Tag Archives: Immorality

Give Us Barack-Us

ecce-homo2Immorality has a way of justifying itself through consensus. If the greater majority doesn’t have a problem with something, somehow those who do are censured. Morality is presently being defined as being open to reasonable discussion, regardless of its impact on decency or culture.

In antiquity a similar dynamic existed. Thousands of years ago moral verdicts were swayed by the cry of the multitude. Imagine, the people who Jesus ministered to in healing, even those who claimed He was their Messiah were amongst the rabble demanding Pilate release Zealot Barabbas in place of the Christ. Somehow it seems unconscionable a notorious prisoner, thief and fiend would be preferred over a righteous, honest man…but he was!

Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor.   Barabbas, they answered. What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?” Pilate asked.  They all answered, “Crucify him!” Matthew 27: 21-23.

In that situation, it appeared as if consensus decided who lived and who died ultimately justifying the outcome. As the ancient crowd dispersed, even those within the throng whose conscience sensed the injustice of the choice, quelled their nagging unrest by reassuring themselves with mob accord. So it is today rejecting the honorable choice and choosing instead the popular Barabbas.

Notre Dame University invited President Barack Obama to be the commencement speaker at their 2009 graduation ceremony. Social consensus sanctioned their selection. Based on canonical teachings of the Roman Catholic Church this institution purports to support the sanctity of life and tenets, which adhere to upholding the preservation of life from conception until natural death. Yet, when given a choice between Barabbas and Jesus, the crowd of Catholic graduates,their captivated clergy and enamored administration chose one who supports the antithesis of Christian teaching, placing him in a seat of honor on a dais high and lifted up before a devoted horde determined to defend their own Barabbas.

Human beings by nature are proficient at finding a way to assuage the guilt of poor moral decisions. This was evident in the University President, Rev. John Jenkins’s introductory statements, elevating civil discussion and common ground as values that somehow take precedence over the condemnation of butchery. The right Reverend Jenkins extolled courtesy, respect and love but failed to explain how these values cancel out murder. He forfeited an opportunity to mention the finality of death and how it differs from disrespect in its opportunity to reverse past offenses. By choosing to credit the approbation of iniquity over the greatest of good, “Give us Barabbas” became Notre Dame’s graduation day anthem.

Barack Obama is the most radically, liberal abortion rights advocate to ever grace the political stage. Regardless, he was asked to address the graduating class and was slated to receive an honorary Notre Dame Law degree. A university under the auspices of a Church opposed to a law, which has cost the lives of untold millions of unborn children, presented a politician who promotes those unjust laws an honorary law degree. By placing a blood soaked stole around his neck Notre Dame issued the corporate cry, “Give us Barabbas!”

Reverend Jenkins lauded pro-abortionist Obama’s gallantry in an effort to remediate his reputation in the eyes of protesters, confused and disappointed Catholics and critics. Jenkins attempted to balance the scale that holds the remains of a fetus on one side with the weight of admirable characteristics on the other. Failing to recognize Obama’s unending attempt to sway opinion to the left, Jenkins assigned moral merit and bravery to Obama’s acceptance to come to Notre Dame and give the commencement speech saying, Others might have avoided this venue for that reason. But President Obama is not someone who stops talking to those who differ with him.” Extending Obama this type of kudos chastened all whose conviction remains unmoved. Those who continue to believe murder-is-murder and can never be compromised, discussed or viewed as an option for people of “good will. Father Jenkins’s homage to Obama echoed, “Give us Barabbas!

When Jesus entered the temple and found the money changers there, did he sit, discuss, negotiate and acknowledge all viewpoints? Did he concede intrinsic good will and openness to discussion? Did Jesus discipline those who were opposed to the moneychangers as being close minded, non-inclusive and disrespectful of differing opinions? “And Jesus entered into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold the doves; and he said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer: but ye make it a den of robbers” (Matt 21:12-17).

Jesus recognized robbers for who they were and purged the premises promptly and harshly. If Jesus had stood on behalf of life in the midst of the festivities at Notre Dame, he would have been ushered out by security. Jesus protesting Obama’s three votes in 2001, 2002 and 2003 voting against giving medical treatment to infants that survive botched abortions would have warranted his arrest. If crucifixion was the payment for the crime, Barabbas would have gone free and Jesus would have gone straight to Golgotha. Based on the graduating classes’ shouts of support and their acceptance of renowned abortion advocate in the temple, it’s no wonder, “We’re ND” and “Yes we can!” sounded strangely like, “Give us Barabbas!”

Jenkins counterbalanced the support of massacre with the perceived power of national consensus, “Welcoming President Obama to Notre Dame, and we honor him for the qualities and accomplishments the American people admired in him when they elected him.” For moral relativists like Reverend Jenkins a litany of social achievements shields a pro-choice champion. Jenkins extolled Obama’s personal accomplishments and experiences attempting to neutralize the impact of murder in the ears of his hearers. For the reverend growing up without a father, being on food stamps and going to college voids the negativity of Obama’s support for inserting a knife in the base of a skull with the intention of ending the life of a partially born human being.

As the horde dispersed and Jesus was being scourged many of the ochlos who lobbied to free Barabbas were forced to substantiate his release. So too at Notre Dame denying the acquisition of wealth, community organizing, getting elected president and visiting a dying grandparent somehow evens the playing field when it comes to brutal butchery. Father Jenkins was able to disregard the wail of the innocents based on the historic election of the first African-American President. He mentioned concern for a country that has been deeply wounded by racial hatred but discounted the abortive genocide Obama supports against his own race. Standing high upon a mound of infant corpses, Father Jenkins could see the sun soaked stone portico in the distance, choosing between morality and Barabbas, his preference was most assuredly Barabbas.

Barack Obama had a lot to say in his own defense, and for him abortion rights are a deeply held belief that he holds with conviction, commitment and policy purpose, all of which he clings to with an obvious fervor. Proverbs 14:12 says, “There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.” He even brazenly shared that he too like the protesters plans to continue to “…make his case to the public with passion and conviction, with the dichotomy of an “Open heart, open mind and fair-minded words.”

It never really mattered what Barabbas said on his own behalf, the crowd was all that mattered and their choice determined the fate of morality or immorality. Obama’s words matter little, the allure of smooth words and captivating charm cannot disguise the heap of rotting corpses behind the backdrop of patriotic flags and pithy slogans. This isn’t about Barack it’s about the multitude whose choices drive the moral direction of a nation. It’s about the consensus that we cling to in hopes of subduing aching consciences. It’s the “choice” of whom we choose to serve and when given that choice whether or not we pick Barabbas.

The roar of the Notre Dame crowd was not students hollering approval for a man that stands for everything they purport to despise. It was the moan of the unborn and their weeping echoing forth from the grave for justice. As Barack Obama looked out over an admiring sea of graduates, did he see the faces in the crowd of those who never made it out of the womb much less to college graduation.

The Gospel of Matthew has a poignant thought to contemplate as a crowd of Christians look the other way offering approbation and acclamation by choosing Barabbas and disparaging Christ.Let his blood be upon us and upon our children” (Matt 27:25). And so it will be, the blood of purity shall be upon the heads of those who relinquish  an opportunity to publicly choose to stand against the murder of innocence preferring instead to offer up the unified chant, “Give us Barack-us.”

Molech Morality

molech_26Molech was a god to whom the Israelite’s routinely sacrificed their children in order to invoke the power of the sun. They had a habit of doing this when they had turned away from Yahweh prostituting their faith for provision from a lesser source. Sacrifices to Molech took place when the first born fruit of a mother’s womb was slowly burned to death in the outstretched arms of a welcoming idol. Molech’s hungry limbs were made of metal, hollowed out, heated up on the inside and had a fire below where children, after being painfully blistered and scalded, fell headlong into the fire and were reduced to ash. And thus, Molech was pleased. It’s hard to comprehend that for these ancient peoples the promise of Molech far outweighed the value of their children, but it did!

In Biblical Hebrew culture the unfolded arms of Molech held the promise of renewed strength from the sun. The graven image was the source that insured warmth and a robust harvest. Hebrew seed was sacrificed in order to provide what antiquity deemed important for their subsistence. Worship to an idol, as a means to an end, took priority over the survival of their young. Primal primitive imposing cultures forfeited their progeny in order to assure the fulfillment of preeminent creature comfort and satisfaction of carnal needs, disregarding God’s command, “And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD” (Leviticus 18:21) (KJV).

God didn’t give the Israelites the permission to thrash out what they thought “seed” was. He didn’t ask them their opinion on the meaning of “passing through”. His command was clear and sure and when yearning overtook morality they chose to disobey.

To parallel this custom with our own secularly progressive culture it would be more apropos to use the modern English language usage of the term Molech, which refers to persons or things, which demand or require costly sacrifice. I believe that there is a direct correlation between the antiquated and the contemporary.

We look back on history and perceive ourselves to be “highly evolved ”. In order to insure the health of the economy or world peace, if asked to bring our first born to an altar to be incinerated we would bristle in disgust and refuse to comply. Regardless of how we perceive ourselves, the truth is we’re no better than the Ammonites or irreverent Israelites. Blatantly, boldly and unabashedly, we follow in the path of their example worshiping at the altar of Baal. Unlike the heathens of Molech we adulate in secret, in sterile environments, under the covering of perverted laws, not in open fields celebrating our bounty with dancing. We do not drown out the shrieks of our offspring with flutes and tambourines as they cremate. Rather our children burn and writhe in a clandestine conflagration hidden from the naked eye in a fiery inferno of saline deep within the womb.

We use words like “science” and “choice” in place of murder and slaughter and as we deceive ourselves, Molech is pleased. We have gods in our culture that demand “costly sacrifice” and we are more than willing to fulfill their call to abandon what should be considered sanctified. We rush to the fore in an effort to justify and cooperate with the never satisfied blood lust for innocence from a cadre of gods who we look to for gratification in this life. The late German philosopher, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was walked from a concentration camp and hung by the Nazi’s for speaking out against their inhumane policies, once said?

Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed upon this nascent (beginning to exist or develop) life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder.

I realize this is his opinion and what right does he have to inflict his opinion on anyone? In our enlightened society self reigns supreme. We make the rules, we define moral code and we pronounce as immoral anyone who would question our personal standard of right and wrong.

The name Molech is derived from combining consonants from the Hebrew melech “king” with the vowels of boshet “shame”. Molech is the King of Shame, but not for us. We have no shame. Shame is something that we repress along with our guilt, truth and indignity. We do not have the courage to admit what intrinsically we know is true. In turn, we rush to deny human nature and continue to supply the arms of Molech with abundant gifts. We swiftly run after politicians whose goal is a culture of death and we do so to contribute to having our corporate consciousness freed from the bondage of self-reproach by drowning it out with the roar of an adoring crowd.

Beneath Molech is a foundation that we have built for our god to rest steadfastly upon. We have justified choice and made a way for selfishness and personal aspiration to take precedence. Man, self and secularism have become the proprietor of Molech, graving and hammering out the idol in gold and setting it up in the public square in place of a basic human rights and ethics. Those are the values, which stoke the fire and await the sacrifice as we dance before our idol. We forgo the wood and fire.  Instead, our tools for sacrifice are scalpels, saline and suction. We demean and diminish the worth of life in order to satisfy Molech. We are diligent as a society to substantiate our support of evil in our own minds and to endorse it in the lives of others, promoting it as righteous, upstanding and even virtuous. Molech is exceedingly pleased.

We do not hesitate to reassure ourselves that what we support is honorable. We are deluded into believing we are decent and upright. Our corporate society and culture has concluded that the value of one life takes precedence over another and we get to ordain which one. Some are allotted to die so another has the hope of wholeness? Does our self-aggrandizing altruism and compassion toward the personal desires and concern for the future of others provide rationalization for our young one’s writhing in agony in the arms of a brutal and demanding god? When helpless, defenseless infants plummet into the fire and burn up, do we rejoice because our ends justified our means? Does “choice” now take precedence over life? If the answer is even remotely yes, Molech is pleased.

As we stoke the blaze it is best to be aware that there will be no escape from the fire we ourselves have enthusiastically prepared. The day will surely come, one which is not far off, when those who sacrificed and supported human offerings at the altar of Molech are themselves in danger of being sacrificed. The same code of ethics that justified the killing of blamelessness will extend to justify the killing of all. As we are being hoisted unwillingly into the arms of Molech will we remember the value system that brought us there? Will we cry out in terror as we realize that the sacrificial system we fought so hard to defend, we ourselves have become victim to?

Copyright 2009 Jeannieology. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

%d bloggers like this: