Poly-ticks

Wednesday’s Mini-Blog – On Republican “Truces”

A timely response from Doug Wilson to the chicanery and shenaniganry currently oozing out of the Republican party.

“This is happening in lots of different areas, so I don’t want to pick on Rand Paul. But for the sake of convenience, let us start with him. He recently called for a “truce” within the Republican Party on “social issues,” but what such a truce would actually amount to is total capitulation on the part of social conservatives.

To agree to a truce on such issues is to acknowledge in some fundamental way that the issue is not what you have been claiming for it all these years. Principled incrementalism would never use the word truce. Face-saving surrenders do. If abortion is murder, you don’t go halvsies on it. If you had been fighting the Nazi genocide for years, and they suddenly offered you a truce, wherein they agreed to stop killing the Feingolds and so on through the end of the alphabet, and you agreed to such a deal, would this not reveal that you had no earthly clue what position you had actually been advocating?”

Read the rest here.

Wednesday’s Internet Grab-Bag – March 5th

Debt vs. Deficit – Hearing all the rhetoric coming from both sides of the aisle in Washington about the debt and the deficit may leave you scratching your head.  Politifact tackles differentiating the two.  This is also a great website to keep in your back pocket as November elections approach.  They have a pretty handy (and arbitrary) truth meter.

Are Tongues Languages? Part 3 – The Cripplegate continues it’s series on modern manifestations of tongues.  They take on the story of Cornelius in this post.

Positives and Negatives of Noah – Dr. Jerry Johnson of the National Religious Broadcasters has seen the Noah epic that is set to debut at the end of this month.  Ed Stetzer interviewed him for Christianity today and he gave 5 positives and 5 negatives of the film.

One Thing Christians Should Stop Saying – Over at the Huffing-and-Puffington post, Scott Dannemiller has a pretty helpful article on how Christians contradict the words of Jesus with one simple “Christianese” phrase.

Jesus, Friend of Sinners: But How? – At the Gospel Coalition, Kevin DeYoung addresses the idea that Jesus’ friendship with sinners was as a partier or was all about showing love and not taking sides.

“In what way was Jesus a friend of sinners? Did he have a grand strategy for reaching tax collectors? Did he indiscriminately “hang out” with drunks and prostitutes? Was he an easy going live-and-let-live kind of Messiah? What we see from the composite of these passages is that sinners were drawn to Jesus, that Jesus gladly spent time with sinners who were open to his teaching, that Jesus forgave repentant sinners, and that Jesus embraced sinners who believed in him.”

Page CXVI and Lent – Page CXVI has made their lenten album available for free streaming on SoundCloud.  Enjoy!

Ash Wednesday and Lent – Pastor Doug Wilson’s take on a proper perspective of Ash Wednesday and Lent in the life of the Church and of the Christian

And Eat It Too

I think our public school education has begun to fail us, because there are far too many people throwing phrases such as “civil rights” and “Jim Crow” around like a modern painter slings his color.  Doesn’t matter where it goes as long as it sticks…even if it’s not to the canvas.

You see, a proper understanding of pre-civil rights America would cause you to realize that segregation was enforced by the government on private citizens and businesses disallowing them to operate their business as they saw fit.  The white, racist shop owners in Atlanta get a bad rap and they should.  But the moral and ethical man next door could have desired to allow a man of a different race into his establishment and the Feds had every right say, “No way, Dan!” (His name definitely wouldn’t have been José).  This sinful madness came to a stop with the Civil Rights Act and it should have.  Meaning…

If I were a restaurant owner in pre-civil rights America, you bet your patoot I’d be serving people of every race, color, creed, religion, and ethnicity.  I would fight tooth and nail for my right to do it and face the consequences coming to me from the Feds.

But that’s not where the problems stopped.  Today, in the name of Civil Rights (of which our current issue is neither), we are seeing the exact opposite enforced, yet again, on private business owners.  Instead of telling them who they can’t serve, the Feds are telling them who they must serve.  This is the current madness that needs to stop.  Meaning…

If I were a photographer in New Mexico, you bet your patoot I’d be turning down homo weddings and “two-men-and-a-baby family” shoots.  I would fight tooth and nail for my right to do it and face the consequences coming to me from the Feds.

Because the only thing that’s the same between this time and that time…the only similarity between the first situation and the second is the government telling me, a private business owner, for whom I can and cannot provide a service.  But look at it this way, if five star restaurants want serve people based on whether or not men wear jackets to dinner, then they should be able toIf Joey wants his customers to speak English, he should be able to demand that.  And for years the government hasn’t said boo to either one of them.  So, it should then follow that if Rick and his racist uncle don’t want to sell bait or tackle to anyone who ain’t white like them, they should be able to.  All of these issues are the problem of a private business owner not the government.  They are the ones losing  with these policies, because, as someone wise once said, “Everybody’s money is the same color.”

Inherent to liberty is the right to say no and the right to refuse.  If this is the “sweet Land of Liberty” then surely I have the right to say no to certain things.  I have the right to say no when someone wants to enter my house without a warrant.  You have the right to say no when someone tells you to stop practicing your religion or that you must adopt theirs.  And private business owners have the right to say no when they don’t want to offer a service to someone.

The problem in both of these situations is Federal government overreach, but instead of intimidating us into racial discrimination, this time they are compelling us into a violation of conscience.  It’s government sponsored coercion and an assault on the liberties of all people, not just Christians.

Let me put it this way

“Does the proprietor of a business for the public have the right to decline service to someone because that someone’s behavior is offensive to them, although perfectly legal?”

Seriously contemplate the answer to this question before reading the next portion…  YES or NO?

 

“[Then what about a] web designer who wants to decline his services to a men-only golf club? A printer of business cards who did not want to serve Gosnell prior to his arrest? A graphic designer in Nevada who does not want to design any newspaper ads for the Moonlight Bunny Ranch?”

What about requiring a Jewish party store owner to order 500 swastika plates, cups, napkins, and streamers for the Neo-Nazi rally? Or requiring a advertising agent married to an abusive alcoholic to design a billboard for the local bar her husband frequents? …or requiring a Christian to bake a cake with two grooms on it?

For those of you who answered “no” to the above question, based on the principles that are currently being established by the gumm’int, what justification do you have for telling any of the above business owners they have right to refuse service without sounding schizophrenic?

Because you can’t have your cake and eat it too.