"The Narrow Road": Blogs By Shane Kastler

Vaporizing Confederate History, Orwellian-Style

 

By Shane Kastler

ESPN, the network that was once devoted to sports but is now devoted to political-correctness, has announced that football broadcaster Robert Lee (a man of Asian descent) will not be allowed to broadcast a University of Virginia football game because he shares a name with Confederate general Robert E. Lee.  In other words, the modern-day Lee is being removed because his name sounds too “white.”  Or more specifically, his name sounds to “Southern” and white.  Or even more specifically, because his name sounds too “Confederate” and Southern and white.  It is hard to believe, we’ve come to this.

The broadcaster Robert Lee has not said anything that the politically correct mobs of America would object to.  As far as I know, he has not even THOUGHT anything that the politically correct “thought police” would object to.  What is his crime? Nothing.  Why is he being removed?  Because of his name.  That and nothing else.  His parents apparently had the audacity to name him “Robert.”  Let all “Bob Lees” in America be warned.  You might be next.  The same goes for “Tom Jacksons.”  Oh, you didn’t know?  Confederate General Stonewall Jackson’s real name was Thomas.  Incidentally, “Tom Jackson” is also the name of the recently retired ESPN broadcaster who worked with Chris Berman for so many years.  Jackson was a standout linebacker for the Denver Broncos, who went on to have a stellar career as a broadcaster.  But now, I suspect ESPN will want to alter and edit any past broadcasts in which Jackson appeared.  They may feel the need to erase history, so the PC mobs don’t get offended.  It couldn’t be true that they once had an announcer who had the name of a Confederate general!  Oh! By the way…… Did I mention that Tom Jackson is black?

The mob-mentality of ripping and erasing all things Confederate (including those things that have NOTHING to do with the Confederacy, like sports broadcasters), has gotten so ridiculous that you wonder if anyone in America is still going along with it.  Unfortunately, the answer is yes.  Many leftists in America want every shred of the Confederacy deleted from our National memory, to allow “Establishment-approved” history alone to survive.

Ironically, the recent obsession with re-writing history comes straight out of the fictitious George Orwell book, 1984.  Orwell, writing in 1948, envisioned a future day in which the government, or as he referred to it, “The Party” would have such control over the citizenry that every move, sound, and word would be monitored.  The main character in the book, Winston, worked for “The Party’s” Department of Truth.  Winston’s job was to pull old newspaper articles and alter them anytime “The Party” was proven to be wrong.  That way, anyone who dared question “The Party” or tried to check facts against history, would be thwarted.  Orwell’s creepy description sounds a lot like today. He wrote: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” And if "The Party" wanted a person to "disappear" completely, Orwell referred to it as being "vaporized."  Vast sections of American history are being "vaporized" today.

And there, my friends, you have it: “The Party is always right.”  And who is “The Party” you ask?  The Party is the establishment.  Be they Democrat or Republican.  Be they black or white.  Be they male, female, or the modern-day invention of transgender.  THE PARTY is ALWAYS RIGHT.  And don’t you peasants forget it!

So, what is wrong with re-writing history, you ask?  First, it is dishonest to do so.  Present and future students have just as much right to hear the truth of how things in the past happened; and then make their own judgments about where they stand on historical issues.  One of the major problems in all the anti-Confederate craze of today is a complete permeation of historical ignorance on the part of many people.  Including professional historians.  No honest student of history would ever say that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War.  But no honest student of history would ever point to slavery as the only, or even the primary cause either.  If you could go back in time to 1860, you would find that the truth was much more nuanced than people make it today.  Tensions broiled between the Northern and Southern states, even from colonial times.  And matters of economics, state’s rights, and taxes all fueled the fire for the eventual war (for more on this read Tom Dilorenzo’s book ‘The Real Lincoln.’)  Boiling it all down to a matter of slavery alone is historically dishonest.  But even if that were the sole cause for the war, shouldn’t today’s history students have a right to know that? 

By eliminating every vestige of Confederate history, the leftists are ultimately shooting themselves in the foot.  If the past is so bad, then shouldn’t we preserve its memory so we can learn from it? What exactly are the Orwellian masters on the political left afraid of?  Are they afraid that someone might have an independent thought that doesn’t line up with “The Party’s” ideology?  And if this is the case, then wouldn’t it be nice to discuss these differences in a society marked by free speech?  We do still have “free speech” in America, don’t we?  Not if the leftist mobs have their way.  Speech that diverges from what is considered “acceptable verbiage” is not only disallowed, but has been branded as “hate speech” in many circles.  This too is straight out of Orwell’s book, where “The Party’s” Newspeak department instructs the people on what words they can and cannot say.  The “Newspeak” department also coined new phrases that the people were required to use.  The phrase “hate speech” would fit in nicely to Orwell’s fictitious world.

Many Americans have no idea of the fire they are playing with, when they succumb to the Politically-correct mobs.  History is factual, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.  And as such, history should be preserved, not erased.  In the past, they have re-written the books to project a more PC-friendly narrative.  Last week they were tearing down statues.  Today they are forcing an Asian-American football announcer to step aside because of his name.  Tomorrow, they might just throw you down the “memory-hole” of forgetfulness and deem you as an unnecessary distraction to “The Party’s” agenda.

One final quote from Orwell: “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”  If you can re-write history, then you can control the future.  And if you are in charge of the present, then you can re-write history.  Who “controls” America today?  Mobs do.  While they claim to be fighting “Nazism” they themselves are displaying Nazi behavior.  They are silencing dissenters.  They are erasing history.  And they are trying to alter the future.  And in so doing, they are destroying America today. 

Back in 1948, when Orwell was writing 1984, most people equated his book with the Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany.  How surprised Americans from that era would be, if they found out, that Orwell’s book would come true in 21^st century America.  Robert Lee was removed today.  Look out Tom Jacksons of the world.  You might be next.

The Lukewarm Laodicean Church

By Shane Kastler

In the book of Revelation, Jesus addresses seven churches in Asia.  One of the churches, located in the city of Laodicea, has become infamous for being “The Lukewarm Church.” Here is part of what Jesus said to them, “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. Because you say, ‘I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’ and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked.” (Revelation 3: 15-17 NASB)

The residents of Laodicea knew all about the word “lukewarm.”  The city rested in the Lycus Valley and had two primary water sources.  One source, of ice-cold water, flowed from the Mountains near the city.  But by the time the cold water got to Laodicea it was “lukewarm.”  The other main water source for the city came from natural hot springs that flowed from a nearby river.  But, yet again, by the time this hot water reached the city it had cooled to the point of being “lukewarm.”  And when you take a drink of water, expecting either hot or cold, and you get “lukewarm” -- the natural reaction is to spit it back out.  This is what Jesus threatened to do to this church.

The issues of “hot” and “cold” had to do with matters of usefulness.  The Laodicean church had become useless because they did not think they had a need for Christ.  While they may have indeed been financially wealthy, their primary fault was they seemed to think they were spiritually wealthy as well.  They “had need of nothing.”  But this is never true for a Christian.  We always have a need for Christ. 

Some people erringly think that they only need Jesus to save them, then they can live the Christian life on their own.  To the contrary, Jesus said, “Apart from Me, you can do nothing.” (John 15:5) We not only need Jesus to save us, we also need Him to daily empower and guide us as we seek to follow Him in a sinful world.  The Christian who believes they have no need for Jesus, may not be “Christian” at all.

Examine your life and your heart and seek the Lord while He may be found.  Do you know Christ as Lord?  Do you love Him?  Do you follow Him daily, because of this love?  The Laodiceans were in danger of being “spit out of Jesus’s mouth” like lukewarm water.  Don’t let the same thing happen to you.

Marco Rubio (AKA "Little Castro") Says It’s OK To Beat People For Their Thoughts

By Shane Kastler

In a truly “free” society, no one gets beaten up for their political views.  Laws cannot be passed against thoughts or symbols.  And mob violence is not allowed to rule the day.  But Florida Senator Marco Rubio, like most establishment political hacks, is not interested in a free society.  He’s interested in seizing power in any way possible.  And if that means excusing and encouraging mob violence, to achieve his political ends, then so be it.  While Rubio may rail against dictators, his statements sound eerily like the late Fidel Castro, and other tyrants like him.

Rubio’s statement came in the form of a series of tweets he posted in response to the Charlottesville circus.  Here are his exact words: “When entire movement built on anger & hatred towards people different than you, it justifies & ultimately leads to violence against them.”  While the trained seals who follow hucksters like Rubio will bark their approval for his “brave words”; those who love liberty will shudder at the true ramifications of what he is saying.  But let’s begin by trying to parse who exactly he is saying it about. 

Like a good political opportunist, he speaks in vague terms.  One might surmise that his reference to an “entire movement” is a shot at Donald Trump and his supporters.  Myriads of establishment politicians have accused Trump of “anger & hatred”; yet examples of this are never forthcoming, other than disagreements over something like immigration policy.  So, is Rubio saying it’s OK to physically attack any who belong to “the movement” that elected Trump?  And if so, then is Rubio also saying it’s OK to physically attack Trump? The supposed leader of this “movement?”  The political vagaries allow Rubio to deny this, and perhaps say that he is talking about white supremacists, neo-Nazis, or the KKK.  But even if he is talking about these groups…. Is he correct in saying it’s “justifiable” to physically attack them for their views?  If so, then he is no friend to freedom in general, nor to free speech in specific.

Most Americans, including me, abhor the ideologies of white supremacy, Nazism, and the KKK.  But if a nation truly wants free speech, then even those we abhor must be allowed to speak their mind.  There is no need to pass laws protecting polite speech.  It is the very thoughts and words of those we vociferously disagree with that must be protected.  Otherwise, there is no freedom at all.  Only a rotating cycle of dictatorships, who suppress the people they conquer.  And any U.S. Senator who encourages violence against anyone for their political views is a part of the problem and not the solution.  While Rubio may rail against Castro, his views toward free speech are identical.  He may rail against Adolph Hitter, but his views on free speech are no different.

Rubio is a political hound dog, who lifts his nose to try and sniff which way the popular winds are blowing.  And then he (or one of his lackeys) issues a tweet to kiss-up to the mobs he wishes to appease.  Rubio has always been a political robot, seemingly incapable of generating a unique thought.  This was publicly displayed in that infamous, cringe-worthy presidential debate when Chris Christie tried to engage him in an actual exchange of ideas, and Rubio began sweating profusely and repeating his talking points.  Over and over and over.  The moment exposed him for the phony that he is and almost ruined his political career.  But now, he smells an opportunity to rally the mob and save his career.  His actions are truly deplorable.

Sadly, many in this country would side with Rubio and say violence and laws should be enacted to silence “hate speech.”  One of the questions this leads to is, “How do you define hate speech?”  People, with their selfish natures, typically define “hate speech” as anything uttered that they disagree with.  This leads to a person’s thoughts being criminalized.  For example, if I think or speak in favor of Christianity, then non-Christians can deem this “hate speech.”  Of course the same goes for any other viewpoint that might be expressed.  Those in power use the power of intimidation and law to silence opposition.  This is what Rubio declares “justifiable.”  And the use of baseball bats and clubs are acceptable.

As it pertains to “symbols” some say the mere presence of a Nazi flag, or a Confederate one, justifies violence.  Many have shockingly said that showing a symbol is “inciting a riot” and inviting violence against the symbol-wavers, for their views.  But this is a slippery slope that all freedom-loving people should avoid.  This past week, a man of German origin told me that he had family members killed by the Nazis.  Therefore, any violence carried out against those who wave a Nazi-flag is justified.  While I have no sympathy toward Nazis, my argument back to him was that I had Southern family members killed by men carrying the American flag during the Civil War.  Does this mean I can physically attack anyone who waves an American flag?  Politicians like Rubio would never say this, because he’s too busy wrapping himself in the flag as he tries to further his career.  But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.  If one group can physically attack another group over a symbol.  Then what stops the attacked group from reciprocating?  And using Rubio’s incendiary words as justification?

If people really want a “free country” like they claim they do, then political thoughts, speech, and symbols cannot be outlawed.  Nor can men as powerful as U.S. Senators justify violence against any group because of their views.  It’s become passé to call anyone who disagrees with you a Nazi.  In some cases, those who disagree with you truly are Nazis.  But in this case, Marco Rubio is displaying the philosophy of a Nazi.  If Rubio’s supporters truly want freedom, they will call him out for his incendiary comments.  They will stand up to him and others like him and say free speech, truly means “free speech.”  And they will look for ways to peacefully keep dictatorial men like him from seizing power.  Rubio loves to talk about how his family fled the tyranny of Castro’s Cuba to find freedom in America.  But today, Rubio’s political ambitions have caused him to revert back to the behavior that his ancestors fled.  Or maybe this has been Rubio’s mindset all along.  Evil men desire power for themselves more than they desire freedom for all.  And they will say and do whatever it takes to gain such power.  Rubio’s words expose him once again as what he truly is.  If encouraging mob violence furthers his career, then he’s all game.  Maybe instead of calling him “Little Marco” people should start calling him “Little Castro.”  A more fitting moniker could not be found.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this article reflect my own personal views and not necessarily the views of any organization to which I am affiliated.

In Response To Russell Moore’s Scripture-Twisting on Charlottesville

By Shane Kastler

Russell Moore is the president of the “Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission” (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).  The organization he leads is the political lobbying arm of the SBC.  In essence, he’s a paid political operative masquerading as a preacher.  His goals are political.  His politics are liberal.  And one of his most frequent targets is conservative Christians.  In other words, he takes a salary from the SBC and then uses a good portion of his time and resources to attack the very people who fund him.  If he had any integrity he would jettison the scam and resign his position.  But his position gives him clout in the convention and a “name” in the public sector.  His position gives him opportunities to write op-eds for the New York Times and the Washington Post.  His position gets him on TV.  His position makes him the frequent center of attention.  A place that he, like most politicians, yearns for. 

Moore’s latest hysterical screed was an op-ed written for the Washington Post entitled, “White Supremacy Angers Jesus, But Does It Anger His Church?”  (Not to be confused with his New York Times op-ed entitled "A White Church No More.")  His latest article is classic, liberal propaganda, Russell Moore-style.  He takes a minuscule segment of the white population, implies that they represent a much larger segment than they do.  And then skewers, “the church” for being racist.  And just in case you doubt him, he takes the words of Jesus out of their scriptural context, twists them for his political ends, and uses them to justify his argument.  This undoubtedly thrills his buddies in the liberal media.  A Christian leader who frequently attacks Christians is ideal fodder for the elitist press.  Slinging mud on the bride of Christ makes for good copy.

For Moore to suggest that Jesus would oppose “white supremacy” is no news flash at all.  Most white people oppose “white supremacy” and would agree with Moore’s assertion that Jesus would oppose it.  But Moore suggests, with his tantalizingly arrogant headline that “Jesus’s church” is made up of a bunch of racists.  In fact, if you check Moore’s historical record, he has accused Christians who supported Trump of being racist, sexist, and perhaps not Christian at all.  The Washington Post article is just more of the same garbage from an SBC political hack who has made a career of gaming the denominational system, and parlaying his winnings into national exposure.  He loves to attack white people, and in so doing he stokes the flames of racism and drives wedges between the body of Christ.  And rather than pointing the church to Christ and the gospel, he constantly throws confusing distractions in the way in order to divide and conquer.  His conduct is shameful.

Here’s the Biblical problem with Moore’s article.  As an example of how Jesus opposes “white supremacy” he cites the account of Jesus’s cleansing the Jerusalem Temple (see Matt. 21:12-17; Mark 11:15-18; and Luke 19:45-46).  In this well-known account, Jesus turns over the tables of the money-changers who had taken “My Father’s House” and turned into a “Robber’s Den.”  Moore asserts that Jesus was angry about racism.  This is an asinine assertion, and Moore probably knows it’s asinine.  The Biblically literate will see right through his exegetical smoke and mirrors, but the average American, indeed the average Washington Post reader, is not all that Biblically literate.  And even many of those WHO ARE will look right past Moore’s scripture-twisting because they admire him and they assume he is serving a greater good by invoking Jesus’s name to attack a group that Moore and his supporters hate.

The problem Jesus confronted in the Temple had to do with a place of holiness being turned into a place of merchandise.  We don’t have to guess what Jesus’s motive was.  Nor do we need to dream up a false motive for him, as Moore does.  Jesus TELLS us what raised his ire:  “And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.” (Matthew 21:12-13 ESV) 

When people came from faraway lands to offer sacrifices at the Temple they often chose to wait and buy the animal sacrifice itself once they got to Jerusalem.  Thus, the selling of “pigeons” or “doves” in the Temple.  In addition to this, the corrupt Temple leadership desired Roman money rather than foreign currency.  Thus, the need for the “money-changers.”  These financial sharks would trade the money for Roman currency at an exchange rate that lined their pockets and ripped off their customers.  What Jesus was confronting was an economic, market-place fiasco that had turned the Temple into a first century flea market.  Holiness was a joke.  Much as it is today.  But Russell Moore would have you believe that “racism” was the primary issue Jesus was confronting.  Furthermore, with the extraordinarily misleading headline, Moore implies that it was specifically “white supremacy” that Jesus was going up against.  As if the KKK had set up shop in the Temple and were burning crosses.  To be clear, the leaders Jesus confronted were religiously Jewish, and ethnically Middle-Eastern.  There were no Anglos present.  But this minor detail would not serve Moore’s political purpose.  His article is at best misleading and at worst blatantly dishonest.

Most Americans would agree with Moore that white supremacy is bad.  It would also be Biblically justified to say that Jesus would oppose racial discrimination as well.  But in the case of Jesus, and many Americans, the criticism of racism would not be limited to white people alone.  Black supremacy is also sinful, but Moore is forever mute on this topic.  Jewish supremacy is sinful, but Moore and many Christians, are mute on this topic.  Islamic supremacy is sinful, but Moore and most of the media, is mute on this topic.  In short, all races, ethnicities, and nations matter.  Black lives matter.  White lives matter.  And every other color in the spectrum’s lives matter.  But Moore reserves his vitriol for whites and whites alone, while saying nothing of others.  This, Jesus did not do.

One final note.  Moore correctly points out that Jesus confronted the religious hypocrites of his day.  Jesus said of the Jewish Pharisees, “This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me.” (Matt. 15:8) Hypocrites say one thing to one group, while saying or doing the opposite to another group.  Hypocrisy would be a Pharisee who preaches against adultery, while he himself is engaged in an affair.  Hypocrisy would be a Pharisee who preaches against greed, while he himself is guilty of embezzlement.  Or hypocrisy would be a Southern Baptist who takes a check from the convention, then turns around and stabs his benefactors in the back.  Hypocrisy would be to twist the words of Scripture to suit your own political goals.  Hypocrisy would be to kiss-up to the New York Times and the Washington Post by throwing your church under the bus, time and time again.  Since Moore knows the Bible so well, maybe he could show us the text that says the church should use its finances to fund political lobbying groups like the ERLC.  I don’t find the New Testament giving this as a mandate, or even an example.  Maybe it’s time that Russell Moore started attacking the church on his own time and with his own dime.  Maybe the SBC should pull the plug on his left-leaning sideshow.

Russell Moore has used his position in the SBC to stoke the flames of racism, misrepresent the views of many Christians, and insert himself into news headlines. The more extreme fringes of Charlottesville represent a very small segment of the white population. But Russell Moore seems giddy over the racial strife. It's good for his business. It’s no accident that the liberal press gives him so much ink.  They love him because he frequently attacks the Lord’s Church, and he does so while claiming the Lord’s sanction. What a travesty that the SBC funds his shenanigans.

The Intolerant Scam of Diversity

By Shane Kastler

I stopped by my local library today to see that they have a table devoted to “diversity.”  I decided to browse the books they had on display, but I noticed nothing that suggested “diversity.”  To the contrary I noticed a theme of “unity” around various left-wing, liberal crusade-type issues.  For example, the “diversity” table had 6 or 8 books praising homosexuality.  There were 4 or 5 books bemoaning racism, and 3 or 4 books on Islam.  And maybe a book or two sprinkled in on “climate change” for good measure. My, how diverse!

Let me be frank.  I have no problem with these authors writing these books to express their viewpoint.  My problem is with the library, the political system, the governmental bureaucracies, indeed much of the country that uses the word “diversity” when their support for ACTUAL diversity is non-existent.  It is the height of hypocrisy to gather a cabal of books from one ideological camp and one camp ONLY and then braggadocios and smugly announce to the world that you are showcasing “diversity.”

If they REALLY wanted to highlight diversity, then there would be one book praising homosexuality and another book pointing out the dangers of such a lifestyle.  Maybe there would be one book by a gay person talking about why they like being gay.  Right next to a book by a straight person explaining why they enjoy being straight.  Instead of numerous books on white supremacy and how racist America is, maybe they could have one book on that topic and a more “diverse” book explaining how America managed to elect a black president in 2008, while rejecting his white opponent.  And then in 2012 re-electing the same black president (regardless of his many shortcomings), once again defeating a white opponent.  That doesn’t sound like a very racist country to me.  But I’m just trying to be “diverse.”

Perhaps instead of books devoted solely to “climate change.”  They could mix in a couple of books proving that this topic is one of the biggest political scams of our time.  Remember when “climate change” used to called “global warming”?  What happened?  The hucksters pushing this crusade found out that other people were finding out that the world was actually getting COLDER in some places.  So much for global warming.  So now they call it “climate change.”  And suckers by the truckloads still fall for the “sky is falling” environmental ruse coming from the self-proclaimed experts.  Don’t get me wrong, the climate change hucksters can write their books all they want.  It’s a free country.  But if we are truly going to be “diverse” then maybe the library should promote some different views.  Because there are many of them out there.

One final thought on our library’s glorious “diversity” table.  Why is it that Islam is the only religion represented under the umbrella of “diversity”?  Obviously, as a Christian, I have a “horse in the race” (so to speak).  But wouldn’t diversity…. REAL diversity mean you would have a book on Islam, and one on Christianity, and one on Judaism, and one on Hinduism, etc?  Let’s hear the “diverse” viewpoints, rather than having only one shoved down our throat.  And of course the irony here is to use the terms “diverse” and “Isalm” in the same sentence.  Muslims aren’t too big on diversity you know.  Except for maybe liberal Muslims, who once again, are the only ones who count for the diversity zealots.

The obvious conclusion is this.  The library considers diversity to only include gays, blacks, Muslims, and environmental extremists.  That’s not diversity, that is narrow-mindedness.  That’s not diversity.  That is liberalism.  And the whole “diversity” mantra that so many in this nation have fallen for is not diversity at all.  It’s liberal indoctrination that pushes one viewpoint; and if you offer a differing opinion you will be labeled, ridiculed, black-balled, and skewered for not being “diverse” enough.  What a joke.

I think my visit to the library made some people nervous.  Perhaps it was the amount of time I stood at the “diversity” table rolling my eyes and growling.  Perhaps it was my intimidating appearance.  After all, a nicely-dressed, bearded, white man is public enemy number one in a world of “diversity.”  Maybe I scared the staff when I took my cell phone out to take a few pics.  Whatever the cause, I noticed the security guard quickly made his way over to me and stood close by.  Maybe he expected trouble.  But I wasn’t there to make trouble.  I was there to learn about diversity, but all I learned is that diversity is a sham.  True diversity would be a mixture of viewpoints.  But the liberal gestapo won’t stand for that.  To them, diversity is whatever THEY SAY diversity is.  And if you have a view that “diverses” from their definition, then you are a bigot.

It’s a free country.  Believe what you want.  Read what you want.  Write what you want.  And do what you want.  But don’t hijack a word like “diversity.”  Then re-define in the most close-minded way possible; and then browbeat the world for not being “diverse” enough.  Many people fall for this “diversity” non-sense.  But it’s not a game I’m willing to play.  It’s a scam.  It’s a sham.  And it’s a shame.  And this concludes my rant for the day.  Thank you for your time.