Existential threat

I have never used the word "existential" except to quote someone else. I don't have any idea what it means when others use it. So, I looked it up and here's what Britannica Editor said: It's used 3 ways,

 
"existential threat
existential questions
existential crisis

The first phrase, existential threat, is used in texts or discussions about politics, usually politics in the Middle East. In this context, existential is being used literally. An existential threat is a threat to a people’s existence or survival.

The second phrase, existential questions, references Existentialism, a 20th century philosophy concerned with questions about how and whether life has meaning, and why we exist. (For more information, look up Existentialism or the philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre.)

The third phrase, existential crisis, is also a reference to Existentialism, but it is often used in a humorous or sarcastic way, to suggest that the person or people being described spend too much thinking about themselves and the meaning of their lives.

In sum, existential can be a reference to survival, or to the meaning of our lives, or used to poke fun at others who might take themselves a bit too seriously."

Hmm. I probably still won't use the word. But I will say, it is overused and overrated.

Podcasts--true crime are the most popular

I'm not sure I knew what a podcast was until the summer of 2021, and now I have about 50 on my "library" list on my smartphone. It used to be I'd see them occasionally on YouTube and follow for awhile, but I really prefer the audio to the video.  It's easier to do other things. You can investigate a topic much more in 2 hours than in 30 seconds on the evening news. My list changes some as I learn more about the values and veracity of the host or if I don't like the quality of the host's voice or talking speed.  I first figured out that they were a popular form of entertainment and information when I watched the first season of   "Only murders in our building." Only Murders in the Building (TV Series 2021– ) - IMDb

"Follows three strangers (Steve Martin, Martin Short, and Selena Gomez) who share an obsession with true crime and suddenly find themselves wrapped up in one. When a grisly death occurs inside their exclusive Upper West Side apartment building, the trio suspects murder and employs their precise knowledge of true crime to investigate the truth. As they record a podcast of their own to document the case, the three unravel the complex secrets of the building which stretch back years. Perhaps even more explosive are the lies they tell one another. Soon, the endangered trio comes to realize a killer might be living amongst them as they race to decipher the mounting clues before it's too late."

Although it was very well acted the language was just too raw, so we stopped watching.  Now has finished up season three.

Pew Research says 24% of podcasts are true crime and about 10% are "politics and government." (Sort of the same thing, don't you think? 

"A new Pew Research Center study of 451 of the top-ranked podcasts in the United States shows this diversity of subjects: No single topic is the main focus of more than a quarter of these podcasts.

True crime is the most common topic, making up 24% of these top-ranked podcasts – perhaps reflecting the early popularity of Serial. The next most common topics are politics and government (10%); entertainment, pop culture and the arts (9%); and self-help and relationships (8%)." A Profile of the Top-Ranked Podcasts in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

Many of those on my list are former news reporters or programs I've known for years like Glenn Beck, Megyn Kelly, Hugh Hewitt, and Victor Davis Hanson.  I had either seen them on TV, listened to live programing on the radio, or read their columns. Probably ten are about religion, with some politics thrown in.  Another ten are politics, or politics with popular culture. Maybe ten are about health, or health related. I'd say five are "red-pilled"--they've left the Democrat party for a variety of reasons, usually Covid or Communism.  "Great books" is self-explanatory, as is "Boring books for Bedtime." Two are Canadian, Jordan B. Peterson, Dr. Gad Saad, others are American immigrants, like Patrick Bet David, born in Iran (business, entertainment, politics), or foreign, like Zuby, British citizen of Nigerian ancestry, Freddie Sayers, British with conversations on science, politics, free speech. Three are black and conservative, and they are also outspoken about their Christian faith. Jason Whitlock is sort of a two-fer x 2--black, conservative, Christian, and sports. A number of these have regular sidekicks or guest panels with whom they debate, disagree or affirm. Four of my favorites are medical shows. Often, they interview each other.  On the list I have a lesbian Jew journalist and a formerly gay man (very conservative Christian) who has a lot of Hollywood connections. 

I thought Covid had boosted the popularity, and according to Forbes.com in January 2023 it did. However,  "Because of the Covid-19 pandemic, the art of the podcast became a full-blown renaissance. But in truth, podcasting predated the coronavirus, responding to the evolving wants and needs of young listeners who don’t just want to blast the radio in their cars. 

Around the globe, there are more than 400 million podcast listeners who tune in for all sorts of content. Because of that high listenership, there are over 2 million independent podcasts with tens of millions of episodes between them. That’s right: Over 2 million podcasts."

Where do you get your information?

Gary asked, "Where do you get your information?"  He watches only MSNBC and CNN--two channels that pretend to be objective and fair, but repeat the Democrat party talking points, in my opinion.  That is a great question, however, something all librarians and teachers emphasize when teaching research skills. And it’s essential for him particularly to ask because so much of the news is infused with opinion, not research, and he spends a lot of time watching news from one viewpoint. His method is why librarians and teachers usually don’t accept “magazines” as a valid source when teaching research. Some won’t even accept an encyclopedia, which is a shame, in my opinion. I love encyclopedias, and most articles are signed. Not many people own the 11th, 12th, and 13th editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica, but I do.

When I give an opinion, it’s that. Norma’s opinion. When I quote, I try to always cite the source, and my opinion may be learned from others over time, but by checking their sources. Dennis Prager’s recent tirade against Biden reflects mine, but I’ve followed Prager for years. He’s been on radio for 40 years, is Jewish, loves music, literature, politics, has great wisdom, and supports young conservative influencers like Candace Owens, Will Witt and Charlie Kirk who have gone on to their own careers. Pager was anti-Trump in 2016—converted to a fan when Trump accomplished conservative goals of lower taxes, less government control, border security, cutting red tape, best friend Israel had, priorities for prison reform, etc. https://www.creators.com/read/dennis-prager/05/22/joe-bidens-buffalo-speech-was-the-speech-of-an-indecent-man

My opinions are primarily built on my values, even if I don’t think about it. Christian, anabaptist, conservative fiscally, formed by the region I’ve lived in (Midwest U.S.), the language I speak, race/culture, college education, and career. However, my entire life I’ve been pro-life, even before I understood the science and politics of taking the life of a baby in the womb. Even in second grade, I remember thinking evolution was ridiculous and anti-science, because yes, evolution was being taught as truth at Forreston elementary in the 1940s. I learned to pretend I learne it, to answer the questions on the tests correctly, and not rock the boat. I love science—and I see my values about creator/created confirmed every day, especially astronomy and all the “new” critters found at the bottom of oceans. Love that stuff!

When it is rate, number, percentage, average, median, year, I am usually relying on a government or academic source (since academics have government grants it’s hard to know where one stops and the other begins). I always keep in mind those sources also have biases because they are collected and published by humans. For instance, after 2008, certain crime sources just disappeared. After certain years, census sources changed—for instance, additional groups or races were added or divided. What was called white was changed to create Asian or Hispanic (a made-up word that includes hundreds of cultures). Biracial white/black/Asian/Mexican/Cuban/Indian is almost always considered black—probably a carry over from segregation days. It's my impression that liberal/progressive sources are more likely to refer to numbers rather than rate. Most confusing (on purpose) is the writer moving from rate to number to percentage in the same article. For instance, violent crime may have black aggressors 8x the rate of whites, but because white criminals outnumber blacks due to the population, liberal sources will site numbers more often in crimes. You may have to go to the last paragraph or a graph/chart to see percentage or rate.

Over time, I’ve learned when there is a horrific tragedy like last Wednesday in Uvalde, Texas, the tsunami in 2005, or the Louisiana hurricane in 2006, or the strange conflicting figures for the 2020 vote, it may take years to sort out or find the truth. I’ve heard three versions by Saturday of how police acted/reacted to the Uvalde tragedy. Without even listening to the news we know there will be the anti-gun bills and the safety bills. We know Democrats will be anti-2nd amendment and the Republicans will focus on SRO, more cameras, better training.

For some reason, Gary often sites David Duke, a has-been, colorful Democrat, from many years ago, sometimes because he was a southerner, and that was the party of hate he grew up with, the party that held blacks back with various Jim Crow laws, and now do it with money from government programs. He’s really a creation of the media, unlike Antifa, which actually did roam city streets, who were well-educated, rich white supremacists, who covered their faces with hoods, who did burn down buildings, and had clout. When I was a Democrat I certainly didn’t associate my party with Duke, just as I don’t associate any Democrats I know with Antifa.

But Democrats do get in a rut.  They are very suceptible to "progressive" ideas and fall for the socialist clap-trap. They actually believe if we hand more money over to the government, it will be used for whatever purpose they claim.  Republicans have spaghetti spines and no balls, to stick with the body language. 

Doctor muses on racism from the Left

"As Covid fear was waning, unnerved by the thought that we might regain our happy lives, the government-media complex blared that our society is systemically infected with racism and white people must repent.

The deafening drumbeat of race, racism, and more race is leaving its mark. New York City is using race as a criterion allocating Covid-19 treatments. That will certainly erode trust in the medical system. President Biden is undermining the legitimacy of the Supreme Court by pledging to fill a vacancy, not the best person, but a black female. The issue is not that black female bright legal scholars do not exist, but that the only stated criteria were gender and skin color. Of course, it didn’t matter that Bush nominee former California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown was a black female when her confirmation for the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. was delayed for two years for the crime of not supporting affirmative action.

To prove their anti-racist creds schools, corporations, and government entities instituted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) “training.” Is that like house-breaking a dog? Are white people to be figuratively rapped on the nose with an old newspaper? And if obedience school is unsuccessful, we can tax them into submission.

California’s year-old, “first-of-its-kind” Reparations Task Force has determined that reparations should be limited to descendants of slaves who were “kidnapped from their homeland.” Black immigrants are excluded because they have a country to which they can return if they are unhappy with the racist United States. Missing the irony, California’s black female slave descendant Secretary of State posited that Barack Obama had the gumption to run for president only because he was not a descendant of slaves. Thus, he was not—these many generations later—“stunted” by the psychological impact of slavery that left slaves with only enough energy to merely survive. Moreover, Obama did not have limitations “drilled in his psyche.” Exactly who is doing the drilling today? California elected officials? Television shows with black stars? Teachers? Homeboys in the ‘hood? Absentee Parents?

Wow! So black people can’t aspire to greatness if they had a slave as an ancestor. Talk about the bigotry of low expectations. Show me the excuse for the success of slave descendant entrepreneur and philanthropist Madame C.J. Walker, considered the first female millionaire in the United States in 1910. And James Derham who went from slave to physician and treated patients of all colors in Louisiana in the 1700s.

Mr. Antiracism himself, Henry Rogers (aka Ibram X. Kendi) may have bamboozled corporate America into spreading the toxic instruction to find racism in every action and thought in every minute of one’s waking hours. Disturbingly, the American Medical Association as part of its Health Equity Plan aims to “excise the myth of meritocracy.”

With big money at stake, professional football players are chosen for their ability, not their skin color. Is winning games more important than saving patients’ lives? Should we not be teaching our students to be scientifically curious, compassionate, and have the health of individual patients as their prime concern. Should physicians not attain knowledge at the highest level possible?

Now it seems that political agendas, not patients have taken precedence. A medical school group called White Coats for Black Lives is making the rounds at medical schools. Its stated goals are (1) to “dismantle dominant, exploitative systems in the United States, which are largely reliant on anti-Black racism, colonialism, cisheteropatriarchy, white supremacy, and capitalism;” and (2) to rebuild a healthy future for marginalized communities by abolishing prisons, establishing federal universal health care, ensuring reproductive and environmental justice, and “queer and trans liberation.” Many of us want to improve health care for those who have poor access—black, white, and otherwise. But let’s not sacrifice quality care for individual patients for a broad political movement.

After two years of manufactured fear, negativity, and learned helplessness courtesy of loudmouthed ideologues fomenting unrest, we need a dose of reality. White people are not stamped with the mark of the devil. Every friendly gesture is not a feeble attempt at reparations. It’s just a fellow human being cheerful. Plenty of black and other persons of color have intelligence, strength and ingenuity. We are able to do more than merely survive."

Marilyn M. Singleton, MD, JD, (Oakland-California) board-certified anesthesiologist and immediate past President of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

The Joe Rogan hypocrisy and double standard "scandal"

I'm waiting for all the bleeding heart blue media to count the number of times rappers have insulted and demeaned women, particularly black women, for money and then try to remove them from their platforms. Crickets. And how about a senator and former vice president and now president using the N-word in public speeches and putting down the race of candidate Obama and trying to smear Justice Thomas? Crickets x2. Why is that acceptable but a talk show comedian with a potty mouth isn't? Crickets x3. And oh, the black face on Democrat governors and comedians, just for fun, and an outspoken, nasty, mean View host? Crickets x4.

 
It's an old truism--if it weren't for double standards Democrats would have no standards at all.

The big reveal

 

Testing transmissibility of SARS CoV-2 in ferrets

This may possibly have some actual research on SARS CoV-2 and masks. Ferrets.

"The study comes weeks after the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledged that the novel coronavirus can spread via aerosols. The agency updated its guidelines to include airborne transmission in mid-September, but removed the language the next day. If the virus were found to spread among people predominantly through aerosols, Marr says, that would carry practical implications for recommendations of types of masks and ventilation systems best suited to filter out airborne particles.'

In other words, recommendations for masks haven't been based on science. This may help with that.

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/ferret-study-reinforces-role-of-aerosols-in-sars-cov-2-spread-68094?

I think this was a very clever, but very small test using SARS CoV-2 (2019) SARS (2003) and H1N1 (2009). Their transmissibility differs, and it really doesn't have anything to do with who was president of the United States when the virus appeared. Some viruses like SARS and MERS have had death rates up to 50% yet have disappeared quickly. There was no way to know at the beginning. Again, nothing to do with who was president, or who the science advisors were. That's all politics. When Democrats say that, remember, it's politics and they want to elect Biden. When the science disagrees, that's just science. Picking those you wish to believe may be more politics than science.

Why did the chicken cross the road—an internet story with no attribution

Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road?

DONALD TRUMP: I've been told by many sources, good sources - they're very good sources - that the chicken crossed the road. All the Fake News wants to do is write nasty things about the road, but it's a really good road. It's a beautiful road. Everyone knows how beautiful it is.

JOE BIDEN: Why did the chicken do the...thing in the...you know the rest.

SARAH PALIN: The chicken crossed the road because, gosh-darn it, he's a maverick!

BARACK OBAMA: Let me be perfectly clear, if the chickens like their eggs they can keep their eggs. No chicken will be required to cross the road to surrender her eggs. Period.

AOC: Chickens should not be forced to lay eggs! This is because of corporate greed! Eggs should be able to lay themselves.

HILLARY CLINTON: What difference at this point does it make why the chicken crossed the road.

GEORGE W. BUSH: We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road or not. The chicken is either with us or against us. There is no middle ground here.

DICK CHENEY: Where's my gun?

BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road with that chicken.

AL GORE: I invented the chicken.

JOHN KERRY: Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken's intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it.

AL SHARPTON: Why are all the chickens white?

DR. PHIL: The problem we have here is that this chicken won't realize that he must first deal with the problem on this side of the road before it goes after the problem on the other side of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he is acting by not taking on his current problems before adding any new problems.

OPRAH: Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross the road so badly. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I'm going to give this chicken a NEW CAR so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.

ANDERSON COOPER: We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.

NANCY GRACE: That chicken crossed the road because he's guilty! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.

PAT BUCHANAN: To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.

MARTHA STEWART: No one called me to warn me which way the chicken was going. I had a standing order at the Farmer's Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information.

DR SEUSS: Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed I've not been told.

ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die in the rain, alone.

GRANDPA: In my day we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough for us.

BARBARA WALTERS: Isn't that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heart warming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish it's lifelong dream of crossing the road.

ARISTOTLE: It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.

ALBERT EINSTEIN: Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?

COLONEL SANDERS: Did I miss one?

-------------------------------------------

I’ve seen several versions; many have left out Trump and Biden but John McCain is in it.

Christians and politics

Politics for Christians is messy these days. I came across a clear explanation with good footnotes that I recommend. Due to the fractured nature of the church, no Christian will agree with all points. https://www.allaboutworldview.org/christian-worldview.htm, specifically, https://www.allaboutworldview.org/christian-politics.htm
Here's where a Christian world view differs with today's socialists in our government--they teach in our schools and proclaim in their power that because the founders were ordinary, sinful men with flaws, rulers in the 21st century are smarter, more righteous and more spiritual and able to take our God given rights and give them to the government.
"Christian Politics – The Source of Human Rights
Christian politics within a Christian worldview understands God as the source and guarantee of our basic human rights. Because we believe we are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26), we know that we are valuable. (This becomes doubly clear when we remember that Christ took upon Himself human flesh and died for humanity.) God grants all individuals the same rights based on an absolute moral standard.
The Declaration of Independence proclaims, “All men are created equal... [and] endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Two assumptions are inherent in this declaration: 1) we were created by a supernatural Being; and 2) this Being provides the foundation for all human rights.
The knowledge that human rights are based on an unchanging, eternal Source is crucial in our understanding of politics. If our rights were not tied inextricably to God’s character, then they would be arbitrarily assigned according to the whims of each passing generation or political party—rights are “unalienable” only because they are based on God’s unchanging character. Therefore, human rights do not originate with human government, but with God Himself, who ordains governments to secure these rights.
Our founding fathers understood this clearly.
John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson in 1813, says, “The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite... And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United... Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God.”2
John Winthrop says that the best friend of liberty is one who is “most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down on profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy of his country.”3
Noah Webster wrote “The moral principles and precepts found in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. These principles and precepts have truth, immutable truth, for their foundation.”4
Alexis de Tocqueville says, “There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America; and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation on the earth.”5
George Washington, in his inaugural address as first president of the United States, referred to “the propitious smiles of Heaven” that fall only on that nation that does not “disregard the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.”6"

Why are Democrats so inconsistent—power. Michael Smith, guest blogger

How can one justify a city-wide ban on E-cigarettes and fund "safe injection sites" for drugs?

How is it even remotely logical to ban cigarettes and promote legalization of marijuana?

What sense does it make to ban private assistance to feed the homeless and then complain that there isn't enough funding for food programs for them?

How can you argue for free healthcare for illegal non-citizens when American veterans can't get help?

How can you argue that it is discriminatory to refuse to bake a cake for a same sex wedding but forcing a baker to do so against their will is not?

How can you cry about the sanctity of elections and then refuse to put measures in place to validate the eligibility of the voters?

How can you argue that a particular redistricting is unconstitutional and then promote open borders?

How can you argue argue for background checks and restrictions to own a gun and ammunition because "if it can save one child, it is worth it" and then say that abortions should be free without restriction?

How can you argue that school shootings are aberrations when more children are aborted each day in abortion clinics than are killed in all school shootings?

This is your modern Democrat party.

They no longer are required to make sense.

This is all about power and pandering to anyone who will vote to give it to them.

Michael Smith, guest blogger.

Jeanellen grieves the loss of a friend

This happens far more often than it should—bigotry and intolerance in politics. She writes:

“Feeling a heavy heart tonight as I may have lost a friend due to politics. Had dinner with a few friends that came into town who I haven’t seen in years. They all are very liberal, but one in particular looked at me & said, “Please tell me you would not vote for Trump again”. I was trying to keep it light but it just degenerated with her bringing up the abortion debate and acting like I was utterly ridiculous for believing that life begins at conception.

This is a person I like and respected who always agreed to disagree with me. Even though I was calm & respectful during the discussion she was barely speaking to me at the end.

This is not the first time this has happened and I really avoid bringing up politics but the media has poisoned the waters and makes people in the left feel like they have the right to take the stance of righteousness and unfettered disgust towards those who don’t agree.

How did we get here?”

Pastors, not to speak is to speak

 

Pastors and teachers, will your sermons and teachings this week engage the actual world? Or will our passivity give folly and death more ground?

Legalized infanticide in New York. Hate Hoaxes framing innocent bystanders (the Covington kids etc.). Borders open to drugs and crime, with thousands of victims.

I urge every Christian minister to step up to the plate this Sunday. Conviction and courage, friends. In time of war, silence isn't golden. It's yellow.

Be a Bonhoeffer. A Paul. Be like Jesus. Speak, stand, act - because of love. It's time to restore the garden in which we're placed to steward, and to grow.

Kelly Monroe Kullberg, author of Finding God at Harvard and A Faith and Culture Devotional and founder of the Veritas Forum www.veritas.org.

Sorry, Kelly—we’ve never heard a sermon on abortion, on marriage, on war, on drugs, on friendships and relationships destroyed by political animosity—and we never will.

Wisdom according to Joan

“Sanctuary” cities (in clearer language) are hideouts for lawbreakers. These cities are providing “aid and comfort” to people who have broken our laws to enter this country. Aiding and abetting criminals is not a “humanitarian” goal; it is, in itself, another crime. If I provide a place for a burglar (another kind of lawbreaker) to evade capture, I am also arrested and charged with a crime. Why is this not applicable to those local elected representatives who openly help lawbreakers evade the law?”

Joan Shaw Turrentine is blogger and Facebook friend, former teacher and pastor’s wife.  And also,

"The truth about all the political crazy that's creating havoc in DC? It's not about immigration. It's not about Trump. It's not about taxes. It's not about the wall or even abortion. It IS about hanging on to power and keeping a seat on the gravy train that is public office."

I agree with Joan on this, and I add that no one in my lifetime has threatened that power base as much as President Trump. So by deflection he is hated, and those of us who voted for him are reviled and kicked out of our social circles and families.

Politics and healthcare

At the coffee shop today I was reading the Oct. 9, JAMA and noticed an editorial on "Politics and Healthcare." JAMA's left of center, but I thought I'd take a look. Praise for Lyndon Johnson and Medicare in 1965, praise for Barack Obama and PPACA (Obamacare) in 2010 and then 3-4 paragraphs lambasting President Trump who, but for McCain, would have been able to undo Obama's disastrous grab of the private sector and 1/5 of the economy. It's one of the reasons Trump was elected--the people hated it, especially those who lost good coverage or lost their doctor or were forced to buy coverage for contraception and abortion. Obamacare was the only significant piece of social legislation that got zero support from Republicans, who had supported FDR and social security, and LBJ and Medicare. In fact, it's doubtful those programs would have passed without Republican support. It is the Obama administration that created the extreme partisanship we see today, not President Trump.

Yes indeed. Politics and healthcare in black and white in JAMA. So I looked up the author, Donald M Berwick--he's retired, but has been on just about every government board and committee to give us socialized medicine, was part of the Clinton administration, and even worked with the British National Health Service and was knighted by the Queen! I would not have expected anything else from him.

Politics and religion going public

“Were I to launch into a sermon on the upcoming presidential election, my email box would short-circuit from the deluge of opinions many would need to communicate. However, because this sermon is on the life of Meister Eckhart, chances are good that when it comes to email I'll receive nary a byte. Face it, theology fails to generate the same temperature of heated discourse as politics, despite the admonition against bringing up either politics or religion on a first date.

On the other hand, were these the Middle Ages, the ceaseless subject matter of CNN or Fox News would be the moods and moves of God rather than the latest exploits of kings and princes. In medieval Europe, where earthly life was precarious and death the daily dread, the life to come was the only life that warranted debate.”

You can read the rest of this interesting sermon on Eckhart,  but I really chose this part because of its truth on speaking out and the dangers of writing about politics and religion.  So few people are passionate these days about religion that if you have a belief or opinion about the nativity, baptism, end times, or communion few will challenge you because they may believe all ways lead to God, or all truth is what I say it is.  Politics, however, especially if made public can get you fired, lose friends, destroy relationships, or even get your home attacked by Antifa, as Tucker Carlson found out (and he’s not even a Trump supporter but has spoken out about the D.C.  “elites” in his latest book, “Ship of Fools.”)

• Are you pro-life?  That used to be a religious issue, but is now such a hotly debated topic on heartbeats, selling baby parts and tax support, good friends best not discuss it.
• Marriage?  That also used to be a religious issue, but divorce and infidelity were the morality topics.  Not now.  It’s about baking cakes and fixing floral arrangements, and whether you can lose your business for being on the wrong side of Democrat party politics.
• Gender? God created man and woman used to be a debate about long day, short day, and whether this Biblical story was myth or fact, and now it’s about transphobia and your first amendment right to not only have a religion belief, but freedom of speech.
• Pronouns for God? Feminists used to rail about the masculine pronouns used in the Trinitarian Godhead,  or in traditional hymns, now we can not even use the pronouns he, she, him, her in ordinary discourse or writing!

So yes, it’s far safer to blog or Facebook about religion—it’s just that liberal politics have been co-opting religion so picking a topic is dancing in a mine field. 

Truth is stranger than fiction

In Barbara Boxer's 2005 novel, A Time to Run, the "heroine's dilemma is presented by a journalist, Greg Hunter, with pronounced right-wing views. Hunter is a figure from the senator's past. They had been lovers while he was in college; he lost her to his roommate, Joshua Fischer. Joshua later dies in the middle of a campaign for Senate; Ellen steps into his place and wins, launching her political career. Now, Hunter has returned, bringing with him information that could derail the judicial nominee's appointment. Fischer is buffeted by new revelations about Hunter and a well-founded distrust of his motives." (Wikipedia) 

Hmm. Apparently it didn't get very good reviews, not even for the sex scenes.

I’m not the only one who collects thoughts

 

 

 

Ten reasons your liberal friends and family have cut you off

Here are ten reasons left-wingers cut Trump voters from their lives according to National Review.  I don't agree with all of these. For instance, many of my liberal friends are indeed religious and honor their parents, although I'm in an older group than the group this is addressed to. Having been a liberal humanist myself for many years, I know religious choices are often cultural and can respect many of the habits and manners taught when young. Also, the leftists I know personally do have lives outside politics--they love to craft, make art, sing, compose, write, etc. They are not as likely to hunt deer, repair cars, or fix my plumbing--all things we need, but some don't respect until the toilet overflows or the lights go out. But I do know liberals who have put politics above family--but only certain family. Those they truly love and admire they've managed to suck it up for the sake of the relationship.  Love really does trump hate.  But you have to believe in love and not use it as a way to settle old scores you were afraid to bring up.