Folding, spindeling, and mutilating lauguage for fun since Aug, 2004
Monday, 19 November 2007

Neil at 4 Simpsons has an entry that is a little out of the ordinary for him.  I thought it was interesting.  He recounts a statement by a fellow Christian that he could not be a police officer because he was a Christian.

Neil seems to be perplexed by this idea.  I find that remarkable, since Neil himself has expressed the idea that the intention of the founders was for America to be a "Christian" nation, and that secularists have usurped the rightful position of Christianity in our society.

Is it any wonder that a "Christian" would then decide that serving as a peace officer to bring stability and functionality on behalf of this secular government is a bad, anti-Christian action?  How does this perplex Neil when the argument is all over the place to be seen and read and understood?

As his fellow "Christians" work daily to destroy secular civil government, Neil has an interesting perspective; supporting the rhetoric and parroting it, while claiming to oppose the actions, and also insisting he doesn't understand the conclusions of people who want to destroy public education, public health, and public order.

Of course a certain type of Christian would conclude that maintaing order and viability in a secular state is anti-Christian.  Only the death of the secular state will result in the kind of world they want, where the church is the ultimate authority in civil life.

I'm constantly amazed as he quotes stories and espouses viewpoints from One News Now, a project headed and funded by supporters and disciples of R.J. Rushdoony.  Yet, he claims to not even know who these people are, and at the same time, claimes to oppose their goals, while he promotes their arguments and rhetoric.

I really really think he has to be smarter than that.

Monday, 19 November 2007 14:16:11 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [14] | #
Search
Archive
Links
Categories
Admin Login
Sign In
Blogroll
Themes
Pick a theme: