…because they’ll have a bad reaction to this:

Sope Aluko, a Christian actress born in Nigeria who holds U.S. and British citizenship, said that the set of “Black Panther” (2018) felt “almost like church.”

“During breaks we shared our testimony of how we got to where [we] did and most of the people were testifying to God’s miracles, it was almost like church,” Aluko told Okay Africa’s Ezinne Mgbeahuruike.

Maybe Joy will suggest they all should be committed, actually she wouldn’t have the guts.  It’s one thing to call Mike Pence crazed for his Christian beliefs, it’s quite another to risk accusations of racism to suggest the same of an almost exclusively black movie cast.

I wonder if Gus Kenworthy will refuse to shake their believing Christian hands too?

Over the next few years you are going to be branded as bigots, hated and derided. You will be portrayed in every form of culture, plays, TV series and movies as people to be shunned and no member of the media will fail to come after you for your offenses against the twin sacraments of Abortion & Gay Marriage…The days of easy Christianity are over Now is the time to decide.

DaTechGuy March 29th 2013

One of the arguments I repeatedly hear from our friends on the left is that Kim Davis is the next George Wallace on Twitter an example:

I really find such tweets a lot of fun because the depth of historical ignorance they show is astounding

For all his: “segregation today, segregation tomorrow segregation forever” bluster and his showboat blocking of a schoolhouse door, George Wallace proved to be a pol whose primary concerning was getting power and obtaining more. Wallace used his showboat stance for political gain, using it, when term limited in office, to elect his wife as governor, using it to repeal his state’s term limit rule allowing him to run against his wife’s former Lt gov (she died of cancer in office) serving several more terms.

Furthermore he used it highlight himself nationally to peruse four presidential campaigns, the first abruptly pre-empted by JFK’s assassination, the 2nd on a third party ticket where he became one of the few 3rd party candidates ever to win states multiple states, the third for the Democrat nomination in 1972, a race he was doing well in until an attempted assassination attempt ended his campaign and left him in a wheelchair for life, and a fourth in 1976 which didn’t gain much traction.

Wallace didn’t go to jail or risk penalties for his beliefs because he didn’t have any other than “George Wallace deserves to be elected” , when segregation was popular he trumped segregation, when it became unpopular suddenly decided he spoke against it. In fact it seems to me that when it came to pols following in Wallace’s footstep the people are not Democrats like Kim Davis but Democrats like Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who, as you might have forgotten, abruptly changed their position when it appeared large gay donors were closing their purses.

And once they did by an astounding coincidence the entire democrat party from Bill Clinton who signed the Defence of Marriage act to every single Democrat pol who said things like this:

suddenly decided that anyone who didn’t beleve in gay marriage was a bigot. As Dave Weigel put it.

The new Democratic advocates for SSM fall into two camps. The first consists of people who always liked the idea of this but worried about losing national elections. In his memoir, Democratic consultant Bob Shrum remembers John Kerry fretting that the Massachusetts Supreme Court had forced Democrats to talk about gay marriage before they were ready to. “Why couldn’t they just wait a year?” he asked Shrum, mournfully. The second camp consists of people who really do oppose the idea of gay people getting married. Republicans argued that this second camp was tiny, and that liberals were hiding behind it. They were right!

There are two words to describe this: Political opportunism. That sounds very George Wallace to me.

Contrast all of this with Kim Davis. Davis didn’t seek publicity, those who choose to force her hand did, as marriage licences were available just a few miles away. Even as the country’s media and elites demonized her and pundit after pundit attacked her she went to court to defend her position citing her religious beliefs seeking a compromise that would allow her to function without her name being on marriage certificates.

When ordered to jail, she didn’t put on a show, she went to jail and when released during the middle of a rally in her support (a rally used by at least one presidential candidate to showboat a bit) rather than talking politics or anything of that nature she praised God while her lawyers, speaking to media stated that she would not be doing anything different to violate her conscience:

Doesn’t sound very Wallace. In fact, instead of political opportunism that’s a classic example of civil disobedience. Violate law, take penalty. That’s how it works.

Furthermore we’ve had several tweets talking about her disobeying the “law” and noting that some of her defenders have been upset other locations violating federal laws (such as sanctuary cities). There is an excellent answer to these statments that I can’t take credit for writing emphasis mine

Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

That is an excellent summation of what Kim Davis has done, she has stood up against an unjust “law” rejecting the fear of nonconformity and vividly illustrated the attempt to to create a de facto religious test for office, to wit, if you are christian you may not hold public office in the United States unless you are what we call a “cafeteria catholic” or protestant, willing to ignore or even violate you beliefs for the sake of political office.

Now some have argued that Davis wasn’t in jail to protest a religious test for office she was in jail for contempt of court for violating a judge’s order based on her religion and they would be right.

However they forget that the person who wrote that excellent summation of what Kim Davis did, some fellow by the name of Martin Luther King, did so while in jail, not for protesting segregation, but for parading without a permit and as for legalities King had a few things to say about that too: emphasis mine again

of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.

You know this is the type of language that Democrat pols and our friends on the left have labeled “christofacist” or a “homophobe” or a “bigoted” comparing it to the words of the mullas in Iran, Saudi Arabia & ISIS.

Who knew they hated Martin Luther King so much?

Closing thought: Given the choice between loyalty to a political party willing to join you when the political wind is with you and likely willing drop you twice as fast if the wind changes and loyalty to a God who love yous and sent his son to die for the redemption of our sins, I, along with Kim Davis, Martin Luther King and Pope Francis suggest the latter.


The only pay I get for this work comes from you. If you think this is of value I ask you to kick in and help me reach my monthly goal $1834 a month or Twenty Two grand a year.

I’d appreciate it if you would hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.


Choose a Subscription level



Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what they’re good for.

The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the LORD,

Proverbs 9:10a

Lord make me chaste, but not yet

Saint Augustine in his youth

In the Michael Sam saga there has been a lot of throwing around the word “homophobia”.

“Homophobia” is an interesting term, it implies a fear of homosexuals as if Christians are afraid of roving bands of sodomites are crossing the earth waiting for to ambush them for their own evil schemes.

It’s a creative use of language but if we look at the world the exact opposite is true.  The reality is not Christians afraid of homosexuals but it is the dreaded scourge of Christophobia.

Christ challenges us to leave comfortable sin, desirable sin, sin that the world wants to celebrate and embrace, and warns us that sin lead to destruction.  It’s that challenge that is the root of this scourge of Christophobia that we seen manifest around the world in many ways.

Why else have you seen crackdowns on the faithful around the world who would dare worship?

Why else have thousands of Christians ben murdered and purged, particularly in Muslim nations including a young woman who today faces a death sentence in Sudan for daring to abandon Islam and declare Christ the son of God and the savior?

Why else does the Obama administration fight against the little sisters of the poor and the IRS reach the point where they ask potential tax exempt groups the content of their prayers.

And why does the media rush to silence or destroy any who dare come to the public square and profess the standard Catholic or Protestant beliefs on sin in general and Abortion & Gay Marriage in particular.

All of these things are done because of Christophobia.

But the question remains why?

Why do they have this Christophobia why are they so afraid, so insecure with their worldview that they can’t abide it being challenged?

Why does the world tempt us with wealth, with acceptance and celebration if we will simply reject the church or be silent?

Why does the world threaten us with scorn, opprobrium  and rejection if we dare embrace the Church in public?

Why do these people with fire, sword and tongue try to do what armies & empires have failed to do for two thousand years?

Why do those who proclaim their atheism the loudest point their harshest barbs at Christians rather than any other of the monotheistic or polytheistic religions of the world?

The answer is actually quite simple, because at its heart Christophobia is not an irrational fear.  It’s a fear that has a logical root:

That nagging suspicion in their gut that Christianity is true.

If Christianity is true, then Heaven & Hell exists and our destiny is one or the other.  It’s no coincidence that the first attacks on Pope Francis a week ago today came because of his loud and unfailing proclamations that the Devil & Hell are real.

Fortunately that same Christ that warns us of sin is willing to forgive and forget sin, ANY sin, all you have to do is before your last breath pick up your cross and follow him.

I can hear the snickering over the net and can see the rolling of the eyes from here.  That’s OK.

You might laugh, you might scoff, and that’s your right but there is one thing I can say that nobody reading this can dispute.

I state that Christianity in general & Catholicism in particular is true fact.  That good and evil are not flexible man made constructs but absolute reality and with consequences and that nagging suspicion come from your guardian angel hard at work to save you.

You can believe me or disbelieve me or laugh as you will but 100 years from now everyone reading this, including me will be dead.

At that time if you disagree with me and are right, neither your nor I will  know it or care in the least.

If however I’m right we’ll both be aware of it, the only question will be, will we be aware of it with the everlasting joy that is produced in Heaven or the everlasting clarity that Hell provides.

That’s something worth being afraid of.