment)


     Many who oppose guns oppose them because of their use in hunting wild animals for meat. They are a minority, but this minority has been growing in popularity, largely due to work by celebrities like Morrissey (of whom I am a big fan), as well as from assumptions made in light of some scientific evidence that indicates certain aspects of a diet high in vegetables (note: not solely vegetables) is healthy.

     Again drawing from scripture, we know that the doctrine of veganism is not a doctrine inspired from God, but from somewhere else entirely:

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. (1 Timothy 4:1-5)

     Elsewhere we learn that it is a good thing to eat meat sparingly – so the excess to which some societies eat flesh is not good either, but the only time scripture speaks so directly and sternly regarding eating meat is here, where it says forbidding to eat meat is a doctrine of devils.


     There are several references in the Bible and other scripture to the abominations of homosexuality and other sins. While we are not to “hate the sinner”, but rather hate the sin, it spells out many of these sins, with the intent that man does not ensnare himself in the bondage of sin, abuse the holy powers of procreation, or transgress against a loving creator.

      One of the first and most plain-spoken examples to appear in scripture is in Leviticus:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

     With examples like this, it amazes me when the argument is made that “the Bible doesn’t say anything about being gay”, or that such strong language being used – abomination, rather than sin – can be ignored in the election of clergy in some faiths.

     Going back to the original theme of the contortion of “good” into “evil”, the New Testament says the following:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (Romans 1:21-27)

     There is obviously something to this connection between good-is-evil-and-evil-good and perverse immorality, because later in the New Testament the two appear again:

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. (Jude 1:7-8)

     I find it interesting that when ancient scripture discussed homosexuality and other forms of popular immorality, it was always seen fit to form the context of man leaning unto his own intellect, turning away from God, and, in particular, using arguments of sophistry in an attempt to subvert and defame the pure and simple doctrines of God.

      It is nothing new, therefore, to claim a knowledge above the “superstitious” notions of God and morality and to push for social acceptance of a sin or transgression. Homosexuality is not a “human Right” any more than murder, rape, theft, blasphemy, alcoholism, or hatred. It is not a “type of person” or an “identity”, but rather a weakness, a temptation, and a damaging lifestyle for those who succumb to it and practice it. 

     The liberal mind, however, seeks to “heap unto itself teachers (leaders, clergy)” who agree with pursuing these addictions and sensual pleasures. They twist real and pure doctrines into supposed justifications, and take advantage of those who are “tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine”, convincing them that good is evil (speaking out against the lifestyle is bigotry and hatred) and that evil is good (people should be free from judgment to practice their sin).

     It is important for me to add, in this section, my personal belief that persons professing to be “gay”, “bi-sexual” or “transgendered” should not be attacked on the individual level any more than alcoholics should be attacked for their submission to drink.  Where alcohol is both publicly accepted and publicly cautioned against (so an alcoholic knows the dangers), the adversary – the father of all lies – has so turned the world into a place that celebrates the corruption of homosexuality and despises those who speak against it that most who have chosen this lifestyle or succumbed to their weaknesses are largely unaware of its danger to the eternal well-being of their souls.

     It is also important to note that adultery (cheating on one’s spouse) and fornication (sex outside of marriage) are also moral sins “like unto murder” in their seriousness before God.  These sins are likely equal in gravity to homosexuality, and are certainly a chief component in most abortions. It is also said that “he who looketh after a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery in his heart” – so it also stands to reason that viewing pornography or hanging out at the beach to “see some skin” is in this same group of sins, as is the immodest dress or participation in the creation of pornography because such things aim to entice and titillate.  While even within my own church it would probably be unpopular to equate tight shirts with committing acts of homosexuality, or viewing pornography “up there with” abortion, it is probably something worth considering.


     I wasted two days on this post because it is important to understand the moral twists and deceit in most liberal programs and ideas.

     I don’t think it is a bad thing to want to help the environment, or the poor, or the safety of food and cars, the availability of healthcare, or to make education more efficient.  The problem is that jumping into an issue and demanding change without thinking it through is a danger to society. We’ve already caused a food shortage and released more carbons into the atmosphere because of the ill-conceived push for ethanol.  We’re living in the consequence of forcing banks to lend to people who had no money with our current housing problems. As I outlined above, too much “aid” for the poor creates more poor. 

     This tiny politics, however, are not the purpose of this post.  The anti-religion, anti-moral stance of the liberal movement has a very specific function in the giant conspiracy to destroy America.  I’d seen it at work for quite awhile, and knew that many of these doctrines were bad, but couldn’t figure out how the lifestyle related to the extension of federal control over our daily lives. Then it hit me …

     In undermining the beliefs of the founding fathers – in denying the existence of a Creator, in attacking segments of scripture and generating hatred for religion and love for addictive sins that religion seeks to liberate men from – the reputation and admiration for our nation’s architects is eroded, enabling criticism for the structures and policies that have served our nation well for over 200 years.  If we now find “problems” (because the nation has named evil good and good evil, and the constitution promotes or protects that which was once “good”), we won’t worry about leaders who want to change and eliminate our rights.  We will be complacent while our country is destroyed in the background, or we will be distracted by the issues: global warming, disease, sexual orientation – issues which may have their place, but which are miniscule in scale when held up to the colossal image of liberty, and the sneaker war against the people. 


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: