Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Onward Secular Progressive Soldiers

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
The march of the secular progressive soldiers continues as their drumbeat echos across the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

While a pastor was pressured to step back from giving the invocation at the Presidential Inauguration a couple of weeks ago because of a sermon he gave that explained biblical teaching regarding homosexual behavior, we now see the progressive stormtroopers on the attack toward one of the world's most renowned neurosurgeons because he doesn't hold their secular relativistic worldview.

Dr. Ben Carson, head of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, is being excoriated because of comments he made during his speech at last week's National Prayer Breakfast.

Carson has earned the respect of people across this country and around the world because of his work, his humility and his charity. This is a brief overview of his awards and recognitions.

He is a conservative who deeply believes in the sanctity of life, the biblical model of natural marriage and biblical principles as trustworthy for a sure cultural foundation.

He is also a devout, biblical Christian.

Therefore, he is a problem for the secular progressives.

Forget all the achievements, the help that millions of people have received from the hands of this surgeon and the more than 100 publications he has published, his beliefs are not in sync with "the plan."

Neither was his speech in sync with "the plan."

You know Dr. Carson has something on his mind when he tells the audience, "It's not my intention to offend anyone. But it's hard not to. The PC police are out in force everywhere."

He raised the ire of the soldiers and they are on the march.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-IL., was, with the assistance of CNN, on the attack.

But the Wall Street Journal saw the speech very differently.

Ms. Schakowsky told CNN's Candy Crowley that Dr. Carson's remarks were "not appropriate."

What remarks?

Well, he talked about tax reform, health care, etc. and linked the solutions to biblical principles. In the presence of the President.

Schakowsky accused Carson of using his own version of political correctness, rather than fighting it.

Wait! I thought political correctness was a good thing, that heightened sensitivities to all. Not always. It is relative to who is speaking and what they believe.

She said, "I think that there's a political correctness that he is trying to use to appeal to a conservative audience."

What is lost to Ms. Schakowsky is that Dr. Carson has no need to "appeal to a conservative audience." Conservatives know this man; his achievements, his integrity, his charity, his decency, his clarity of beliefs and his ability to communicate them.

The Congress woman said, "I think it's really...not really an appropriate place to make this kind of speech, and to invoke God as support for that kind of view."

It seems it is impossible for secular progressives to grasp the concept that biblical Christians and conservatives don't just make up principles, values and behaviors, then revise history, religion, etc., in an attempt to validate those principles, values and behaviors. There is a basis for the conservative values. It's the same basis the Founders of this country used in framing the founding documents of the greatest country that has ever existed in the history of the human race.

The basis is the Bible.

The Wall Street Journal gets it.

They titled their article about this event and the speech; "Ben Carson for President. The Johns Hopkins Neurosurgeon Has Two Big Ideas For America."

I strongly recommend you read the article linked above. If at all possible, I recommend you watch the 25-minute video of Dr. Carson's speech which is linked in the article.

I agree with the WSJ. "The neurosurgeon may not be politically correct, but he's closer to correct than we've heard in years."

There are true, legitimate leaders among us. I am certain they will rise for such a time as this.

Be Vigilant. Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.


  1. We have been praying for good leaders, God is providing. Will we let them pass by, untapped, or will we ask them in?

  2. "Therefore, he is a problem for the secular progressives."

    Actually, no. I think I can say with confidence that secular progressives would love to see him as the republican candidate for president.

  3. Not a proper venue for his views? What is she drinking? This was a prayer breakfast, precisely the place to bring forth biblical answers to our national problems. I've been in agreement with the flat tax for some time now. Why such resistance? Is it the banks? The IRS? or the tax the rich to extinction leftists?

    I think they're worried about losing their bloated piece of the pie and their political relevancy.

    Thank you, Mr. Carson, for a common sense approach.

    Craig in Lacey

    1. A clear majority of americans believe that the rich should pay a higher tax rate than the rest of us.

      Since when is political relevancy an issue for the majority?

    2. Wow, it seems more liberals are reading your blog than conservatives! Maybe they'll learn something and see the Truth!!!!

    3. We're just here to fact check and correct as needed. No thanks necessary, we're just doing our job.

  4. "The basis is the Bible."

    And this is your quandary. While many Christians justify their anti-gay attitudes by quoting the Bible, no Christian I've ever heard of or met has ever been willing to stand behind -- or live by -- every word in the Bible.

    So the basis of your anti-gay sentiment is not the Bible. The basis is what you choose to believe in the Bible. It's your heart.

    Former bishop Gene Robinson said it best:

    "We have come to understand certain things as acceptable in the Biblical culture and time, but not in our own – among other things, polygamy and slavery – which few Christians would promote despite their acceptability in Biblical times. As we approach the Biblical texts about homosexuality, we must not conveniently change our stance to one of asserting that every word of scripture is inerrantly true and universally binding on all people for all time."


    "Not even the strictest fundamentalist or Biblical literalist gives the same authority and moral weight to every word of scripture. Few of us would hold Paul’s injunction against women appearing in church with their heads uncovered to have the same moral weight as Jesus’ injunction to forgive our enemies. Few of us are willing to be bound by all the commands given to us in the Biblical text – otherwise, we would give all we have to the poor to follow Christ, redistribute all the land every 50 years, refuse to charge any interest on our loans/investments, share our worldly possessions communally as did the early Church, and refuse to support our nation’s defense budget in accord with Jesus’ commandment not to resist evil."

    1. Maybe that's why he's a former bishop? Actually polygamy was never condoned in the Bible, polygamy being defined as multiple WIVES. King Solomon did precisely that and his wives turned his heart away from God to worship idols. Hmmmm..... an apt example of what happens when we ignore biblical instruction.

      As for slaves, people sold themselves into servitude in many instances and were to be released with provisions after a set time. Nowhere is slavery condoned as it was practiced by the Romans or in our country for that matter. You were forbidden to kidnap people for the purpose of slavery. Paul told the slaves to obey their masters and for the masters to treat their slaves as Christ would or they would answer to God for their conduct.

      I don't charge interest nor do I go into debt, both biblical principles. If more people followed God's wisdom in this, there'd be a lot less wrecked families and destroyed lives. The rich man in the parable was told to give up all he had to the poor because it was a stumbling block to him following Jesus. It's not a command to all to give up there money or possessions, only an example that if something hinders us from following God with all our heart, it needs to go away. Hence Jesus' point, " you can't serve God and money". I think sharing within the church is not done enough, we should take that to heart, its the biblical pattern.

      Christians are not bound by Jewish cultural practices, they are bound by Christ's law, which means love God with all our hearts and our neighbor as ourselves. This doesn't mean anything goes.

      There is no moral relativism, when God says " thou shall not murder" that's precisely what he means, doesn't mean if someone's suffering from disease it's o.k. to assist them in taking their own life. When God says "don't lay with a man as with a woman, it's an abomination", that's precisely what he means. There is no room for misunderstanding.

      We're not to resist evil on a personal level, not that we're to put your family at risk or our own. The Bible says to not provide for your family is to be worse than an unbeliever. Was Jesus saying to let people kill your wife and kids? You gotta show me that verse!

      Yes, it's precisely because the church doesn't in many respects follow the Bible that it's divided. Read Revelation Chapters 2& 3. The church is largely apostate now and that's very sad. Shame on us!

      Craig in Lacey

    2. Craig,

      You and I have had this debate before. Your claim that the Bible does not contain commands that modern-day Christians find reprehensible or outdated ended with you saying that it would be OK to kill children by stoning in public for mouthing off to their parents. Here’s the exchange:


      Gary's blog posting "Slouching Towards Gomorrah and the Republican Party", Dec 20, 2010.

      ME, 9:04 PM, Dec 22, 2010: “Then, obviously you support death-by-something for kids who curse their parents (Exodus 21:15,17; Leviticus 20:9). What method of death do you recommend for them?”

      YOU, 11:49 PM, Dec 22, 2010: “9:04 Absolutely, if the Bible calls for their death, then death it is. I'm not a "cafeteria Christian". I don't get to pick and chose which parts to follow and which parts not to. Stoning would be acceptable, there would be a lot less cursing of parents, adultery, sex outside marriage, homosexuality, etc. I would advocate public execution, give people something to think about before they act.”


      It’s really hard for me to take you, or any Christian, seriously who would read these verses and defend this today. But, then again, it IS in the Bible.

      Do you still stand by this?

    3. Absolutely, I still stand by that, I'm not "changed by every wind of doctrine". There is no mistaking God's command concerning homosexual conduct. It's not only Old Testament, it's reiterated in the New Testament. You know, where there's neither Jew nor Greek.

      You still haven't showed me that verse that says it's o.k. to allow people to kill your wife and kids for any reason whatsoever, you know, "not to resist evil".

      I find it easy to take you seriously, you're doing what the world does, Satan's bidding.

      Craig in Lacey

    4. I love it, Craig. You are the one advocating killing children publicly by stoning if they mouth off to their parents (will there be any children left?) and somehow I'm the one doing Satan's bidding.

      Thank you for the morning chuckle.

    5. I think they would learn very quickly to keep their comments to themselves and respect their parents wishes. I also think rapists, pedophiles, and murderers should be executed publicly. Will that stop them all? No, but it will definitely stop some.

      I'm not surprised you consider obnoxious and disrespectful children funny. We see more and more of it every day, our prisons and graveyards are full of them. I suppose you find that funny too.

    6. Liberal poser pretending to be a conservative to make them look bad. Nice try. Didn't work.

  5. One person for a few moments on a program states their opinion on something and the right goes crazy. And it is amusing that the right is advocating a tax system most closely followed by eastern bloc nations and the Russian Federation and one that would require massive government intrusion to properly tax investment income.

    The worst thing the doctor did was waste the time he had in the spot light, flat tax proposals and Personal Health Accounts are discussed ad naueseum and the one justification for doing them the federal government could never use to would be a religious one.

    Do an internet news scan - no one but the right cared one way or the other that he made the comments, no one other than the right got hysterical when one Jewish lady expressed her opinion on it.

    This victim meme the right has adopted doesn't really convince anyone, does it?

    1. Why do you point out she was Jewish? Didn't see that in Gary's post. You're not accusing Gary of being an anti-semite are you?

  6. No Oshtur, it doesn't. Not when folks like you are not willing to consider the basic truths of what are evident around you. Talk about set in your one track mind. Please don't confuse me with the facts which are repeated graciously here just for you. So far, reason hasn't gotten through to you or your ilk.

    1. What 'basic truths' do you think 'folks like you' are missing? That a flat tax doesn't work? That it wouldn't even do what you seem to think it does? That tying up huge amounts of capital from individuals would not change anything over the current private insurance system other than mean that individuals would never have even the possibilities of improving their lives - too much of their incomes would be having to be hedged against the possibilities of catastrophic medical financial burdens?

      You do realize that only the sharing of risk keeps the American dream alive, right? That if only the rich have the financial capital to take risks that only they will be able to be advancing even further above the those without that advantage?

      But then you have asked me to not confuse you with facts so I guess its all rather pointless isn't it?

  7. 2:40 Many people in my church read this blog, but say they don't comment. That is probably true with a lot of Christians. I hope you're right and the liberals do learn something from this blog. I have and I'm not even a liberal.


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.