Is someone overdue for a laxative?

Wanna bet he didn’t use these on campaign posters? Do I see some cultural appropriation here?

Three weeks ago, openly homosexual Democratic Pennsylvania State Rep. Brian Sims harassed four women and one man outside of a Planned Parenthood in Philadelphia. Thinking himself not only clever but “holier than thou” he started filming himself on Facebook and accosted the people praying. “What we’ve got here is a bunch of protesters-a bunch of pseudo-Christian protesters who’ve been out here shaming young girls for being here. And so here’s the deal: I’ve got $100 to anybody who will identify any of these three,” he said, approaching three teenage girls. He wanted to make their identities, addresses, and perhaps even phone numbers public so they could be harassed even further. He also slandered them as “pseudo-Christians” because they value the babies killed in the clinic.

“Hi,” a protective woman said, approaching him to keep him away from the teenage girls. “So we’re actually here just praying for the babies,” she explained. Ignoring the woman, Sims kept talking to the audience on his phone. “So look, a bunch of white people standing out in front of Planned Parenthood, shaming people,” he said. Is he against white people wanting to save babies of all races? He then argued that there’s nothing Christian about praying for the souls of unborn babies or caring for those who are the least fortunate of all.

From USA Today: “Sims approaches a woman who appears to be holding a rosary and avoiding the camera. He refers to her as “today’s protester” and “an old white lady.” For more than seven minutes he proceeds to berate the woman for “shaming people for something that they have a constitutional right to do. The woman ignores Sims for about the first four minutes before telling him to “get your camera out of my face.” He exhorts, “Push back against Planned Parenthood protestors, PLEASE! They prey on young women, they use white privilege, & shame. They’re racist, classist, bigots who NEED & DESERVE our righteous opposition. Push back, please!” Sims wrote in a tweet along with the video. “What you’re doing here is disgusting. This is wrong. You have no business being out here,” he tells her. He accuses her of being engaged in “a racist act of judgment.” The anti-abortion rights group Live Action shared Sims’ second video in a tweet, calling his action “shameful.” “Bring it, Bible Bullies! You are bigots, sexists, and misogynists and I see right through your fake morals and your broken values,” Sims replied. This is how it was written up in USA Today.

As you know if you’ve read a few of my blogs, I consider myself a believer in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and also a hard truth teller. What I am about to say about Rep. Sims will appear to some people as “unchristian”. I do believe that only God knows who is His. Sims appears to be implying that he knows what it is to be Christian, which suggests that he thinks he is. Homosexuality aside, for the moment, what do his actions say? His actions indicate someone who is smug and self righteous to the point of being willing to endanger three teenage girls via “doxing”. His offer of money to anyone who will supply names and contact information about these girls is probably a criminal act in itself, and what would he do with such information? He’s recording himself on Facebook, so it’s likely he would encourage further harassment, if not endangerment, against these girls on Facebook. Or is he “just kidding”?

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – A Philadelphia politician is causing a storm of controversy and nationwide outrage after he recorded himself confronting protesters outside of a Center City Planned Parenthood facility. Now the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office and police are looking into the videos. It’s a confrontation that Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Sims may not have realized would receive so much attention.“She is an old white lady who’s going to try to avoid showing you her face,” Sims said. Sims, whose 182nd District includes Center City, berated a woman who silently prayed out front of Planned Parenthood on Locust Street, near 12th Street. “Who would have thought that an old white lady would be out in front of a Planned Parenthood telling people what is right for their bodies,” Sims said in the video. “Shame on you.” The nine-minute video uploaded to Sims’ Facebook page has been seen more than one million times. Most of the reaction on both sides of the abortion debate has been negative. It’s not the only time Sims has confronted peaceful protesters in front of the same clinic either. In a video uploaded less than a month ago, Sims asked viewers to identify four teenagers, offered up payment and even demanded to know where a man lived.”

Imprecatory Psalms vs. Jesus Christ’s love. Imprecatory Psalms were a favorite of King David, “a man after God’s heart.” Let death take my enemies by surprise; let them go down alive to the grave. Psalm 55:15. O God, break the teeth in their mouths. Psalm 58:6. May they be blotted out of the book of life and not be listed with the righteous. Psalm 69:28. May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow. Psalm 109:9. Is that unchristian? Nope. Here’s what John Piper says about them.
“There is a kind of hate for the sinner (viewed as morally corrupt and hostile to God) that may coexist with pity and even a desire for their salvation… [T]hat there comes a point of such extended, hardened, high-handed lovelessness toward God that it may be appropriate to call down anathema on it.” (John Piper).

Then there’s Jesus himself. Matthew 23:13-“But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.” If it is sometimes appropriate to curse the hardened sinner, especially if they are both a Pharisee and a hypocrite, and willing to endanger the innocent to signal their own “virtue”, Sims is deserving. On top of all that, is also an elected official using his constituents’ time and money to abuse and threaten (probable) other constituents. Is he at all repentant or ashamed? No, when confronted he doubles down on his sins with “bring it you Bible hypocrites”, showing contempt for the Bible and his public obligations. As Kevin Williamson observes in National Review, “The times being what they are, perhaps we should classify political fanaticism of the social-media performance-art variety as a kind of insanity. Political fanatics such as Sims live in the shadows between the idée fixe and outright monomania. The inferior kind — and Sims is the inferior kind — fixate on terminology as a substitute for ideas, and for them buzzwords are a necessary intellectual crutch. Hence, Sims’s shouty accusations of “white privilege” in the face of a young woman who, as she pointed out with a smile, is not white. Intersectionality — it is a bitch. What should be remarkable (but is not remarkable) about the Sims video is the superficiality and banality of his thinking. His political arguments are utterly sophomoric, e.g. demanding that the elderly lady interrupt her Rosary to tell him how many unwanted children she is clothing and feeding. The taunt is childish: No one ever asks critics of capital punishment how many murderers they’re willing to bring into their homes. The Pennsylvania state legislature is not the Olympus of politics, but even that repulsive body deserves better than this stuff.”

Is it relevant that he’s homosexual? No, but he’s obviously angry about something, possibly not getting enough of his preferred form of sex. Well Brian, try a laxative, if you get my meaning. Oh, that’s gross you say. No, it’s gay. Gay is a nice-sounding word for practices that aren’t so nice. Homosexuals love to berate heterosexuals, especially Christians, with epithets and “lack of love”, but they hate any reference to their kind of love. Sims is definitely plugged up.

Which man is the most stupid?

I saw you

I am referring to the picture, though I could just as easily be referring to politicians, media heads, Twitterers, bloggers, Facebookers, mass murderers’ and their manifestos. In fact, lots of things. When I saw this picture today on my Flipboard feed, and the text asked that question above, what I actually thought about was people who are asked for their opinion about someone or something, and simply spew it, without defining terms or context. That’s stupid. That being said, how would you answer that question?

My best friend, who is also a Bible-believing Christian, and I were discussing why so many Christians don’t apply their faith to questions of life, politics, ethics, health and to their opinions. My take was….Actually, let’s do something else first, it will make my answer clearer. The question, which man is the most stupid, has no right answer, there’s too much information missing. Minimally, you would have to know: how high above the ground is each tree limb? What is the emotional state of each man? What does each intend? What led to each being on the tree? Those elements are part of the context. The point is, whatever answer you came up with without knowing the context, and the definition of stupid, says a lot about your thought processes, or lack thereof.

Aren’t appearances deceiving? Man #4 appears to be actively working to injure or kill himself, while man #1 appears to be oblivious to the danger he is in. One of my favorite aphorisms is, “there are three kinds of people in the world: those who make things happen (#4), those watch things happen (#1) and those who don’t even know something is happening (#3).” If the branches are two feet off the ground, the definition of stupid would be different than if the branches are 20 feet up. If #4 is indeed trying to kill himself, his action is not stupid if the tree limb is 20 feet up, but is stupid if it’s only two feet up. If he is merely trying to prune the tree without injury to himself, he is indeed the most stupid. But look at his facial expression. Could he be severely depressed, rather than merely stupid?

Most people would agree that #3 is the least stupid, but the most venal. After all, he’s trying to kill or injure two people, everyone else is just a danger to himself. Ah, but what if the limb he’s sawing is only 5 feet off the ground and both guys sitting on it are personal injury attorneys? They won’t be killed, and will probably sue the crap out of him. He also has no personal liability insurance, and inherited a lot of money, and has been in a running war of words for months with those attorneys. That total context makes him the most stupid. Now we come to man #1. What could possibly excuse his degree of oblivion? We can’t see what is to the left of the end of the branch. What if something is clamped on to the end, preventing his section from falling? That’s a reach, so what if the branch is two feet up and man #2 has offered him $100 to sit on the edge of the limb so it would break off sooner, saving #2 from too much sawing?

Obviously, I could invent a number of explanations for why any of these guys is the most stupid. But there’s a bigger, more important context for this question. People love to be asked for, and then to spew their opinions on just about anything, regardless of how uninformed their opinion is. Go to YouTube to see thousands of embarrassing mock interviews, where people are asked a question prefaced by “what do you think of…..?” The first impression will be, thinking isn’t part of the equation here. When was the last time you saw the interviewee ask for context or definitions? How about never; they just spew out their opinions like verbal vomit.

Pro-life vs. Pro-choice. Which are you? Very stupid question. What questions MUST be answered before either position makes any sense? What is human life? Why is it valuable to you (or is it)? When does human life, in the sense of a being worthy of protection for his or her life, begin? How do you know, or how did you decide? What is your source of authority for your answers: your own reason, your own feelings, or something larger than and outside of yourself? For me: since source of authority for my opinions actually comes first, and determines the validity of the opinions that follow, my source is the Bible, preferably the English Standard or King James translations. Human life is decreed and created by God before even the parents exist, (Psalm 139:13 “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.”) biologically begins when a spermatozoon fertilizes an egg in the uterus (conception).

Once that’s handled, my next questions would be, if you are pro choice, what is the choice you favor, and when should the choice be made? If you are pro life, whose life is on the line, and whose life takes precedence? It amazes me that people who call themselves “pro life”, which generally means they believe that human life begins at conception, can still rationalize allowing the incipient baby to be killed in the cases of rape and incest. If God creates life, what gives any human being, who was created, the right to take life? I say that only the giver of life has the right to take it. Now you can finally ask, do you then object to capital punishment? Once again I turn to the Bible. “And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” Genesis 9:5-6

 In the New Testament, Paul makes it clear that the sentence of death, if at all, is to be decreed and carried out by the civil magistrate–the law, the courts, the system–not by individuals. But then you counter, what about someone who was wrongly accused and unjustly tried, or who is innocent? “On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.” Deuteronomy 17:6-7.

Of course, none of my points fit into Twitter, Facebook or Instagram culture, nor will the YouTube interviews feature more than rote responses, but you, dear readers, don’t have to play someone else’s game. You can ask questions too, you can demand precise definitions and context, or you can be like man #1, a passive recipient of what others offer you.