In Defense Of Churches Named For Night Clubs – What’s in a Name? – The Mike Church Show

Written by on 12/15/2017

[php snippet=3]

Mandeville, LA – Truth: The Mass Hysteria That #MeToo Has Become Is A Revolution Instigated By Women – How ironic that the benefactors of the “sexual revolution” i.e. women who are no longer shackled to the institution of marriage for sex; are now rejecting all the “benefits” the revolution gained them including cheap, no strings attached sex with men they never intend to marry. Think about it: where will the liberated find men to “hook-up” with if not primarily in the workplace that they demanded entry into? In the new, #MeToo version of life, is touching a knee or exchanging a hug always the beginning of being #MeToo’d? Did the stars of “Sex And The City” think that all the casual sex they lustfully sought should begin with the sex after they had consented? Where’s the human logic in that!? Claire Berlinski has risked her career to write pretty much what I have just written and boy howdy is it good:

“There is no reliable way to know if a hug will feel sexual and domineering to a woman or whether she will find this disagreeable, let alone how she will feel about it twenty years from now. So the lesson to men is clear: Never hug women at work, period. But this is insane. The project of eradicating physical affection from the workplace is cruel to men and women alike, and if it is successful, we will all go nuts.”

This assumes that the workplace hasn’t already gone nuts. When “workplace” substitutes “vocation”, just like when “consumer” supplants “customer”, the human element has been replaced by the inorganic rote of this wicked paradigm our elite master have created for us, that we must all now seemingly live in. Thanks, gal-queda, for institutionalizing the war against the family, the mother and yes the family man. That’s the result of your sexual revolution, the carcasses of the #MeTooer’s. There’s a reason that the lewd Shades of Grey sold over 125 MILLION copies, ladies.

DeceptiCONNED: Oh But, Mr. Hall, There IS A Separation of Church And State – Mark David Hall has written an interesting piece about the Founding Fathers and their views on separation of church and state that is worthy of a look. First of all, any discussion of this matter must define the terms correctly i.e. what is the “State” and what is the “Church”. In 1789, the State was the de jure law under the constitutions of the states in the union. The Church was not the Roman Catholic one but any Protestant “denomination” that had won favor in the aforementioned state legislatures. As the Federal “State” came into existence it too had to be considered when making broad statements and there is no doubt that the Constitution was hostile to the Church having any influence on that new government. This is amply demonstrated by the clauses against religious tests for office and the idolatry of “We the People” as the new God i.e Church. Martin T. Horvat sums up the colonial ‘Murican hostility to the Catholic Church thus.

“Here I propose to dispel this myth that America was from its very beginning a country that championed freedom of religion. In fact, in the colonial period, a virulent anti-Catholicism reigned and the general hounding and harrying of Catholics was supported by legislation limiting their rights and freedom.”

Separation of Church and State is as ‘Murican as stars and stripes and no, the Founding generation did not “accidentally” enshrine it. Madison and Jefferson, it should be well known, fought for it in Virginia first (against Patrick Henry) then in the Federal beast. They won

In Defense Of Churches Named For Night Clubs (You read that right) – It must be a sign of the times when writers can find honest work publishing stories that defend the naming of “churches” by “marketing consultants” even if the name suggested sounds like a “night club”. Folkds, you just can’t make this stuff up. The author ends his “critique” of the First Relevant Church of Spa by slandering Shakespeare’s “rose by any other name”.

I’m not discouraging anyone from attending a church named “Relevant,” although I would suggest (as with all churches) that we keep both eyes on our Bibles. What I’m arguing is that churches should own their identity, no matter their denomination, creed, or confession.

How does a church “own” and “identity” and in exactly what part of “our Bibles” do we find license to call as “churches”, coffee shops, rock climbing walls and health spas that have auditoriums for Jesus bands attached and a removable pulpit? When Our Lord is asked when his Disciples – us – should pray his answer “Pray always” might be a bit of a challenge at the First Relevant barista bar. But by all means, lets not deride the lack of reverence and solemnity these places are havens for because as long as the faithful want to go to heaven, then they surely must get to go to heaven. The “narrow gate” hath been turned into an everyone except Hitler guarantee.

[php snippet=4]


Reader's opinions

Leave a Reply


Current track

Title

Artist