House Issues An Apology For Slavery
By Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 30, 2008; Page A03
The House yesterday apologized to black Americans, more than 140 years after slavery was abolished, for the "fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow" segregation.
The resolution, which passed on a voice vote late in the day, was sponsored by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), a white Jew who represents a majority-black district in Memphis. Cohen tried unsuccessfully to join the Congressional Black Caucus this year.
"I hope that this is part of the beginning of a dialogue that this country needs to engage in, concerning what the effects of slavery and Jim Crow have been," Cohen said. "I think we started it and we're going to continue."
. . . In recent years, black activists seeking reparations for slavery have gotten private companies, such as banks, insurers and railroads, to apologize for playing a role in bankrolling, insuring, capturing and transporting slaves.
In 2005, Wachovia Corp. revealed that one bank it acquired had put thousands of slaves to work on a railroad. That same year, JPMorgan Chase apologized for the role that a subsidiary had played in using 10,000 slaves as collateral and accepting more than 1,000 slaves as payments when owners defaulted on loans.
Kent Comments:
Sportscasters say a lot of really stupid things. One of their stupidities goes something like this: we expect college team A to win today because, over the last thirty years when team A played team B, team A has won 70% of the time.
The problem is that neither of these teams has anything near continuity in a thirty year period. Team A of today is a completely different team today than it was even ten years ago.
Now stupidity is not limited to sportscasters. It can be found in much greater concentrations in Congress. We might ask Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) and his dim-witted colleagues a question: to whom are you apologizing? Except for taxpayers, there aren’t that many slaves around today in the U.S.
The weenies at Wachovia Corp. And JPMorgan Chase could be asked some of the same questions. I am just guessing here, but odds are no one connected to either of these companies today has ever owned a slave, or even approves of slave-owning. I could be wrong, but I’m going out on a limb here.
Here is another relevant question: for whom are you apologizing? As far as I know, there are no slave owners represented by Congress today. (Again, it could be argued that taxpayers are slaves to Congress.)
If Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) thinks he and the House of Representatives are apologizing on behalf of those slave owners of 140 years or more ago, perhaps he should not be so presumptuous. Does he think they would all say they are sorry, even if they could say?
Of course, the audacity of Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) should not be underestimated. The same sort of nut case who would have the House apologize to dead people probably thinks he knows what all the dead slave-holders of the past are thinking.
But perhaps this is not so far-fetched. After all, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) is one of the members of Congress. Aren't they seated on high, right next to God - on His left side, of course!
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Homosexual Harassment
'Gay' man sues Bible publishers
$70 million for emotional distress because homosexuality cast as sin
July 09, 2008
2008 WorldNetDaily
A homosexual man who has a blog on Sen. Barack Obama's campaign website is suing two major Christian publishers for violating his constitutional rights and causing emotional pain, because the Bible versions they publish refer to homosexuality as a sin.
Bradley LaShawn Fowler, 39, of Canton, Mich., is seeking $60 million from Zondervan and another $10 million from Thomas Nelson Publishing in lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the Grand Rapids Press reported.
Fowler filed his claim against Grand Rapids-based Zondervan Monday, alleging its Bibles' references to homosexuality as a sin have made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment," the paper said.
He filed suit against Tennessee publisher Thomas Nelson in June.
Find this complete article at: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69147
Kent comments:
You should read this whole article. It is clearly a case of a kook who has been taken seriously. I doubt that this lawsuit will go far, but the fact that can even be filed shows where matters are headed.
Christians are often accused of being hard-hearted and mean-spirited toward homosexuals. There no doubt are examples of that attitude scattered about Christendom. But there is every reason for Christians to react to the aggressive homosexual lobby.
There are probably many people who sin by practicing homosexuality, but do so without advertising that fact or lobbying in various ways to demand that the rest of us approve of their behavior. I can sympathize with anyone who struggles with any sin - don’t we all struggle with some sin or other? I can have a bit of pity for those who have suppressed the knowledge that homosexual practice is a sin.
But my compassion is quickly extinguished by those who not only practice homosexuality, but demand that the rest of us congratulate them for their sinful practice. Those demands are disgusting enough when they are made at a merely “social” level. My respect for free expression requires that I tolerate those demands.
But once those “social” demands are moved to the legal arena, they become an offense against civilization. Historic Christianity teaches, via the scripture, that homosexual practice is a sin. Homosexuals should be politically free to deny that, object to that, or even just ignore that.
But when some homosexuals try to use the government as a weapon against those who want to practice the Christian faith, it is time to give them a verbal and social “smack in the mouth” and simply demand that they mind their own business.
Perhaps it has happened, but I can’t locate any examples of adulterers or fornicators attempting to use the state against the Christian faith. In most cases, they are probably just too busy fornicating to care what anyone else thinks. But this points up the problem here. We have allowed homosexuality to position itself as some kind of special, category supposedly deserving protection from the state.
It is that positioning that Christians should vehemently oppose and condemn. That doesn’t make us mean-spirited. It makes us truthful. Advocates of the historic Christian faith can never approve of homosexual practice. Those homosexuals who can’t respect that need to reconsider the very nature of a free society - the very kind of society that allows them to practice their perversion without criminal or civil penalty.
Is it too much to ask that they reciprocate toward those who would like to try to practice righteousness?
$70 million for emotional distress because homosexuality cast as sin
July 09, 2008
2008 WorldNetDaily
A homosexual man who has a blog on Sen. Barack Obama's campaign website is suing two major Christian publishers for violating his constitutional rights and causing emotional pain, because the Bible versions they publish refer to homosexuality as a sin.
Bradley LaShawn Fowler, 39, of Canton, Mich., is seeking $60 million from Zondervan and another $10 million from Thomas Nelson Publishing in lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the Grand Rapids Press reported.
Fowler filed his claim against Grand Rapids-based Zondervan Monday, alleging its Bibles' references to homosexuality as a sin have made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment," the paper said.
He filed suit against Tennessee publisher Thomas Nelson in June.
Find this complete article at: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69147
Kent comments:
You should read this whole article. It is clearly a case of a kook who has been taken seriously. I doubt that this lawsuit will go far, but the fact that can even be filed shows where matters are headed.
Christians are often accused of being hard-hearted and mean-spirited toward homosexuals. There no doubt are examples of that attitude scattered about Christendom. But there is every reason for Christians to react to the aggressive homosexual lobby.
There are probably many people who sin by practicing homosexuality, but do so without advertising that fact or lobbying in various ways to demand that the rest of us approve of their behavior. I can sympathize with anyone who struggles with any sin - don’t we all struggle with some sin or other? I can have a bit of pity for those who have suppressed the knowledge that homosexual practice is a sin.
But my compassion is quickly extinguished by those who not only practice homosexuality, but demand that the rest of us congratulate them for their sinful practice. Those demands are disgusting enough when they are made at a merely “social” level. My respect for free expression requires that I tolerate those demands.
But once those “social” demands are moved to the legal arena, they become an offense against civilization. Historic Christianity teaches, via the scripture, that homosexual practice is a sin. Homosexuals should be politically free to deny that, object to that, or even just ignore that.
But when some homosexuals try to use the government as a weapon against those who want to practice the Christian faith, it is time to give them a verbal and social “smack in the mouth” and simply demand that they mind their own business.
Perhaps it has happened, but I can’t locate any examples of adulterers or fornicators attempting to use the state against the Christian faith. In most cases, they are probably just too busy fornicating to care what anyone else thinks. But this points up the problem here. We have allowed homosexuality to position itself as some kind of special, category supposedly deserving protection from the state.
It is that positioning that Christians should vehemently oppose and condemn. That doesn’t make us mean-spirited. It makes us truthful. Advocates of the historic Christian faith can never approve of homosexual practice. Those homosexuals who can’t respect that need to reconsider the very nature of a free society - the very kind of society that allows them to practice their perversion without criminal or civil penalty.
Is it too much to ask that they reciprocate toward those who would like to try to practice righteousness?
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Progressive?
"Less Political" Christian Colleges: Eastern Mennonite University in Virginia has begun calling itself a "socially progressive" Christian college with a heritage of addressing social justice issues. The school believes faith is best lived out by having a more global perspective, less nationalism, and care for creation. Emphasizing social as well as personal piety, they say they may be different from others schools in that they don't consider their institution a "bastion of social conservatism", but say they have not given up on the meaning of the gospel either. Messiah College, a member of the Coalition of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), describes their teaching as "gracious Christianity," hoping to move beyond binary political labels" (Inside Higher Education June 30, 2008)
Kent comments:
Picture me sticking a finger down my throat and gagging myself. The motion of “Christian” institutions of all kinds toward wacky-left positions is enough to make anyone sick.
In addition to the general nauseousness evoked by the positions mentioned here, the constant repetition of the buzz phrases is perhaps even more sickening.
There is a reason for all these feelings of soul-shaking illness. Many of these buzz phrases - and the positions to which they are attached - are in fact a thin veneer which, when even slightly scratched, reveals muddled, even downright immoral, ideas and actions.
“Social justice issues” is usually a cover term for all kinds of programs that end up using the government to steal from some in order to create a government-dependent group in others. It is never just, and it is often very anti-social.
That “global perspective, less nationalism” is often a phrase describing the desire take those anti-social programs beyond one nation and impose them on the whole world.
“Care for creation” can’t be taken at face-value anymore. It has become the latest, greatest excuse to remove all individual political and economic liberty and impose fascist bureaucracy that would be pleased to see us all return to serfdom - except, of course, for the “feudal lords” of that bureaucracy.
What is “social piety” other than a pretext for socialism?
Are any of these things really “progressive”? That all depends upon what goal you are progressing toward. If your goal is some socialist utopia, than I suppose these folks are onto something. But if your goal is the fear of God and keeping His commandments, this isn’t progress, no matter how many times you attach the word “Christian” to your college.
Kent comments:
Picture me sticking a finger down my throat and gagging myself. The motion of “Christian” institutions of all kinds toward wacky-left positions is enough to make anyone sick.
In addition to the general nauseousness evoked by the positions mentioned here, the constant repetition of the buzz phrases is perhaps even more sickening.
There is a reason for all these feelings of soul-shaking illness. Many of these buzz phrases - and the positions to which they are attached - are in fact a thin veneer which, when even slightly scratched, reveals muddled, even downright immoral, ideas and actions.
“Social justice issues” is usually a cover term for all kinds of programs that end up using the government to steal from some in order to create a government-dependent group in others. It is never just, and it is often very anti-social.
That “global perspective, less nationalism” is often a phrase describing the desire take those anti-social programs beyond one nation and impose them on the whole world.
“Care for creation” can’t be taken at face-value anymore. It has become the latest, greatest excuse to remove all individual political and economic liberty and impose fascist bureaucracy that would be pleased to see us all return to serfdom - except, of course, for the “feudal lords” of that bureaucracy.
What is “social piety” other than a pretext for socialism?
Are any of these things really “progressive”? That all depends upon what goal you are progressing toward. If your goal is some socialist utopia, than I suppose these folks are onto something. But if your goal is the fear of God and keeping His commandments, this isn’t progress, no matter how many times you attach the word “Christian” to your college.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)