All posts in “Politics & Issues”

The Land of the Lost Story (documentary)

My brilliant filmmaker friend Anna made a documentary in 1999 in an attempt to find the truth about what’s really going on in the US, and where we’re heading.

When she first got online in the 90’s, she realized that the information coming from the pro-government media was like night and day compared to what was coming from the independent press.

Who’s lying and who’s telling the truth?

In The Land of the Lost Story, Anna interviews a number of very interesting people, including Chuck Missler, Dr. Hugh Ross, Texe Marrs and an exclusive, never before seen interview with the late William Cooper. Yes, THAT William Cooper, the one who wrote the underground best-selling conspiracy book, Behold A Pale Horse. (A book that opened my eyes and changed my outlook completely.)

Some of the topics covered are: Area 51, the school shooting in Columbine, the Waco Massacre, the concentration of the media ownership, gun control and aliens!

I first met Anna in LA, when a group of us from an internet discussion forum went to a taping of the TV show Politically Incorrect, with Bill Maher.

Also, back in ’99, I helped Anna a bit as a production assistant during the post-production of this doc.

This film ended up getting shelved, then sort of lost, for many years.

But now, 15 years later, Anna re-cut it and put it out on the internet, in a shorter version. Amazingly, it’s still timely…and as she put it, “it is a story and a message that is perhaps even more relevant today.” So without further ado, please make yourself some popcorn, get a drink, sit back and watch the film!

(Note: the image quality is not good, because this was re-cut from a VHS tape. Don’t ask me why, take it up with Anna!)

A PSA for Political Partisans

A quick little video I put together for political partisans, or anyone who is stuck in the “Democrat vs Republican” or left vs right false dichotomy. It’s time to stop being manipulated by the powers-that-be who want us to be divided and always bickering with each other. Why do they want us divided? So we don’t turn our eyes on them and realize that they are destroying the constitution, our freedom, rights and national sovereignty.

If anyone disagrees, feel free to share your thoughts.

Also, if you like my videos, please take the time to subscribe to my YouTube Channel. I am going to be posting more videos, on a more regular basis, so subscribing is the best way to stay tuned!

Thanks so much!

Why the Political Label “Progressive” is Oh So Ironic

T
here’s a reason why I almost always put the political term “progressive” in quotes. I find the term highly ironic, for a reason that I think most progressives probably haven’t thought through.

What am I talking about? I’ll explain, but first I want to say that I’m not writing this to be divisive. I honestly dislike the “us against them” mentality that is all too common in political discussions. I try to find common ground with people who have differing political beliefs, and I try to be civil and respectful. So my intention is not to make anyone angry, but to provoke thought and discussion.

So here we go, why the term “progressive” is ironic.

Let’s talk about morality

Most progressives do not believe in moral absolutes, or an objective, transcendent moral standard. The exception might be Christians who identify as progressive. In general, though, leftists and “progressives” tend to view morality as subjective, or relative. If I am way off base on that, please correct me. In all the years that I’ve discussed politics and religion online, the overwhelming majority of “progressives” I’ve encountered reject moral absolutes and think of morality as subjective or relative.

What does that have to do with the word progressive? I’ll get there. Bear with me.

If there is no objective, external (as opposed to man-made) moral standard, then ultimately, there is no one true morality. No one set of morals can be better than any other, because there is nothing true, fixed, and unchanging to measure everything else against. If morality is subjective, then all we have are personal opinions, and no one opinion can be better or more “true” than any other.

In fact, when you really boil this down, without a true, transcendent standard, the morality of Jeffrey Dahmer is not worse than the morality of someone like Ghandi or Mother Theresa. If morality is subjective, then a truly better set of morals does not exist. Period.

Even values do not really exist, if there is no true moral standard. The words good, evil, just, unjust, fair, unfair – all of those concepts become meaningless, if there is no true morality.

Ok now, what about the word progressive?

The word “progressive” means favoring or advocating progress, improvement, or reform. Obviously people want to progress toward something better, or more just, they don’t want change just for the sake of change.

But what is the basis for determining what is “better” or more just, when morality is subjective or relative? You can’t improve something, unless there is a true and fixed standard or measure to move closer to. So the idea of “progress” collapses, in a worldview that rejects moral absolutes.

“Progress” becomes “whatever we personally like” or “our opinion on what is better” instead of a true move in the right direction.

You can’t have genuine progress, without something fixed and true to measure it by.

Most conservatives do believe in objective morality, or at least a bigger percentage of conservatives, in comparison to “progressives.” So paradoxically, the only people who can be truly progressive are those who believe in the traditional idea that morality is objective. True reformers throughout history have been people who understood that Natural Law, or God’s Law actually does exist – people like Martin Luther King Jr, as you can read about in his famous Letters from a Birmingham Jail.

What are your thoughts on this? If you identify as a “progressive” I’d like to hear what you have to say. And I want to end this with one of my favorite quotes, that just happens to be on the topic of progress.

“We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.”
C. S. Lewis

 

photo credit: Skakerman via photopin cc

Animal Ethics Part 1 – The Animal Loving Meat Eater

Animal Ethics Part 1 – The Animal Loving Meat Eater?

I adore animals. I’ve always loved animals, for as long as I can remember. I absolutely hate animal abuse or cruelty, it makes me sick and it breaks my heart. I can’t even look at photos or video of animals who were injured due to abuse.  But I’m a meat eater. I eat meat on a regular basis, and for me it’s truly hard to imagine not eating meat. So when I hear about animals being treated inhumanely on their way to the slaughterhouse in order end up as my dinner, I question my position. I know for a fact that I couldn’t kill an animal in order to have it for food. So am I being morally inconsistent for eating meat? Like most people who don’t live on a farm, I can eat meat because it’s so easy to compartmentalize – we never see or think about the process that took place before it got to our plate.

What do you think? Am I sounding like a bleeding-heart liberal? Or do you agree that there’s an incongruity in loving animals, opposing the mistreatment of animals, yet eating meat (without knowing where it came from)?

I titled this Part 1 because there were a few different issues I wanted to talk about within the topic of animal ethics.  Stay tuned for Part 2.

Monarchies? Part 2 – An Interview with Geoff Sadler

A few days ago, I asked the question, “Why do Monarchies Still Exist?” and got a very interesting response from my English friend, Geoff. Since not everyone read those comments, I felt that the topic needed a follow-up post, so I decided to do that in the form of an interview.

Lily: Hi Geoff, can you tell the readers a little bit about yourself?

Geoff: I’m originally from the U.K and have been a Christian for about 25 years. I’m an author and have written a book called “The Amazing Grace Tour” about a reconciliation journey that I did.

Lily: Awesome, thanks! Ok, let’s start from the beginning, for people who didn’t read that previous post. Why do you believe monarchies still exist? In countries where kings or queens are mere figureheads, what is the point of continuing an institution that many people feel is antiquated at best…. or elitist and unjust at worst?

Geoff: I can’t really speak for other countries as I’ve never really studied their Monarchies in depth, but in Britain it is still very much a part of the Government. As well as being head of the Church of England, she is also Head of State, not only of the UK, but also Canada, Australia, New Zealand and some smaller Commonwealth countries, and so instead of the Prime Minister having to attend and entertain foreign dignitaries, or the President in your country, she does.  This frees up the Prime Minister and is a good thing I think, in that sense. She also still has the power to veto an elected official, although she has never done so.

queen-arrives-5_1897745bLily: Ah, ok, that’s pretty much what I thought. Her duties are mostly diplomatic, but that is a job. In fact, it’s not too different than our spokespersons presidents here in the US, if you ask me, but that’s another topic entirely! I do find it very interesting that she’s the head of the church of England. That brings up all sorts of other questions. But let’s get back to the main question here.

So, monarchies do serve a purpose, but for some reason, the existence of monarchies in this day and age still doesn’t sit right with me. We already have ambassadors, why not abandon monarchies if (at least in England) their main role is something that can be filled by others – people who actually apply for the job and are selected based on their merits, not their bloodline?

Geoff: Because England was meant to be a “Christian nation” and so its whole set up on earth is meant to mirror the Kingdom of God, i.e. a King and not someone who is elected as such based on merit. God wasn’t elected as God and we as Christians aren’t elected as sons, co-heirs etc. based on our merit, it’s based on bloodline. Jesus’ bloodline.

The beauty of it is, it’s all free and anyone can receive it as a free gift. Indeed, it’s why we were created in the first place. If the fall of man hadn’t happened, we would all be Royalty and are again when redeemed through Christ. The Bible teaches that we are “A Royal Priesthood” etc. So it is true that we are all created equal, but it’s so much more than that. If the highest thing you can hope for is to become President some day, then that’s pretty sad. So basically, Monarchies give a picture of the way things are in heaven more than a secular Government does I think.

Lily: Wow! Let’s back up here a bit. For the people who didn’t read the previous post, you’re saying that the monarchy in England is a representation of God’s kingdom – in the sense that we don’t become royals based on merit, but solely on what family we belong to. Right?

Geoff: Yes, we become Christians when we receive it by faith as a free gift and we inherit a Kingdom because of this. If the fall hadn’t happened in the first place, we would have been living in our inheritance already.

Lily: Yes, I fully agree, of course. But for those who might be scratching their heads out there, about how this relates to the earthly monarchies… you believe that we shouldn’t abolish earthly monarchies because they serve as a representation of the true kingdom. When you brought that up on the previous post, I thought that was fascinating. But I did have a couple objections. One of them is, are earthly monarchies doing a good job in serving as a physical representation of the true kingdom? I don’t think so.

Also, unlike God’s kingdom, you can’t be adopted into the “royal family”, you either won the genetic lottery, or you didn’t. So how does that fact go along with your view that earthly kingdoms serve as symbols for God’s kingdom?

Geoff: I think the present monarchy has done a good job, not a perfect one but a good one. Ones in previously years certainly haven’t but that goes for lot of leaders, whether they were monarch or not. You can’t be adopted into the Royal Family no, but that’s not the point. I think they’re there as a symbol that represents Christ’s kingdom. I know what you’re saying and as I said recently, I grew up thinking that they were a waste of time and money. Remember that we still also have a secular Government too and anyone can become Prime Minister. We are just as secular as any other country in that sense, but when you see state ceremonies in England, it’s all centered around God and The Bible. Look at the last Royal wedding. World leaders from all over the globe were there sitting in a cathedral, watching something that was a representation of a wedding that will take place in heaven between Jesus and His bride. Where else would that happen?

Lily: I see what you’re saying, and it is true that – at least on the surface, and in theory – England is a “Christian nation.” But that doesn’t actually make it so. I can bring up lots of examples, but then we’d be opening up a whole new can of worms. I don’t think the U.S is either, although there are many Christians in the US, at least cultural Christians.

Maybe I’m being too critical here, but I just feel that if something is supposed to be representing God, then that thing – or person – needs to actually represent God in a true, compelling way, or not at all. There are many times when I don’t feel worthy to call myself a Christian, because I don’t want to mislead others who look to me as a representative of Christ. I disagree with England’s foreign policy (as well our current US foreign policy) and with many things about their government. I also don’t like how the royal family treated Princess Diana, who I liked a lot. I’m sorry, but I’m just not a fan of the royal family. But I digress.

Anyway, thank you so much for sharing your thoughts on this. I would really love to hear from other people… and it would be especially interesting to hear from some atheists or non-christians. Is there anything else you want to add for now?

Geoff: This adds to the the last point. I think it was deliberate that they set things up like that, so that people could always be reminded of heavenly rather than earthly things.

Now to your final point. You’re probably right and I think that’s what the head of the church of England’s job is more. In reality, they are all human beings and so are imperfect at the end of the day. Prince William seems like a decent humble chap though (son of Di). I think they did treat Diana badly, but then again I wasn’t there and the staid, snobbish part of being English is not something I subscribe to at all.

I guess the one thing I would add is this. Imagine if England didn’t have this representation of Christianity at the heart of its foundation. It’s secular and socialist enough as it is. At least as Christians, we have this to call people back to and explain about God’s kingdom because of it. That in itself is value enough in my view.

Lily: That is true, it is definitely a good conversation starter, and a way to bring up the Gospel and explain what you just said – that human kings are imperfect, but God isn’t.

Thank you so much for talking about this! I really like hearing your point of view on this, and you have caused me to look at the monarchy in a whole different way now. I appreciate your insight!