9/11:When We Were Sucker-Punched. 6/26: When The U.S. Officially Became A Dictatorship. SCOTUS Abrogates Its Authority By By-Passing Congress To Make Same-Sex Marriage Law

supreme court despots

As an artist and Christian, I can’t ignore cultural issues, especially when they directly address my religion. One can’t expect religious adherents to not respond to this Supreme Court ruling when it redefines a facet of a religion, or attempts to. Actually if you are a Christian, or a Jew, Leviticus  5 : 1  says it is a sin NOT to say something if/when you see something done that is wrong. (Check Leviticus 5:1)

(And yes, I know it says to stone people when they do this or that, and not to eat bacon, BUT you’re reading that out of context and need to research its context before using those references as support in a debate. ) 

Anyway, I find it violating that a panel of unelected judges have redefined something they never originally defined in the first place, even if it is only legislatively and in word. 

As a Christian, it is like a secular institution redefining the Eucharist (if you’re Catholic), or Sawm (if you’re Muslim, sawm is the practice of fasting during Ramadan), or what is and is not Kosher (if you’re Jewish).

A government has no place in defining what is and is not marriage since it never defined it in the first place. If one is pursuing this case to attain a certificate of marriage, my question to you is,

…do you really need a government issued certificate (that we happen to call a “Marriage Certificate”) to validate your love? 

I understand a same-sex couple wanting equal tax/financial/other economic rights as a heterosexual couple, and if that is their purpose, even if in part, then that should’ve been the fight, not redefining religious institutions.

Saying marriage is no longer a religious institution but is rather governmentally defined and is hereby and forever more defined by government is an encroachment and violation of religious liberty and in so doing our government has just abrogated its authority in this area and hereby should be ignored, resisted, and fought back against if/when they attempt to arrest those who do not abide by this unconstitutional dictate.

Likewise churches, mosques, and temples whose congregations ascribe to the origin of marriage being defined by God and not government should never, ever compromise their belief by allowing their places of worship to be used in any way that compromises the belief of their religion.

This ruling on 6/26/2015 grants same-sex couples the “right” to unite via a government issued certificate, but in the original context of marriage, the definition of marriage is sacrosanct and unalterable by mankind when it is defined by a holy and truly omniscient Being, God.  

Now if you don’t believe in God, I’m not talking to you here. You’re doing exactly what I believe you would be trying to do to religion, secularizing it, then obliterating it.

But understand I aim to defend the persecuted, religious rights, and in this case, marriage as God has ordained it, until the day I die. Keep in mind, religion has maintained its existence through the most difficult places and times in history, and in many many cases, grows under persecution.  

Our culture did not define marriage. It comes from eons ago by the first male and female man and woman united by God, and as such you should expect responses from Christians and other religious followers when culture attempts to re-orchestrate a component of said faith that predates any government. 

It hasn’t happened yet, but in light of Christian bakers, photographers, and the like, being sued for practicing their faith by not celebrating same-sex marriage via baking a wedding cake or whatever, soon churches, mosques, and temples will also be sued for not allowing same-sex marriages to be held at their facilities.

We must be ready. We must remain steadfast to God and His Word, the Holy Bible.  

By allowing and agreeing that a panel of unelected lawyers can make laws, you agree to a panel of dictators that can, and will, define many other things in the future fast coming. 

Those with their heads on their shoulders know this panel of dictators is most definitely NOT Constitutional, but knowing this and responding to it are 2 very different things. 

Some believers will cower and say,

“This decision to redefine marriage will not affect me.”

“Look, let them marry, it’ll all be okay bruh. They don’t mean any harm.”

Same-sex couples think a right has been won when in fact we have all acquiesced to a panel of unelected judges to dictate what is and is not law.

I have news for you: THAT IS CONGRESS’ JOB.

By using the guise of being in our best interest, our rights and sovereignty are all but becoming erased. Mark my words, soon churches will be sued because they restrict their facilities for member-use-only, then religious followers will be fined and jailed for saying they disagree with the lifestyle despite having a First Amendment, then it will be required to register your place of worship with the State just like Socialist and Communist countries require.

We’ve slid down the slippery slope culturally, so be ready to hear arguments for adults pleading to allow them to marry minors, people choosing to marry animals, trees, and bridge

woman marries bridge

That last one happened a couple of years ago in France, but who are we to say what is and isn’t marriage, right?

I suppose while there is relatively little recourse for sharing my mind, I’ll continue to share it at least until I get jailed for speak freely. 

If this isn’t a wake-up call for Christians and other religious followers, you’re deep sleep may be your death. Hopefully this unilateral, unconstitutional, dictatoresque violation will be a loud enough call to wake-up religious followers and exercise civil disobedience and get very acquainted with their Scriptures.

While we Christians are called to be ambassadors of God’s love, this doesn’t mean to be conforming to a cultural ethics code of relativity. The first Christians were thrown to the lions for exercising Civil Disobedience. Recently, Christians in Kenya were murdered by Muslims for exercising Civil Disobedience.  

Muslims kill Christians

We Christians in America have been fortunate to not experience intense persecution like so many throughout the world. Our persecution has been primarily nonphysical here in the U.S., but Scripture warns us it will get worse. 

gay parade 6-28

We need to love our enemies and be praying God would enable them (Jn 6) to understand His Truth, and when bullied or otherwise, respond like Friar Jonathan Morris of New York City did when he was spat on (#lovewins???) during a gay day parade, basically turning the other cheek. 


Will Globalization Eradicate Cultural Identities?

No doubt the world is increasingly becoming less homogenous and more heterogenous with globalization. While this in itself is not a bad thing, there is the law of unintended consequences to be aware of. One might say it is counting the costs. 

What are we loosing in the process of the world becoming globalized? 

Culture and ethnicity. Is that bad? Not entirely, but it’s not necessarily all good either if you think that the world having distinct races and cultures is also a good feature of our human race.

What am I saying here? Should we stop globalization? 

First, what I mean here by globalization is (in the undetermined future) a push for a one world way of life where there is the same rule of law for all places led by a one world government that conglomerates all nations into a singular one world nation.

To ask the question again, should it be stopped? Yes. And no. 

No. I don’t think we should stop allowing people to freely travel, and intermarry with other races and all that (as if it could happen anyway, nor should it as it is unethical), absolutely not.

Yes. I think globalization fully realized results in things referenced in the definition above, as well as an eradication of subcultures that contribute to our distinct human diversity. 

I am also interested in the question led to by the above,

how can cultures hold onto their cultural identities and characteristics as the world continues to become more heterogenous via globalization? 

And, is it even important for cultures to hold onto their identities and characteristics for better or worse? 

There is a strong push in the United States to make all things secular. Latest example is regarding religious people not being able to express their values and message by what they do for a living and what they make, or choose not to make, as artisans for example, such as bakers. One cannot say they are for diversity if they are against any one component of a culture like religion. If so, they are really,… religionists (my word for being a racist against those of a religion). 

If someone can sue a baker for choosing to not bake them a cake for whatever reason, it can lead to one being able to sue anyone who makes a living as an artisan or artist such as a musician or painter or sculptor, et cetera, who says they choose to not say, write a song celebrating a certain type of lifestyle such as same-sex marriage, or suing an atheist for not writing a worship song to God. (Yeah, we know the pendulum only swings one way on this matter, atheist songwriters, fear not, at least about writing worship songs.)

But the point here is, are we ready to continue down the road towards a secular world monoculture where distinct cultures composed of a myriad of religions and ethnicities contribute to true diversity? Where I live is currently very homogenous (Asia), and I am thankful for that because I am able to experience a different way of life. I am not trying to impose my way of thinking on anyone else, and nor are they trying to do that to me. But back home in the U.S., globalization is taking place and in its process cultural distinction will be lost, for better or worse.

I think for worse. 

Contemporary Art’s Sugar Daddy, The Central Intelligence Agency (aka, The CIA)

You ever wonder why some art is considered, art? I mean you know, when you walk into an art museum and you see a toilet on a pedestal that ends up selling for over $500,000, you ever wonder what in the world you’re missing?

duchamp ready made

An insightful disclosure by a former CIA officer named, Donald Jameson (if that’s his real name) might shed light onto why some things were considered high-end contemporary art, and still are today. 

Jameson shared with United Kingdom publication, The Independent, in ’95 that the CIA had established a Cold War counter propaganda program known as “Congress for Cultural Freedom” that was run by a CIA agent intended to communicate to Russia how much freer the U.S. was compared to the tight Socialist rules for their artists to follow. 

Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) had offices in 35 countries and 12 magazine publications according to The Independent, including Encounter magazine. The CCF also sponsored exhibitions that toured every major European city with funds allegedly from millionaire-backers, but I have an inkling a lot of those monies came from tax-payer contributions

Artist such as Jackson Pollock & Willem de Kooning supposedly were in ways, promoted by these funds, but with careful degrees of separation. 

pollockTateModern      dekoonig

Pollock                                                  de Kooning

I have long speculated that the art of contemporary art wings in museums such as Tate, The Guggenheim, Museum of Modern Art, were all being directed by a single agenda, and this story seems to justify this inkling. Now that a former CIA officer has volunteered this information that verifies this belief, I am also left with more questions:

If it’s “avant-garde” today, is it being financed by someone (CIA or other) with an agenda?

How is the “Who’s Who” of the art world truly defined? Is someone promoting their work for reasons other than a strong interest in it as art?

If you have gone through art school, you’ve been told half-truths at best, either knowingly or unknowingly, by the art historians who wrote the art history textbook you had to study. But if there is one thing I learned how to do in college, it was research and verify.

My feelings, inkling, that some well-known artists were merely puppets of an agenda, seems to be increasingly verified the more I speculate what’s been delivered as whole-truth, which is what lacks in “movements” like the CIA promoted avant-garde movement, Abstract Expressionism, in my humble opinion. 

But I guess there is not much to be discontent about here regarding Abstract Expressionism, I mean the CIA essentially promoted the freedom the U.S. has compared to other countries. But it still begs the inquiry,

Who is pushing certain individuals to culture’s spotlight today, and why?

Source: The Independent