Greater income equality/redistribution of wealth. Most of the world probably wants this as well, but it’s the top 1% that would be the hardest to convince that it would probably even be in their own self interest to pursue it. It would take a sea change of such magnitude to persuade, not just them, but the world’s shareholders, that nothing short of a revolution (which, if violent, would be horrible) will do. What I am talking about is a re-adjustment of the way we evaluate “worth”. I am speaking in broad strokes here, but the point is the same: If an employer is making more money than he will ever be able to spend, but is not paying his workforce a living wage, what does that really say about him, and a culture that would see this as a “good and acceptable” thing? Yes, in our capitalistic society, the accumulation of vast wealth, what is referred to as “f-ck you money” (Fuck You Money | Bankers Anonymous), is seen as a noble goal in and of itself, and it is “socialist” or “communist” to question the wisdom of that philosophy. But is it? Or is it even immoral to accept socialism or communism if the end is to see that people who work hard get a good life? How about instead of “f-ck you money”, we start to value “appreciate you money”? The kind of wealth an employer might achieve that would enable him to stop the accumulation of wealth for its ownsake and say, “Hey, my employees, I really appreciate that you have worked hard to make me a fabulously wealthy man. In return, here’s a big fat raise, healthcare, school stipends for your kids, whatever…” How about we stop doing business, inasmuch as it is possible, with oligarchs who have already accumulated their fat share of “f-ck you money”, but that isn’t enough so they continue to ship jobs overseas? What’s the big deal about Burger Doodle or BigMart expanding to new markets–“creating jobs, jobs, jobs!!!–if those jobs are going to be too crappy to make a living at?
I’m sick and tired of people who believe in “trickle down” voodoo witchcraft and fairy dust economics bloviating about how “the rich just need fewer taxes, then they’ll create more and greater jobs and pay people lots of money!!!” Hogwash! The only way trickle down works is if you force it to: Tell them, “Invest back into your own people and your own country, or we will tax the sh-t out of you FOR REAL; I mean you-will-feel-it for real!”
Pipe dream? Yeah. Probably. But it beats pitchforks and torches.
Took about a year of study, examination, media procurement, sweat, pain, worry, faith…to produce this piece. 
Fox News and Journalism Ethics Go Together Like Chocolate and Pine Needles
Posted: January 23, 2015 in UncategorizedBut we’re Fox News! We lie…and we don’t care!!!
Talk about journalism ethics violations? How about Biblical ones: Psalm 1:1; Exodus 23:1-2; Prov. 22:12; Prov. 14:5; Eph. 4:9; Col. 3:9; 1 Tim. 4:2; Rev. 22:15 “…and whoever loves and makes a lie.”
And last…and worst…Psalm 6:16-19, where Bill O’Reilly/Sean Hannity/et.al. + Fox News are CONTINUALLY guilty of at least SIX of these 7 abominations: arrogance, lying, devising wicked plans, hasty to run to evil, bearing falsewitness, sowing discord.
Do other networks lie? Sometimes, but people get fired for it (Dan Rather, anyone?), apologies and retractions are made, etc. Fox is the ONLY network that lies without conscience, deliberately distorts the truth, mocks, ridicules, and scorns the defenseless AND at the same time operate under the pretense that they and only they are “fair and balanced” when they know this is not true. What is worse, and what makes what they do so dangerous, is their claim of some sort of moral high ground. O’Reilly, Hannity, and most of the rest of the air personalities profess some sort of allegiance to the God of the Bible, and yet continually violate His Word.
But liberals do it all the tiii-iime! If that’s true, LET THEM! Because if they’re going to be the standard by which conservatives measure their own integrity, then conservatives have doomed themselves to destruction.
“One thing I do like about Ayn Rand is that she was no fan of Madalyn Murray O’Hair, even though O’Hair was a clear fan of Ayn Rand.” (comments section) – See more at: http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/…/atheism-without-wo…/…
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.” – John Rogers
Here’s the point: modern conservatism was shaped DRAMATICALLY by the teachings of the atheist Christ-hater Ayn Rand, whether evangelicals know this or not (Let’s face it, if the Devil wanted to “poison” conservatism or evangelicalism, it’s not something he would advertise!) This association has damaged evangelicalism far beyond anything “liberals” could do, and has been welcomed with open arms! The crazy thing is, O’Hair, who nigh single-handedly “removed God from our schools” was a great admirer herself of Ayn Rand, even though Rand did not care for O’Hair. But it appears that the dislike was based more on personal style than substance, and O’Hair’s political beliefs seem to be sort of radically libertarian. Did Rand approve of Murray v Curlett or Abingdon School district v. Schemp? Can’t find where she said anything about it, but it is obvious based on her writings that she would have found state sponsored prayer execrable! Indeed, one can find many cases of her followers being decidedly and vehemently AGAINST the very things evangelicals seem to be for (i.e. https://ari.aynrand.org/…/Supreme-Court-Should-Uphold-Right…) In fact, Objectivists, including and especially Rand herself, have reserved their greatest ridicule for those people who somehow believe their philosophy is compatible with any religion, much less Christianity!
I think it’s unfair to compare the influence Ayn Rand has had on modern Republicans to the “influence” of Jeremiah Wright, et.al., on Barak Obama: Republicans like Paul Ryan and Rand Paul unapologetically embrace the influence Ayn Rand’s philosophy has had on their own: “According to Rand, the Christian moral imperative to serve the needy is a “monstrous idea.” “In a surprising jolt of coherence, Rand held precisely the position such a disdain for Christian humility would suggest: that the strong are the rightful lords over the weak, and that those with the capabilities to secure wealth and resources should be more or less unimpeded from doing so, the rest of humankind be damned. It’s likely this philosophical tenet that wins her so many fans on the right, among them Paul Ryan, Clarence Thomas, Gary Johnson and Rand Paul.”
http://www.alternet.org/why-christian-conservatives-love-je…
Why I Am Not Charlie
What happened in Paris to the Charlie Hebdo publication is inexcusable and reprehensible. The actions of the perpetrators can only be described as wanton murder, the perpetrators themselves as deliberately given over to evil. That said, though I mourn with the dead and their families, I cannot stand with the rest of the world and proclaim: Je suis Charlie, because je ne suis pas. Because I am a Christian.
There are those who claim an affinity to Jesus Christ who also seem to be comfortable with ridicule, mockery, and the wholesale profaning of other religions, especially Islam. They may do so, but I doubt or Lord is amused. Neither would he be amused with the content of the Charlie Hebdo publications. How do I know this? I guess the things he said about loving one’s enemies, considering persecution a blessing, turning the other cheek, and not returning evil with evil. Note that these are things radical Islamists have a hard time doing. Indeed, they consider them weak and not like their prophet at all.
Sadly, the same could be said for many in Christendom, folks who wear Jesus’ cloak, but don’t resemble his face. Many have jumped on the bandwagon of mockery and profanity, republishing and displaying works offensive to one religion, but who would be mortified, indignant, even violent themselves if it were their religion being mocked. In fact, they become outraged that their children cannot pray in Jesus’ name over loudspeakers at state sponsored sporting matches, sue in federal court whenever their “rights” are abridged. Some have resorted to murder themselves, ironically in the name of the “right to life”.
No, I am not Charlie because what Charlie does, while it should be protected speech, is incompatible with how a Christian is to resond and interact with those of other faiths. Consider what Paul said in Col. 4:5-6, “Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let you conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” Or his injunction in his 1st letter to the Corinthians: “Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, so that they may be saved.”
Yes, the Gospel is an offense, a stumbling block, but for completely different reasons than mockery or ridicule. The Believer is expected to know this. But we are to respect the non-believer up to the point that we are required to deny Jesus; THEN, and only then, may our offense be manifest, and even that in love, mercy, and joy, for we are blessed in our persecution.
Finally, consider that Jesus’ harshest criticisms were reserved for those leaders of his own faith, and with them, he was unsparing in his ridicule and condemnation. One could hardly be more forceful or harsh than calling people hypocrites, a brood or vipers or whitewashed tombs, full of all death and corruption!
I am not Charlie because there is no Jesus in what Charlie Hebdo does. There is no benefit, no profit, no love in the derision of other faiths. And we need to focus our greater attention on those in the household of faith who are bringing disrepute, shame, and dishonor on the name of Jesus, who cause the unbeliever to mock and ridicule US, rather than mocking and ridculing them.
viewfromthebellybutton 