Slowly Moving The Anti-Christian Agenda Down The Road

On Friday, The Federalist posted an article about a recent video made by New Orleans Saints Quarterback Drew Brees.

The article reports:

Brees released a short video encouraging young people to share their faith by bringing their Bibles to school on October 3, 2019. The event is an annual celebration designed to encourage personal freedom, religious freedom, and religious pride, and is sponsored by Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian advocacy organization.

The reaction was instantaneous and intensely hostile. Sports commentator Robert Littal tweeted, “Drew Brees Created a PSA Video for an Anti-Gay Religious Cult That Believes in Conversion Therapy & Fights Against Any Anti-Discrimination Laws; Wants Kids to Bring Bible to School to Convert Other Kids.” Out Magazine, an LGBT publication, shamed Brees for associating with Focus on the Family, which they refer to as an “anti-gay extremist group.”

In 2010 Brees made a video for the It Gets Better series, which encourages LGBT youth to push through school bullying. In this video, he says, “If you’re making fun of someone because they are different, then you are no friend of mine.” He also partnered with Ellen DeGeneres to promote an anti-bullying campaign. Thus his work with Focus on the Family’s campaign, Out asserts, demonstrates a fall from grace.

Focus on the Family is not an “anti-gay extremist group.” They are a group of Christians who believe the Bible and teach from it. It seems to me that a gay community that is bringing drag queens into schools to encourage alternate life styles might not be the proper group to complain about students sharing their faith in God. Religious freedom is enshrined in our Constitution. Biblical Christianity recognizes homosexuality as a sin. It also recognizes sex out of wedlock as a sin. It does not condemn the sinner–it condemns the action and invites the sinner to repentance. The laws that Mr. Littal is accusing Focus on the Family of opposing would limit the rights of Christians. In a sense, those laws call for the discrimination of those holding Christian beliefs. Again the rights of those holding any religious belief are enshrined in our Constitution.

I am grateful for Drew Brees telling children to bring their Bible to school. If we had more Bibles in schools, we might have better discipline and less violence.

The Problem With Boycotts

Boycotts are a peaceful means of protest. If enough people get involved, they are effective. But in order to be effective, the people encouraging them need to have a fairly good read on public opinion. Focus groups before boycotting would probably be a good idea. In recent years, we have seen a number of examples of boycotts that failed because the people behind the boycott were not in tune with popular opinion.

Recently boycotts of the sponsors of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham have been attempted. All have failed. Some sponsors left the shows, but generally speaking, new sponsors appeared. A few years ago there was a boycott of Chick-fil-A because its founder supported traditional marriage. That was a massive failure. I drove for an hour to go to a Chick-fil-A during that boycott, and I am sure other people went out of their way to show their support. Anyone is free to boycott anything for any reason. However, it is interesting to me that the boycotts of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Ingraham (and Chick-fil-A) were all attempts to stifle free speech. In a sense, the boycott of In-N-Out is an attempt to intimidate people making political contributions.

As much as I want to see transparency in the money in politics, the boycott of In-N-Out is one reason why releasing the names of donors to political causes might be a really bad idea in today’s political climate. Last week there was an attempted boycott of In-N-Out  because they donated money to the California GOP. So how did that go? The American Thinker posted an article today about that boycott.

The article reports:

Ashley Reese of The Slot writes that she’s “never been more insulted by a burger” in her life. 

She should have known, she says, that this revelation was coming.  After all, she knew that In-N-Out “hid Bible scriptures on their soda cups and burger wrappers,” and that “reeks of GOP.”  But what’s perhaps most telling is that her indignation continues even though she is quite aware that the chain also donates to Democrats, including $80K “this election cycle to Californians for Jobs and a Strong Economy, a committee focused on electing business-friendly Democrats to the State Legislature.”

In-N-Out quickly addressed the “controversy” in its having donated to Republicans with the following statement: “For years, In-N-Out Burger has supported lawmakers who, regardless of political affiliation, promote policies that strengthen California and allow us to continue operating with the values of providing strong pay and great benefits for our associates.”

To a reasonable observer, that statement suggests balance, not a partisan agenda.

But, Reese whines, “that doesn’t make me feel better, you guys!”

When did Bible verses become insulting? When did Bible verses become associated with one political party? What happened to the fact that our legal system in America is based on the Ten Commandments in the Bible?

The article concludes:

This boycott will be no more successful than the Chick-fil-A boycott, I predict, likely for the same basic reason.  As Jaime Regalado, emeritus professor of political science at California State University, Los Angeles describes, “[t]he stomach overrules the mind … a cheap, good-tasting burger is hard to dismiss politically.” 

But the premise of left-wing activists for this boycott is even more radical than the boycott of Chick-fil-A, given that In-N-Out’s only crime is that it is beholden to the non-ideological goal of “providing strong pay and great benefits” for its employees and appears to seek bipartisan solutions to attain such progress legislatively.  That is, in fact, what many Americans in the political center want.   

It’s as if the universe is providing us with yet another metaphor for just how radical and intolerant the left is rapidly becoming, and how leftists would rather scream more loudly into their ideological echo chamber than appeal to anyone outside it.

I don’t want to give the Democrats any worthwhile ideas, but I think they are in need of a good focus group.

I Am Sure This Is Logical Somehow

Breitbart.com is reporting today that in Colorado a baker can refuse to bake a cake decorated with a Bible verse for Christians and face no consequences, but will face discrimination charges for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Amazing.

The article reports:

Christian activist Bill Jack has denounced a decision by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Regulatory Agencies, which found Azucar Bakery in Denver not guilty of discrimination for refusing to bake a cake adorned with Bible quotes condemning sodomy.

Last March, Jack went to Azucar Bakery and requested two cakes to be decorated with biblical messages.

“I requested two cakes, each in the shape of an open Bible. On the first cake I requested on one page, ‘God hates sin — Psalm 45:7,’ and on the facing page, ‘Homosexuality is a detestable sin — Leviticus 18:22,’” Jack said.

Jack also said:

On the second cake I requested on one page, “God loves sinners,” and on the facing page, “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us – Romans 5:8.” I also requested a decoration of two groomsmen holding hands with a cross in the background with a ghostbusters symbol over it to illustrate that such a union is unacceptable biblically.

On Good Friday, the Department of Regulatory Agencies handed down its decision that refusing such a request did not constitute discrimination.

I suppose we could debate that the Bible verse cake was offensive to the baker, but wasn’t the gay wedding cake offensive to the Christian baker? If the man requested to bake the Bible cake has the right to refuse to bake that cake, then the man who is requested to bake a cake for a gay wedding also has the right to refuse. The law either applies to everyone, or it is not a just law.

At some point people need to realize that when one person’s right is taken away, it gives the government permission to take away all of our rights.

Should Pastors Have To Turn In Their Sermons To The City?

Hot Air is reporting the following today:

Houston’s embattled equal rights ordinance took another legal turn this week when it surfaced that city attorneys, in an unusual step, subpoenaed sermons given by local pastors who oppose the law and are tied to the conservative Christian activists that have sued the city.

Opponents of the equal rights ordinance are hoping to force a repeal referendum when they get their day in court in January, claiming City Attorney David Feldman wrongly determined they had not gathered enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. City attorneys issued subpoenas last month during the case’s discovery phase, seeking, among other communications, “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.”

The article further reports:

The subpoenas for any electoral activity might be legally acceptable, since churches have a tax exemption — but that is generally a state and federal issue, not a municipal distinction. The demand to produce any comments regarding “homosexuality or gender identity” go straight to the heart of the First Amendment and on government censorship. The intent to intimidate Christian pastors into silence on these issues could not be clearer, and uses the threat of government action to back up that intimidation.

There are two issues here that I think are important. The first is that the ‘rights’ of homosexuals and other gender identity groups are usurping the First Amendment right of free speech and the free exercise of religion. The other issue here is that this ‘equal rights’ ordinance will eventually be used to declare Biblical truth as ‘hate speech’ and silence pastors preaching from the Bible in that way. In both cases, America loses.

I do not condone discrimination, but I do think everyone in the marketplace should be able to make their own decisions about who they do business with. A car dealership has the right to turn away a customer because the customer cannot afford to buy a car from that dealership. Doesn’t a business owner have a similar choice if someone is asking him to do something that violates his conscience? If a venue chooses not to be available for a homosexual wedding because the owner holds the Biblical view on homosexuality, should that vendor be asked to compromise his religious beliefs? Couldn’t the couple involved simply choose another venue? Again, I am not against homosexual rights–I just don’t want to see homosexual rights used as a vehicle to destroy the First Amendment rights of all Americans.

 

Is This Really What We Want For America?

See Update at the bottom of the page!

Today’s Daily Caller is reporting on some further consequences of being outspoken about your Christian faith.

The article reports:

First they lost their television show. Now the Benham brothers say they are losing their business.

SunTrust Banks is cutting ties with would-be reality stars David and Jason Benham after liberal activists attacked them for their conservative views on abortion and gay marriage, The Daily Caller has learned.

In a statement provided first to TheDC on Friday, the Benham brothers confirmed that SunTrust Banks has pulled all of its listed properties with the Benham brothers’ bank-owned property business, which includes several franchisees across four states.

Please follow the link above to the article to read the details of the story.

I have a few comments on this story. First of all, companies are entitled to do or not do business with anyone they choose. If a company wants to discriminate against someone because they hold a traditional view on marriage, and the board of directors of the company agrees to this decision, the company is free to make that decision. However, as an average American, I will make sure that in turn I do not support in any way businesses that take that stand. That is also my right. Second of all, if those who support gay marriage accuse those of us who don’t of being intolerant, what in the world is this? There is room for alternate views in the universe. The idea is to be fair in allowing both views to be expressed and to acknowledge that a person who believes in the Bible has the right to practice his religion and to support traditional marriage. The fact that the Benham brothers were treated this way because of their religious beliefs is chilling.

From the Daily Caller late this afternoon:

After an uproar from conservative customers, SunTrust Banks announced Friday afternoon that the decision to end its relationship with real estate entrepreneurs David and Jason Benham had been reversed.

Earlier Friday, The Daily Caller reported that SunTrust Banks had pulled all of its listed properties with the Benham brothers’ bank-owned property business.

I don’t care why SunTrust made that decision, it was the right decision to make, and I applaud them.

Enhanced by Zemanta

From The Heart

This is a post from a site called militaryspouse.com. Sometimes we forget the price the families of our military pay.

Weary Military Spouse Confessions

I am tired. I am over this thing we call “military life”.

Right off the bat I can hear the comments. “You knew what you were getting into”, “What do you have to complain about… you are not the service member”, “Suck it up, Buttercup”.

And all those comments make me want to punch a hole through the wall. This white wall that I am staring at, in a place that is supposed to feel like home because “home is where the heart is” or some other well-meaning cliché. But this doesn’t feel like home. At all.

I have been a military spouse since many reading this were in diapers. I was a spouse before 9/11… a young spouse then, new to military life and full of positivity and an eagerness to embrace this strange new world I married into. Even years after the towers fell, I was still optimistic. That first war-time deployment was hard, but my fellow military spouses saved me. We saved each other. Re-connecting with my husband was a bit challenging, but nothing we couldn’t handle. He was home alive… and that was all that mattered, right?

The first couple of PCS moves brought tears to my eyes… but the kids adjusted well and we all made new friends and it was an adventure. I was getting the hang of re-arranging our stuff to fit a new place. I knew all the tips and tricks about how to make a move go smoothly. I tried not to be too upset if something was damaged. It happens… and they are just things after all. Our immediate family was together, and that was the most important thing in the world.

I don’t know exactly when the shift happened. It kind of feels like a gradual thing… each deployment, each TDY, each PCS move, each homecoming… all chipping away at me. Wearing my skin thin. Making me more tired by the minute. And now, I just feel weary… all of the time.

I am weary of turning on the news and not seeing the numbers of dead reported… because it has just become too commonplace to be newsworthy.

I am weary of watching my children fight back tears as they say goodbye, again… and of watching them struggle to find their place in a new school.

I am weary of sending my husband away again… not knowing if this will be the time he doesn’t get so lucky.

I am weary of spending a large portion of my married life alone… even when he is “home”.

I am weary of lying in bed awake with worry at night over all of the unknowns of military life… and that doesn’t even count deployment.

I am weary of being told how lucky we are to have free health insurance and a steady paycheck… as if it were a gift.

I am weary of being away from extended family… I miss them terribly.

I am weary of making great friends and then saying goodbye… never seeing them again except on Facebook.

I am weary of witnessing the heartbreaking changes in my husband, that he won’t get help for… because he didn’t see combat after all. It wouldn’t be right.

I am weary of wondering what changes I will continue to see in my kids… who have known nothing but a life as a military child, with an active duty parent, during a time of war.

I am weary of the changes I KNOW are happening within in me… but I am too busy worrying about everyone else and just trying to get by, to ever seek help for myself.

I am weary of trying to be positive about the whole thing.

I am weary of people telling me how wonderful this life can be.

I am weary of putting on a brave face.

I am weary of not being honest about it all.

My husband only has a short time left in the military, and I am hopeful that my feelings are just indicative of how long we have been a part of this life… and that we are ready to move on to the next chapter. Am I grateful for the things that we have gained from my husband’s military service? Of course. But I am also well aware of the things we have given up. And I know that our weariness is a clear sign that it is time for his service to this great nation to come to an end.

I don’t write this for sympathy… I write it in hopes that if there are others out there feeling the same, they will feel a little less alone. I write it so that I can be honest about my feelings, an important first step in trying to get past them. Please don’t misunderstand. I am extremely proud of my husband, his service, and how our family has supported him for all of these years.

But I am weary. So weary.

And I don’t believe I am alone

Remember our military and their families in your prayers.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A&E’s Statement Regarding Duck Dynasty

A&E has decided to include all of the Robertson family in the filming of upcoming episodes of Duck Dynasty. This is an interesting decision for a number of reasons. First of all, cynics will complain that it is strictly about money. Well, it probably is–A&E is in business to make a profit. That is NOT a sin. Second of all, A&E ignored the wishes of the gay and lesbian community in making that decision. That tells me that although the gay and lesbian community is very vocal, very involved politically, and quite capable of making a lot of noise, they do not represent the vast majority of Americans. I am in full support of gay and lesbian people not being discriminated against, but I am also in full support of those who hold Biblical beliefs on the practice of homosexuality not being discriminated against. It’s a cliche` to say, “Love the sinner, hate the sin,” but that is what people who believe in the Bible need to do. I do not support laws that endorse the gay lifestyle (for instance, I support civil unions in order to allow gay couples to have access to the legal privileges they require, but I do not support gay marriage because I do not want to see Pastors in Bible-believing churches forced to perform those ceremonies). I have no problem with gay and lesbian people demanding respect, but they also need to extend that respect to those who disagree with their lifestyle.

This is the statement that A&E released (from NewsBusters):

 As a global media content company, A+E Networks’ core values are centered around creativity, inclusion and mutual respect. We believe it is a privilege for our brands to be invited into people’s home and we operate with a strong sense of integrity and deep commitment to these principals.

That is why we reacted so quickly and strongly to a recent interview with Phil Robertson. While Phil’s comments made in the interview reflect his personal views based on his own beliefs, and his own personal journey, he and his family have publicly stated they regret the “coarse language” he used and the mis-interpretation of his core beliefs based only on the article. He also made it clear he would “never incite or encourage hate.” We at A+E Networks expressed our disappointment with his statements in the article, and reiterate that they are not views we hold.

But Duck Dynasty is not a show about one man’s views. It resonates with a large audience because it is a show about family… a family that America has come to love. As you might have seen in many episodes, they come together to reflect and pray for unity, tolerance and forgiveness. These are three values that we at A+E Networks also feel strongly about.

So after discussions with the Robertson family, as well as consulting with numerous advocacy groups, A&E has decided to resume filming Duck Dynasty later this spring with the entire Robertson family.

We will also use this moment to launch a national public service campaign (PSA) promoting unity, tolerance and acceptance among all people, a message that supports our core values as a company, and the values found in Duck Dynasty. These PSAs will air across our entire portfolio.

Phil Robertson has the right (as does any other American) to voice his opinion. Whether you agree with him or not, he is entitled to his opinion. A&E as a private employer also has the right to fire him because they feel he does not represent their views. He may not represent their views, but evidently he does represent the views of many Americans. That is why he still has a job.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Should You Be Suspended From Your Job For Telling The Truth?

Not everyone believes the Bible and not everyone takes it literally, but some people believe and some people believe literally. That is as much their right as it is anyone’s right to their own beliefs. But should you be suspended from you job for telling in your own words what the Bible says?

Yesterday the Hollywood Reporter headlined their story about Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty‘s remarks:” ‘Duck Dynasty’s’ Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks.” That was followed by a smaller headline: “he news comes after the reality star compared being gay to bestiality, drawing ire from LGBT groups including GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign.” Well, that’s not exactly what he said. He didn’t compare being gay to bestiality, he simply described, in his own words, the downward spiral of sin: His remarks were not anti-gay–they were simply pro-Bible.

According to an article on the subject posted at CBN News:

When asked for his definition of sin, Robertson told GQ, “start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there,” he said. “Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

Why did GQ ask Robertson for his definition of sin? What did they expect to hear?

Later in the GQ article Robertson further explained:

Quoting a passage from Corinthians, he said, “‘Don’t be deceived. Neither adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God.  Don’t deceive yourself.  It’s not right.'”

Again, isn’t his right of free speech as good as everyone else’s? The LGBT groups that are screaming about this need to realize that their gripe is not with Phil Robertson–it is with the book he is quoting. However, the LGBT groups will be more successful at their fundraising and political activities if they go after Phil Robertson than the Bible and they are well aware of that.

There are forces of good and evil in the world. Did we really believe that a television show that preaches God and His saving grace every week and prays on television would not be attacked in some way by organizations that choose not to believe in the Bible?

Enhanced by Zemanta

About That First Amendment Thing…

On June 25th, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that Brian Johnson, an evangelical Christian, would be allowed to hand out Bibles on Sunday at the annual Twin Cities Pride Festival.

The article reported:

Festival organizers’ attempts to ban Johnson from the park had resulted in a Minneapolis Park Board plan to restrict his Bible distribution to a booth on the edge of the festival. Two weeks ago, his request for an injunction against that ban was denied by a U.S. District Court judge.

But Johnson’s attorneys immediately filed an emergency appeal, saying the Park Board’s plan violated his constitutional right to free speech in a public place. They asked for a quick decision, one in time for the upcoming Pride Festival.

This is clearly a free speech issue. The festival is held on public property and is open to the public. Regardless of whether or not you agree with what Mr. Johnson stands for, he does have the same First Amendment rights as the rest of us. I am grateful for the lawyers willing to defend the First Amendment rights of all Americans.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Losing Our Focus In The Koran Burning Case

CNS News posted an article today stating that Jan Kubis, head of the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and secretary-general Ban Ki-moon’s special representative in Afghanistan, has said that the U. S. troops who accidentally burned the Koran should be disciplined. Note that the Koran was accidentally burned.

As Andrew McCarthy pointed out on February 25 (rightwinggranny.com):

The facts are that the Korans were seized at a jail because jihadists imprisoned there were using them not for prayer but to communicate incendiary messages. The soldiers dispatched to burn refuse from the jail were not the officials who had seized the books, had no idea they were burning Korans, and tried desperately to retrieve the books when the situation was brought to their attention.

This is a false issue. Where are the Muslim apologies when they burn Bibles (which they routinely do in Muslim-ruled countries)? To punish these soldiers would be to put Sharia Law above the U. S. Constitution, which they are sworn to defend. Is that really what we want to do?

The article at CNS News points out:

“It was natural that after such a grave mistake we saw expressions on the side of the people of Afghanistan, how they reject this desecration of holy Qur’an,” Kubis said. “We were very glad to notice that the majority of the demonstrations – and they are legitimate and expressions of rejection of this desecration – were peaceful.”

He also criticized the deadly violence, which he said was provoked by “irresponsible elements,” but made no call for the perpetrators to be brought to trial.

So, let me understand this, the soldiers who accidentally burned the Korans that the Muslims had defaced should be punished, but the Afghans who murdered people in cold blood should not be punished? Seems a little one way to me.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Susan G. Komen Foundation Has Announced That It Has Severed Its Partnership With Some Planned Parenthood Affiliates

CBN News reported today that the Susan G. Komen Charity has severed its partnership with some Planned Parenthood affiliates. Congress is currently investigating Planned Parenthood to see if it improperly used public money for abortions.

The article reports:

In December, the Southern Baptist Convention’s publishing division recalled pink Bibles it had sold to benefit the charity.

Pro-life groups welcomed the news. the Alliance Defense Fund praised Komen “for seeing the contradiction between its lifesaving work and its relationship with an abortionist that has ended millions of lives.”

Last year, the Komen Foundation gave around $680,000 and in 2010, $580,000 to at least 19 Planned Parenthood clinics.

Planned Parenthood has claimed that it does mammograms and other cancer screening; but, as I reported in March of last year (rightwinggranny.com), there is some genuine question as to whether or not they actually provide those services.

As previously reported, when a women seeking to make an appointment for a mammogram called her local Planned Parenthood clinic, she was told that the clinic did not provide that service:

“In fact, one center told the caller that “we don’t deal with the health side of it so much.  We’re mostly a surgical center”:”

If Planned Parenthood actually provided mammograms, it would be reasonable for a charity fighting breast cancer to support them. Since Planned Parenthood seems to be totally focused on performing abortions (which unfortunately has become a major industry in this country), it makes sense that the Komen charity would sever their ties with Planned Parenthood.

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Unintended Consequence Of Raising Taxes

I think most of us would agree that the U. S. Tax Code has gotten a little bit out of hand. In 2005, the Tax Code was more than 9,097,000 words (according to a website called freedomworks the Bible contains 774,746 words). How did we get here?

The Tax Code is a tribute to the power of lobbying. Some of the intricacies have valid purposes–the mortgage interest deduction encourages home ownership, a stabilizing force in our society). Some of the intricacies have negative impacts on the values of our society–the marriage penalty for example. The Tax Code is a monstrosity that requires a professional to sort through for many Americans. Our current Tax Code written down weighs more than most toddlers!

Yesterday Big Government posted an article about an academic study showing that as tax rates were raised, tax evasion increases. They spent money to figure that out?

The article reports:

 Macroeconomic and microeconomic modeling studies based on data for several countries suggest that the major driving forces behind the size and growth of the shadow economy are an increasing burden of tax and social security payments… The bigger the difference between the total cost of labor in the official economy and the after-tax earnings from work, the greater the incentive for employers and employees to avoid this difference and participate in the shadow economy. …Several studies have found strong evidence that the tax regime influences the shadow economy.

The article also states:

Indeed, it’s worth noting that international studies find that the jurisdictions with the highest rates of tax compliance are the ones with reasonable tax systems, such as Hong Kong, Switzerland, and Singapore.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. This is an obvious truth, but changing the Tax Code in America would result in something of a loss of power to those in Congress. Somehow, I don’t think that will happen until we change Congress, and even then I am not sure we have the leadership to do what is right.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Exactly What Did Jesus Stand For ?

The Archbishop of Canterbury has stated that Jesus would be part of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. That is an amazing statement to me.

Poverty is not anything new, nor is it the responsibility of or the result of the policies of either political party.

Jesus said:

The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want.  Mark 14:7

The Apostle Paul said:

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” 2 Thessalonians 3:10

Please understand–I am not opposed to charity, but when the government took over the role of the church in the area of charity, things went downhill fast. The welfare system in America and Britain supports a bureaucracy that has no incentive to remove people from welfare roles–in fact their jobs depend on people staying on welfare. The Bible teaches personal responsibility–it does not teach taking out a loan (creating a personal obligation) and then expecting someone else to pay for it. It teaches:

Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.  Galatians 6:9

That applies to spiritual things as well as practical things. Had Jesus encountered the OWS crowd, he would have told them to respect other people’s property, live up to their obligations, and work if they were able. Jesus loved all people. He preached personal responsibility and charity. I don’t think the OWS movement represents either one of those traits.

Enhanced by Zemanta