Commentaries, Global Warming, Opinions   Cover   •   Commentary   •   Books & Reviews   •   Climate Change   •   Site Links   •   Feedback
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32
WEBCommentary Contributor
Author:  Frederick Meekins
Bio: Frederick Meekins
Date:  August 16, 2015
Print article - Printer friendly version

Email article link to friend(s) - Email a link to this article to friends

Facebook - Facebook

Topic category:  Other/General

Headline Potpourri #77

If Megyn Kelly is so outraged over something Donald Trump said about women on his network television program, why does she work for Rupert Murdoch who has allowed media companies under his corporate oversight to produce some bawdy and demeaning entertainment regarding women over the years and decades? For the longest time, Married With Children was Fox Entertainment's signature program.

Regarding these women that Trump is accused of referring to as pigs and dogs, perhaps shouldn't we be told who they are before passing judgment as to the propriety of his remarks?

Filling in for Chris Plant, Steve Malzberg remarked that, because of his debate performance, Rand Paul will only appeal to Rand Paul fanatics. But what about the impression exuded by Chris Christie that would flippantly abandon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? How is it fanatically to point out that certain figures have their hands in both parties or that they are come-latelys to issues a number of the candidates have been fighting against for decades?

It is a valid question. If Donald Trump has run a number of companies into bankruptcy, why should the American voter be more confident in allowing this billionaire to administer the nation's tottering finances?

Too bad elitist culture is not as outraged over the barrage of commercials that constantly push feminine hygiene products (as well as male erectile dysfunction cures while we are at it) in viewers faces as it is over Donald Trump's allusion to feminine hygiene.

Of those sick and tired of Donald Trump constantly harping political correctness when someone dares ask him something that he doesn't like, maybe you now know how the rest of us feel about the excuse and threat of racism beating us over the head all day long.

The power elite are intertwined at the highest levels to the point that the boundaries between government, finance, and media are virtually indistinguishable. That reality makes one wonder if Trump is being opposed not because of the increasingly outrageous things to come out of his mouth but rather for exposing a number of the attitudes that may be allowed to slide by among the social engineering class if you have gobs of money to gloss over your appallingly gruff edges. Just think. Donald Trump at this point can merely shock. Many of the others in the circles he already runs in hold the power to destroy lives.

Too bad the culture is not as outraged over Donald Trump's disregard for private property as his remarks over immigrant vagrants and the female reproductive tract. One would think Donald Trump ought to be considered the perfect candidate. Self-absorption equaling Obama's and a proclivity towards debauchery matching Bill Clinton's.

In regards to Donald Trump. There hasn't been a presidential candidate to drone on about themselves using first person pronouns since, well, President Obama. At least Bob Dole had the decency to refer to himself by his own full name.

Perhaps Trump would be better suited as a shock jock in the tradition of Don Imus rather than in elected office.

Perhaps Rand Paul will muster himself to seize the mantle of blunt spoken populism from Donald Trump.

The concern regarding Chris Christie is to what extent will he invoke September 11th to cover over an appalling variety of Constitutional deprivations.

Donald Trump reminds of George Wallace. There is a great deal of truth to what he says. But upon further reflection, you are probably better off settling for another candidate.

The Justice Department is considering a policy that might place those accused of supporting ISIS in therapy rather than criminal detention. Opponents insist aspiring terrorists deserve harsher punishment. However, this should also raise concerns as it might lower the threshold for taking into custody critics of the Obama regime motivated by what secularist progressives would categorize as extremist political or religious ideologies.

Chuck Schumer is celebrated in his opposition to the Iranian Nuclear Deal as "the most prominent Jewish voice in the Senate". Does the media gush as excitedly when a legislator takes a strong conservative position based upon their Evangelicalism or Catholicism?

On Fox and Friends, Father Jonathan Morris criticized Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson for suggesting that America's tax system ought to be based on a flat tax system inspired by the Biblical notion of the tithe. It was the priest's contention that one should not base governmental policies and laws directly upon Biblical passages. Then on what grounds as a Catholic does he then advocate pro-life activism or even the pandering to immigrants that is beginning to take root in denominations both Protestant and Catholic? If the Bible is to provide little guidance in the sphere of government and society, should the state decide to tax religious property, will this cleric rank among the foremost in applauding such a fiscal decision?

A good laugh is being had that no one has ordered a sandwich full of bologna called “The Trump” at a Washington Area diner. But if someone had money to blow on a restaurant lunch, why would someone waste funds on something as blah and mundane as bologna? At McDonald's, there is a special of double cheeseburger and fries for $2.50. At Burger King, you can often get two chicken sandwiches for $5.00. Both of those meals are better than bologna and probably cheaper than a lunch at a greasy spoon where they will probably toss a fit if you don't leave a tip.

Regarding the chorus “Sweet, Sweet Spirit”, how does one know that the sweet expressions on each face are from the presence of the Lord? If the Devil masquerades as an angel of light, what proof do we have that the expression on someone's face isn't demoniacally inspired? Maybe they are holding back a chuckle at a dirty joke that they have recalled. Even more importantly, isn't it dangerous to judge an individual's spiritual state on such a cosmetic basis? What if the person had a scowl because their hemorrhoids were acting up? Shouldn't you just be glad that the person showed up rather than give them guff about their countenance appearing insufficiently Christian?

Praying for someone's physical needs is better than not praying for someone at all. If a congregation is going to be chastised for praying primarily for physical needs, isn't that edging dangerously close to gnosticism? In whether to pray for the physical or the spiritual, does a homiletical dichotomy of one or the other need to be imposed? Can't one pray for the physical along with spiritual empowerment. It's a safe assumption that the pulpiteer poo-pooing physical ailments on a given Sunday likely isn't experiencing any or is secretly as high as a kite.

In a sermon condemning the exaltation of the individual over the group, a pastor lamented the explosion of consumer choice that catered to the satisfaction of particular needs. Would ministers arguing along such lines prefer command economies where bureaucrats instead don't meet any needs at all? In the study of such societies, one notices that such regimes aren't all that big on religious liberty either.

In a sermon, a pastor went on to condemn individualism. Instead, the minister extolled the virtue of conformity. Given that the church the minister belonged to traces its heritage back to the Anabaptist movement, will the pastor endorse the principle that led to the persecution of his spiritual forefathers that the inhabitants of a particular region should all belong to the spiritual confession decided upon by the governing authorities?

An Anglican minister suggested that the success of a church can be measured by comparing the number that attend the worship service with the number participating in small groups. Small groups can be a wonderful ecclesiastical supplement if the topics addressed are of interest to an individual. You might be able to make the case that the individual is compelled by Scripture to attend worship service. However, there really isn't anything demanding a believer attend a small group if there are none that interest a person. Some just aren't inspired by the prospect of going to the dwellings of people that they barely know for no purpose other than spilling one's guts to the group in self-denunciation like in a prisoner of war camp.

On “The Kelly File”, Dana Parino suggested that Republican presidential candidates should meet with the Black Lives Matter movement. While she is at it, will she also counsel consultations with the Ku Klux Klan or the Aryan Nation?

In sharing his experience regarding a mission's trip to Kenya, a Nazarene pastor badmouthed the quality of fruit available in the United States compared to that available in a tropical nation. I think I'd rather have reliable electricity and indoor plumbing.

If Cuba is good enough to establish diplomatic relations with, shouldn't it be considered good enough for tourists to visit?

Given the number of steps involved, is it really all that much of a putdown that someone had to study all night for a urine test?

A meme with text attributed to Jonathan Edwards reads in part, “If you can preach Hell and the final judgment without lifting your voice and without pleading, you sir, do not believe in Hell.” If we are obligated to profess a predestinarian soteriology so thoroughgoing that there is no room for individual choice in the matter of salvation if we do not want our names smeared as heretics unworthy of basic constitutional rights in the form of the New World Order advocated by certain Calvinist sectarians, what does it matter if we mention Hell with either considerable theatrics or more so in detached blase passing? Not a single individual will end up in a region of the Afterlife other than the one in which he was preselected to be. One does not plead with an individual unless there is the possibility of the individual changing his mind.

The Shriners have banned the Confederate Battle Flag as offensive. Will related Luciferian secret societies also ban their homoerotic initiation rituals as offensive? Some researchers insist that the distinctive headgear of the Shriners known as a fez originates from Muslims dipping their cranial coverings in Christian blood. If nothing else, the fez is brimless so as to facilitate Islamic prayers. Should the secret society ban this form of haberdashery as well?

By Frederick Meekins

Frederick Meekins
Issachar Bible Church & Apologetics Research Institute

Send email feedback to Frederick Meekins

Biography - Frederick Meekins

Frederick Meekins is an independent theologian and social critic. Frederick holds a BS in Political Science/History, a MA in Apologetics/Christian Philosophy from Trinity Theological Seminary, and a PhD. in Christian Apologetics from Newburgh Theological Seminary.

Read other commentaries by Frederick Meekins.

Visit Frederick Meekins's website at Issachar Bible Church & Apologetics Research Institute

Copyright © 2015 by Frederick Meekins
All Rights Reserved.

[ Back ]

© 2004-2021 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved