What Freedom are they Defending?
As the leaders of the increasingly less Free World—minus President *Batteries Not Included or any of his stand-ins—locked arms in Paris to display their solidarity in the cause of freedom, we can’t help wondering what “freedom” they claim to be defending.
As they marched, the fire chief of Atlanta was being fired for his expressing his religious conviction that marriage consists of a man and a woman, period. And in the United Kingdom, home of the Magna Carta, the Conservative Party is floating a plan to ban “extremists” from expressing “hate”—“extremist” being defined as anyone opposed to Muslim Sharia Law or same-sex “marriage.” How they ever came up with a package deal that sells Sharia and homosexual “marriage” off the same shelf, go figure.
What is the Conservative Party supposed to be conserving?
We learned, this past weekend, that the U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether sodomite “marriage” is to be forced down America’s throat or not. The arc of the story seems to dictate that the Court will say, “You bet it will!” And we know from experience that the “gays” will not be content with that. Their next demand will probably be to force all the churches to perform these blasphemous shows before their altars. And even that won’t satisfy them.
What freedom are our leaders defending?
The French magazine, “Charlie Hebdo,” published cartoons mocking Mohammed, and Muslim gunmen massacred the staff. Why should that have surprised anyone?
But what are our leaders defending? If it were absolute free speech, you’d never guess it, given the Western countries’ plethora of “hate speech” laws, campus speech codes, court orders banning prayer and Christian religious displays, and “human rights” tribunals that force Christians to participate in homosexual “weddings” by baking cakes, taking pictures, or letting our their private property. They can only establish “gay” rights, or atheists’ rights, by taking away everybody else’s rights.
These are called “secular societies.” What does that mean? It looks like it means that, as far as these countries are concerned, secular non-religion is supreme. The worship of the state as all-powerful, all-wise, the worship of man and his so-called science as the ultimate authority on everything, reveals secularism not as the absence of religion, but as a peculiar type of paganism eerily similar to the ancient Romans’ state religion.
Secularism and its priesthood—the nooze media, teachers’ unions, judges and politicians, university professors, and movie stars—are in a bind. They have a powerful urge to bend over backwards to show their friendliness to Islam, while at the same time the Muslims make no secret of their own powerful urge to destroy the secular society, root and branch. If these mixed-up, conflicted secularists were governing another planet, their dilemma would be high comedy. But here on Earth it’s getting people killed.
So the secular whoopee crowd is going to defend “freedom” by promoting sexual anarchy while simultaneously importing into their countries, and empowering, and giving special favors to Islam, whose adherents have sworn to destroy the infidels. I think the secularists do this because they see in Islam a potent enemy of the Christian religion, which they hate. They are blinded by their hatred of the Living God and His Christ, of God’s word and God’s people. Christianity they see as the main obstacle to their project to transform their countries into a kind of global theme park for lazy and immoral bastards. So they encourage the Muslims to come on in and do their thing.
This cunning plan of theirs has put the non-Muslim population into a life and liberty-threatening situation. They cannot see what they have done.
For as long as the Western leaders are more afraid of Sarah Palin than they are of ISIS, we are all at risk.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.