Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started

Sorry, 1619 Project, But the Mayflower Was Far More Pivotal to American History

BY TYLER O’NEIL NOV 21, 2020

AP Photo/Stephan Savoia, File

In August 2019, The New York Times launched its “1619 Project,” a subversive attempt to redefine America’s history and present by placing race-based slavery at the center of absolutely everything. The project launched on the 400th anniversary of the arrival of some pirates who traded black human beings to the governor of Jamestown for some supplies, then strained to connect that obscure event with slavery. Yet the far more consequential 400th anniversary comes today, the anniversary of the Mayflower’s final arrival at Provincetown Harbor.

While onboard the Mayflower, a group of religious “Separatists” (today known as Pilgrims) and nonreligious “Strangers” signed the Mayflower Compact, a barebones document focused on self-governance that arguably became a precursor to America’s true founding, the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.

These Pilgrims settled on American soil on November 21, 1620, four hundred years ago today. Their arrival marks a far more consequential date in American history than August 20, 1619.

Unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Mayflower Compact is mercifully short. Also unlike the declaration, it explicitly acknowledges England’s control over the future colony. However, the document lays down a crucial framework for self-government.

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together in a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.

Scholars Demand Pulitzer Board Revoke Prize Over ‘Glaring Historical Fallacy’ in 1619 Project

As Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars (NAS), notes in his book 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project, “only a minority of those aboard the Mayflower were religious pilgrims — 37 of the 201. The nonreligious passengers (the Separatists called them ‘Strangers’) quickly asserted that the charter they had signed back in England was void. And some of the Strangers, such as Stephen Hopkins, were rough customers.”

Hopkins had been convicted of mutiny at Jamestown in 1610 and sentenced to death. After his sentence was commuted, he ran an alehouse in England. The London Merchant Adventurers recruited him for the Mayflower. Hopkins had multiple servants on board the ship and any lasting disagreement with such men could have doomed the Pilgrims’ project.

The real meat of the Mayflower Compact comes down to the phrase “civil body politic.” As Wood explains, the term simply refers to “a group of people who agree to govern themselves by common rules to be created through peaceful deliberation. That means it isn’t a tribe, a dictatorship, or an aristocracy. It offers an ordered public life under the rule of law.”

The Mayflower Compact is a barebones document aimed at keeping a small but diverse group of people together. The Declaration of Independence, by contrast, uses soaring rhetoric to convince the British crown and people across the world of the justice of the Americans’ cause. Even so, as Rebecca Fraser put it in The Mayflower: The Families, the Voyage, and the Founding of America, “the Mayflower Compact has a whisper of the contractual government enunciated in the 4 July 1776 Declaration of Independence, that governments derive their just power ‘from the consent of the governed.’”

“Both documents are attempts to forge a new unity — ‘a civil body politic’ — out of disparate people who have conflicting interests,” Wood explains. “Both call into existence a new government, and both justify that government as needed for safety, good order, and justice. Above all, both project the ideal of self-government as the only way to achieve the ‘general good.’”

Wood argues that the Mayflower Compact was not America’s “true founding” — and neither was August 20, 1619 — but it was a “crucial pre-founding, informing the beginning of the American republic.” On the Mayflower, “an idea of true self-government began to take root.”

What of 1619?

The New York Times‘ “1619 Project” argued that America’s “true founding” came fifteen months before the Mayflower’s arrival. English pirates landed with some twenty to thirty African captives at Jamestown, Virginia, on August 20, 1619. According to the Times, this marked the tragic beginning of more than 200 years of race-based slavery in America.

There are numerous problems with this interpretation. First, this moment certainly did not mark the first time black slaves set foot on what would later become the United States. The Spanish brought slaves to present-day South Carolina in 1526, almost 100 years before the project’s date.

More critically, there is no conclusive evidence that the black men and women who arrived at Jamestown in August 1619 actually became slaves in the same sense as slaves in the antebellum South.

As Wood notes, “The exact status of these captives is unclear. It is likely that they were considered slaves on board the pirate ship, but because slavery was not recognized by English common law, once the captives landed their status became fuzzy. In Bermuda, also founded by the Virginia Company, slaves brought by outsiders were considered to be indentures with a life tenure of service. In Virginia, the records show that many of the captives were, after a term of indenture, set free. None were recorded as slaves.”

Wood argues that “the status of these African captives appears to have fallen into a vaguely defined middle ground” between freedom and slavery.

While the situation of these Africans is lamentable, the 1619 Project is not on solid ground in claiming that this obscure event somehow deserves to be remembered as the centerpiece of American history.

The New York Times Just Gave Definitive Proof the ‘1619 Project’ Is a Fraud

Why does it matter?

As Nikole Hannah-Jones, the 1619 Project’s founder, argued, the project aims to change America’s national memory. It is “not a history” but a fight to “control the narrative,” she admitted.

While some of the 1619 Project’s goals are noble — the project rightly aims to tell the stories of black Americans who have not received the attention they deserve — its heart and soul focuses on subverting America’s view of itself as a force of good and freedom in the world.

The project’s initial installment condemned many aspects of American society — including capitalism and Americans’ preference for sugar — as rooted in racial oppression. This echoes — and is arguably built upon — Marxist critical race theory, which encourages people to find hidden oppression behind various aspects of society.

Portland activist Lilith Sinclair provided a chilling example of Marxist critical race theory and its ability to inspire an aimless revolution. “There’s still a lot of work to undo the harm of colonized thought that has been pushed onto Black and indigenous communities,” she said. As examples of “colonized thought,” she mentioned Christianity and the “gender binary.” She said she organizes for “the abolition of … the “United States as we know it.”

When vandals toppled a statue of George Washington in Portland, they spray-painted “1619” on the statue. When Claremont’s Charles Kesler wrote in The New York Post, “Call them the 1619 riots,” 1619 Project Founder Nikole Hannah-Jones responded (in a since-deleted tweet) that “it would be an honor” to claim responsibility for the destructive riots. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) called for the “dismantling” of America’s “economy and political system,” in order to root out supposed racist oppression.

1619 Project Founder Admits It’s ‘Not a History,’ But a Fight to ‘Control the National Narrative’

The riots have proved the most destructive (in terms of insurance claims) in U.S. history. While leftists repeat claims of “institutional racism,” the riots have victimized the black community. The destruction disproportionately hit black communities in Kenosha, Wisc.Minneapolis, and Chicago. The riots destroyed black livesblack livelihoods, and black monuments. At least 26 Americans have died in the riots, most of them black.

For these and other reasons, many black leaders have denounced the official Black Lives Matter movement, the founders of which have described themselves as “trained Marxists.” Over 100 black pastors recently condemned the Black Lives Matter movement and urged Nike to distance itself from it.

Last month, Wood led a group of 21 scholars in condemning the 1619 Project and urging the Pulitzer Prize Board to rescind the Pulitzer Prize it had awarded to Hannah-Jones. Among other things, the scholars noted the project’s many errors and stealth revisions.

The 1619 Project originally claimed that the patriots in the American Revolutionary War fought in part to defend slavery — a completely baseless accusation the Times ultimately softened after facing scholars’ rebukes. In September, the project deep-sixed its fundamental claim that 1619 represented America’s “true founding.” Hannah-Jones then proceeded to act as though she had never claimed such a thing.

As the scholars wrote to the Pulitzer board, “the false claims were erased or altered with no explanation, and Hannah-Jones then proceeded to claim that she had never said or written what in fact she has said and written repeatedly, assertions that the Project materials also made.”

“The duplicity of attempting to alter the historical record in a manner intended to deceive the public is as serious an infraction against professional ethics as a journalist can commit. A ‘sweeping, deeply reported and personal essay,’ as the Pulitzer Prize Board called it, does not have the license to sweep its own errors into obscurity or the remit to publish ‘deeply reported’ falsehoods,” the scholars wrote.

The 1619 Project may do America some good at the margins by telling the overlooked stories of black Americans, but its subversive aspects are dangerous and need to be rebuked. At the very least, The New York Times should publicly apologize for falsely claiming that 1619 was America’s “true founding.”

The signing of the Declaration of Independence rightly deserves that distinction, and the Mayflower Compact is an important precursor to it. America has long struggled to live up to the ideals of the declaration, but that does not mean it is an inherently racist or oppressive country. The United States has taken tremendous strides toward justice and equality, and its ideals are sound. The New York Times should be working to uphold those noble ideals, not to undermine America’s foundations.

Contrary to Hannah-Jones’ protestations, America’s memory is sound, and Americans are right to celebrate the Mayflower on its 400th anniversary.

Tyler O’Neil is the author of Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Follow him on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil.

‘1619 Project’ Founder Has a Tantrum After NYT Publishes Critical Column
Civil Rights Leader Aims to Stop the Riots at the Source — With Stories of Black American Success
Amid Deadly Riots, Oprah Signs on to Adapt Anti-American ‘1619 Project’
Black Chicagoans Eviscerate Black Lives Matter Narrative, Booting Activists From Their Neighborhood

https://pjmedia.com/columns/tyler-o-neil/2020/11/21/sorry-1619-project-but-the-mayflower-was-far-more-pivotal-to-american-history-n1165476


4 Ways To Help Your Kids Fight Assimilation Into Cultural Leftism

Equipping our kids might mean talking to them about difficult and uncomfortable subjects long before we’d like to. But choosing not to have them doesn’t protect our kids. It dooms them to leftist assimilation.

4 Ways To Help Your Kids Fight Assimilation Into Cultural Leftism

Dec 16, 2019

 

“You don’t agree with me that gay marriage should be legal?” All eyes around the lunch table were suddenly trained on my sixth-grade daughter. “But that means you hate gay people!” Morgan exclaimed.

“No it doesn’t,” Faust daughter replied. “My grandma is gay, and I love her. So, what is your argument?”

“Well, if a man and a woman who love each other can get married, then two men who love each other should be able to get married, and two women who love each other should be able to get married. There’s no difference.”

“The difference is that a man and a woman make a baby,” Faust daughter responded again. “A man and a man don’t make a baby, and a woman and a woman don’t make a baby.”

“Oh, I guess that’s true. But the two men or the two women could just adopt if they wanted a baby.”

“No. Adoption is not about giving kids to adults. Adoption is about finding homes for children who don’t have parents. And all children need moms and dads,” Faust daughter insisted.

“Well, I think kids just need adults who love them,” came the response.

“No, dads teach kids certain lessons; moms teach kids other lessons. And kids need both kinds of lessons,” Faust daughter concluded.

Amazingly, No.1 Faust daughter was able to identify three truths about marriage and family that escape most adults: 1) The public purpose of marriage is not about adult feelings, it’s about children. 2) No adult has a right to a child. 3) Men and women offer distinct and complementary benefits to child-rearing.

As she retold this lunch-time drama, I remember thinking, “Wow, it worked!” No. 1 Faust daughter had retained and could explain much of what we had been talking about at home. It was proof that not only can kids handle these big conversations, they thrive on them.

Parenting Is About Training

After our eldest daughter’s relatively sheltered elementary school life, my husband and I decided it was time for the “Great Equipping.” Our philosophy throughout her first decade of life had been focused on filtering out damaging ideas about worldview, gender, sex, etc. We strove to saturate her in truth and beauty during the phase wherein kids unquestioningly absorb everything they see and hear.

We limited her exposure to distorted depictions of sex, violence, and competing worldviews whether from media or agenda-driven adults. We encouraged scripture memorization, modeled imperfect-but-healthy relationships, and emphasized the purpose and inherent goodness of sex within marriage. But the time for sheltering was at an end because she was about to enter the ultimate worldview battleground — a woke Seattle public school.

The Great Equipping is the time in a child’s development when critical thinking begins, accompanied by questions like, “How do we know that’s true?” “But what if you’re wrong?” It’s easy for children to catch their parents off guard when they begin challenging core theological concepts that, only a month before, they were happily regurgitating. But fear not, these questions are an indication your kid is ready for more. They are ready to be experts.

We tell every one of our kids upon entering middle school, “We want you to know more about controversial topics than all your friends.” Yes, the Great Equipping means talking about difficult and uncomfortable subjects with our kids way before we’d like to.

But we really don’t have a choice, because the world is messaging to our kids nonstop about sex and transgenderism and every other topic that may make us squeamish. To the world, our discomfort is irrelevant. Having conversations with our kids about abortion or pornography may be discomforting, but choosing not to have them doesn’t protect our kids. It dooms them to leftist assimilation.

Uncomfortable as it is, the goal of parenting is not to keep kids safe or happy. The goal is training.

1. You Are the Primary Educators

Pre-parenthood, my husband and I worked in youth ministry. We witnessed both ends of the parenting spectrum: the laissez-faire, uninvolved-and-unaware-of-what’s-going-on-in-their-child’s-world parents. Those kids were so overwhelmed by the messages and pressures of the world, they were often swallowed whole by the time they graduated high school.

On the other end of the spectrum were the Christian kids smothered with protection. These kids often fell apart when they went to college. Their parents’ extreme sheltering meant they never had a chance to come up against a worldview challenge, whether evolution or sexual morality or the veracity of scripture, which left them woefully outgunned when they encountered the slightest pushback.

My husband and I decided on a middle road: train our children on every question the world would throw at them while they were under our roof. That middle road demanded we take our role of “primary educators” seriously. Not only by laying a solid foundation of truth and beauty when our kids were young, but also by introducing them to competing worldviews in middle school. The summer before our oldest entered sixth grade, we studied abortion, transgenderism, same-sex attraction, socialism, and more.

Being the “primary educators” of our children means being the first to talk with them about difficult subjects. Why? Because the person who introduces your child to a new something, especially a sensitive something, is the person your kid will consider the authority.

For example, if the first time your kid hears about porn is when a fifth grader with a smartphone shoves a video in his face, where do you think he goes for more information? Even if your initial conversation is not exhaustive, the first person to tell your kids about tough issues has to be you. As the mothers who lead the grassroots marriage movement CanaVox often say, “Better a year too early than five minutes too late.”

2. Include Your Kids in What You’re Already Doing

While good programs are helpful, don’t think this training requires formal curriculum. My husband and I have opted for more of a Deuteronomy 6 approach wherein you incorporate worldview conversations as “you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.”

This brand of training is more of an incremental handoff than a course-completion. I once heard of a discipleship model that encapsulates this slow equipping:

Step 1. I do, you watch.
Step 2. I do, you help.
Step 3. You do, I help.
Step 4. You do, I watch.

By the time your kids exit childhood, you should be done with Step 1. Your kids should already have observed you living it. Our kids have witnessed their parents read about and work through difficult scriptural and worldview questions.

They’ve watched us respond to situations with, “I don’t know. Let me learn more and get back to you.” They’ve listened to us listen to political and worldview-forming podcasts. They’ve seen us survive the real-life fallout of speaking unpopular truth about cultural topics. Your kids should understand healthy marriage, friendship, and conversations because they’ve witnessed you living them. Modeling is a critical part of Step 1. You are “doing,” and they are “watching.”

When they are near the end of the innocent phase, you should introduce Step 2. As a Federalist reader, I assume you are engaged in apologetic or policy discussions online, yes? Invite your 10-year-old or 12-year-old to read your exchanges and discuss your critic’s objections. Ask your daughter to help you with your response.

What part of your argument is the strongest and the weakest? What would she add? When you want to share a powerful pro-life video, watch it with your son and ask him to help you write a few lines about the “rape exception” in abortion. You are “doing.” They are “helping.”

When they hit that phase where the Great Equipping begins, you should be in the midst of Step 2 and moving into Step 3. If they’ve been saturated in truth and beauty and received honest answers to honest questions, the urge to further investigate and defend their worldview comes naturally. They will likely start pushing back in their classrooms, engaging in difficult conversations with friends, or identifying objectionable content in the shows they are watching (preferably with you sitting on the couch next to them).

Step 3 done right looks like this: Your middle-schooler reports that his class discussion was based on the idea that “slaveholders in the South must’ve been Republicans because Republicans are racist.” You stay your fingers from typing an angry email to the teacher and instead ask your son, “Would you like to watch a video on the history of the Democratic Party together?” or “Would you like to read the first Republican Party platform, which denounces slavery as one of the ‘twin relics of barbarism’?” You “help” while they “do.”

Ideally, by the time our kids graduate high school, they regularly dwell in the land of Step 4. You “watch” them from the sidelines responding to objections. They are drafting their own social media comments about the harms of puberty-blockers and writing pro-life essays all on their own.

A precaution: There is no shortcutting this. Do not live in the fantasy that you can skip from Step 1 to Step 4. You arrive at Step 4 only after your kids have had a couple years in Step 2 and Step 3 and have had many opportunities to practice grappling through difficult topics in the safety of your home.

3. Balance Protection and Exposure

I don’t knock any parent who chooses private school or homeschool to protect their children from the world. The only mommy war I fight is the one that really matters — to insist that every child has a right to his or her mommy (and daddy). Whether your child takes a bus to school or just has to come to the kitchen table, Christian parents are responsible for equipping their kids.

Some Christians bristle when I tell them our children are in public school. They ask, “How could you allow them to be subjected to that liberal agenda?” Their concern is justified, of course. This educational path is wrought with daily political and religious friction. We have to evaluate, child by child and year by year, whether this friction is sharpening our kids or grinding them down. If it’s grinding them down, we retreat and regroup. If the friction results in stronger mental and spiritual acumen, then they remain.

Now spanning grades four through 11, our kids often share with us the difficult conversations they’ve had with friends or a ridiculous statement from a teacher, or lament some biased curriculum. Such conversations are followed by a heavy does of Step 3 as we conduct joint research into what the Bible says about that subject, as well as supporting natural law and social science arguments. Our two oldest have spent hours investigating the character of Christopher Columbus, whether our Founding Fathers were racist, the sexes wage gap, the truth claims of Islam, and more.

For example, recently, No. 2 Faust daughter stormed in and told me, “Mom, you wouldn’t believe what Jenna said! She said abortion was okay because ‘my body, my choice.’ I was so mad, but I didn’t know what to say.” Three hours later, after an exploration of videos on natal development and some research on pro-choice talking points, No. 2 Faust daughter said confidently, “The next time one of my friends says ‘my body, my choice,’ I’m going to say, ‘If it was your body you’d be the one dead at the end of the abortion.’”

I have seen the fruits of this Great Equipping in my friends’ children as well. One friend’s sixth-grade daughter, championing the pro-life cause while riding the school bus, successfully converted four pro-choice classmates by simply being prepared to have the conversation. Another friend found out during her seventh-grader’s conference that her child had spoken directly to the history teacher himself regarding his obvious political bias in the classroom, which resulted in a humbled, more mindful educator.

Of course, not every conversation will result in such tangible “wins.” Many times our kids will experience the same rejection we adults face when we stand for our convictions. The sure result will be, however, that every oppositional interaction they have will help to sharpen their minds, and that is always a win.

4. Stay Connected

One last thing, and it’s a big thing. These conversations will be impossible or have little effect if we aren’t connected to our kids. Connection comes not only from physical proximity — driving them to school, joint dinner prep, working in the yard together — but also from emotional proximity.

If your kids are going to navigate a hostile world of competing ideas, they must know you are the safe place to put all their questions, feelings, and doubts. You demonstrate this by not freaking out when they tell you their friend came out as bisexual, or when your little girl says she wants to marry Taylor Swift, or when your son wants to know what “trans” is. While your head may say “WTH!” your face needs say, “I’d love to talk with you about that.”

Have my husband and I achieved the right balance of modeling and exposing, sheltering and training? I hope so. But we are only at the virtual half-time in this parenting game. I’ll tell you what the scoreboard says in another decade when the game is over.

What I can say is that my kids can hold their own. They can spot a lie when they hear one. They know that answers to the hardest questions do exist, even if they don’t yet know what those answers are. They know their parents are in the fight with them. And they know that while they may lose friends if they speak up, they earn the respect of their friends who remain.

Katy Faust is the founder and director of the children’s rights organization Them Before Us and the Washington state leader of CanaVox. She is married and the mother of four children, the youngest of whom is adopted from China. You can follow her on Twitter @Advo_Katy.

VIDEO Latest ‘Marketing of Evil’: ‘Life-changing’ or ‘worst book ever’?

Re-release of David Kupelian’s culture-war classic rekindles fiery controversy

Nov 23, 2019

Dear friends,

marketing-of-evil-paperback

It’s been viciously attacked in leftwing circles as “hate speech,” “despicable” and “the worst book ever” – and even formally condemned by faculty vote on one college campus,  resulting in lawsuits and campus hysteria. But my first book, “The Marketing of Evil,” which has just gone through its (I think) 15th printing and is now available in paperback, is still driving some people crazy, while inspiring others to say it has changed their lives.

In case you’re unfamiliar with it, “The Marketing of Evil” basically explains why and how millions of today’s Americans have come to strongly embrace ideas and behaviors that are corrupt, destructive or insane.

As I explain in the book’s introduction, “Within the space of our lifetime, much of what Americans once almost universally abhorred has been packaged, perfumed, gift-wrapped, and sold to us as though it had great value. By skillfully playing on our deeply felt national values of fairness, generosity, and tolerance, these marketers have persuaded us to embrace as enlightened and noble that which every other generation has regarded as grossly self-destructive – in a word, evil.”

And although the book has been popular and influential – conservative marketing guru and former Heritage Foundation VP Rebecca Hagelin recently described it as “one of the most important books of the last 20 years” – unfortunately not everyone feels so warmly about it.

For example, within a few months of its release, “The Marketing of Evil” became the focal point of a national scandal when several openly homosexual professors at Ohio State University brought “sexual harassment” charges against head librarian Scott Savage, a Christian, after he recommended “The Marketing of Evil” as required reading for all incoming freshmen. The gay profs maintained that merely recommending the book constituted an act of “harassment due to sexual orientation.” (Chapter 1 documents, in LGBT leaders’ own words, their brilliant but little-known strategies for mainstreaming homosexuality and sexual anarchy in a largely Christian country.)

The rest of the faculty members were so intimidated by the angry gay professors that they either voted in agreement with them or abstained out of fear. It was so obviously bizarre and unjust that major media exposure by Sean Hannity, Brit Hume on Fox’s “Special Report,” MSNBC, the New York Post, Human Events and many others – plus stout legal pressure from the Alliance Defending Freedom – caused the university to cave and drop the absurd charges.

As a direct consequence of being publicly branded as “hate literature” and “homophobic tripe” by the Ohio State University faculty, “The Marketing of Evil” immediately became one of the hottest-selling books in the country, topping Amazon’s daily “Current Events” bestseller chart for more than a week.

‘It changed my life!’

Meanwhile, on Amazon, the controversial book has garnered over 500 five-star reader reviews. While a few nasty one-star reviews describe the book as “horrendous,” “truly despicable” and “serving the anti-Christ,” and even accuse me personally of being a “Nazi,” “scum” and “social blight,” the vast majority are much more positive:

  • “Opening this book is like turning on the Sun. … Mr. David Kupelian has written a remarkable book that reveals how the American public has been taken down the slippery slope of moral relativism.”
  • “I finished ‘The Marketing of Evil’ over a month ago. It absolutely changed my life.”
  • “Prepare to see your world with new eyes!”
  • “The way Kupelian writes is phenomenal. … Give this book to everyone you know, you’ll thank me.”
  • “This book has put a powerful voice to many things that truth-loving people in America have felt in their spirits for a long, long time. … I for one am forever changed.”

Pastors fired up

As a result of such notoriety, “The Marketing of Evil” eventually lit a fire in a place where it was more welcome – the nation’s churches. From small-town churches and prayer groups to one of America’s largest Presbyterian congregations, Christian leaders and laymen started getting hold of the book, sometimes by the case, to hand out to fellow churchgoers.

The biggest single church has been that of the late D. James Kennedy, who until his death was perhaps the world’s most influential Presbyterian minister and founder of Coral Ridge Ministries in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Calling “The Marketing of Evil” a “powerful new book that I wish every Christian in America could read,” Kennedy took the dramatic step of printing 15,000 special-edition softcover copies which he sent to thousands of supporters.

‘A magician’s secrets’

Despite the ongoing controversy, many major conservative and Christian voices have singled out “The Marketing of Evil” as essential reading:

  • “David Kupelian is one of the very few must-read writers in the 21st Century.” – Dr. Ted Baehr, Chairman, Christian Film and Television Commission
  • “If you really want to understand the adversary’s thinking and help turn the tide of battle, read this book!” – David Limbaugh, columnist and bestselling author
  • “Like the dazzling disclosures in the final page of a gripping whodunit or the fascinating revelation of a magician’s secrets, ‘The Marketing of Evil’ irresistibly exposes how it was done.” – Rabbi Daniel Lapin, American Alliance of Jews and Christians
  • “Every parent in America needs to read this book.” – Michelle Malkin, columnist and bestselling author
  • “David Kupelian is one of the most thought-provoking and iconoclastic writers I know.” – Sean Hannity, host of the No. 1 rated Fox News’ “Hannity” show as well as “The Sean Hannity Radio Show”

Watch former “Saturday Night Live” star (and committed Christian) Victoria Jackson talk about “The Marketing of Evil” and its sequel, “How Evil Works.”

The big screen

In 2017, “The Marketing of Evil” was featured in the Hollywood movie “I am Michael” starring James Franco and Zachary Quinto.

marketing of evil i am michael

Scene from “I Am Michael”

In this amazing true story, Franco, playing the lead role of high-profile “gay rights” activist Michael Glatze, is shown reading “The Marketing of Evil” during the pivotal scene in which Glatze publicly renounces his “gay” identification and reveals he wants to live for God. The real-life Glatze, who left the homosexual lifestyle in 2007 and become a happily married Christian pastor, has said reading “The Marketing of Evil” played a significant role in helping him in his dramatic personal journey.

That’s all – except to say I’ve arranged to have the price dropped to its lowest ever, lower then Amazon, low enough for anyone wanting a few extra copies to give to friends and loved ones (like maybe for Christmas).

Thank you!

David Kupelian, Vice President and Managing Editor of WND, Editor of Whistleblower magazine, author of “The Marketing of Evil,” “How Evil Works” and “The Snapping of the American Mind”

SPECIAL OFFER: Get David Kupelian’s “The Marketing of Evil” in paperback for just $9.99!

And get “The Marketing of Evil” AUDIOBOOK – read by the author – for the super-discounted price of $9.99 (reduced from $27.99)!

Also, get the acclaimed sequel, “How Evil Works,” as well as his latest blockbuster, “The Snapping of the American Mind: Healing a Nation Broken by a Lawless Government and Godless Culture.”

Follow David Kupelian on Facebook.

Original here

Hiding Behind The Supreme Court Won’t Stop Beto O’Rourke’s Crusade To Punish Orthodox Religion

In addition to showing the left’s trajectory on religious freedom, O’Rourke’s comments also reveal why conservatives are faring so poorly on the LGBT front of the culture war.

Hiding Behind The Supreme Court Won’t Stop Beto O’Rourke’s Crusade To Punish Orthodox Religion

Oct 17, 2019

In 2003, the Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made a rather prophetic statement in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), a Supreme Court ruling that struck down anti-sodomy laws across the country. After excoriating the majority for simply waving away the long-held notion that sodomy was a form of sexual immorality that the state had a legitimate interest in prohibiting, Scalia wrote:

One of the benefits of leaving regulation of this matter to the people rather than to the courts is that the people, unlike judges, need not carry things to their logical conclusion. The people may feel that their disapprobation of homosexual conduct is strong enough to disallow homosexual marriage, but not strong enough to criminalize private homosexual acts — and may legislate accordingly. The Court today pretends that it possesses a similar freedom of action, so that that we need not fear judicial imposition of homosexual marriage. … Do not believe it.

In other words, Scalia was declaring, “It’s not within the nature of courts to remain neutral on moral issues. By declaring that the government can’t prohibit homosexual acts today, the court is guaranteeing that the government will be celebrating homosexual acts tomorrow.”

A mere 12 years later, the Supreme Court, via Obergefell v. Hodges, declared every state prohibition against same-sex marriage unconstitutional, with Justice Anthony Kennedy justifying the majority’s opinion by lauding the beauty of homosexual relationships. While Scalia’s words did indeed prove prophetic, they were not perfectly so.

Legalizing gay marriage may have been taking the court’s logic to the next logical step, but it wasn’t the logical conclusion of declaring that the state can’t punish those who engage in homosexuality. Rather, the logical conclusion of the court’s judgment in Lawrence is saying the state must punish those still clinging to the former orthodoxy.

O’Rourke Shows Left’s Trajectory on LGBT Issues

This is something presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke demonstrated in a recent CNN forum on LGBT issues. When Don Lemon asked him if churches and religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage should lose their tax-exempt status, O’Rourke replied with a firm “Yes.”

Then O’Rourke explained his position by stating, “There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America, that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us. So as president, we’re going to make that a priority, and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans.”

While one might dismiss O’Rourke as an outlier, it’s worth noting that his response met cheers from the audience and tepid disavowals from a few of his fellow would-be Democrat nominees who couldn’t sufficiently explain why they disagreed, indicating the former congressman’s position is more mainstream among leftists than we might think, even if many on the left recognize it’s not wise to state that view publicly.

Quite simply, O’Rourke’s plan to tax religious groups opposed to same-sex marriage is not merely the hard-left pandering of an unserious candidate trying desperately to bring his poll numbers above negative-400 percent. It’s the logical conclusion of the illiberal philosophy embraced in Lawrence.

Yesterday the state said homosexuality is neutral. Today the state says homosexuality is good. Tomorrow the state will say opposing homosexuality is bad and must therefore be punished. While O’Rourke’s position may be too hot for the eventual nominee to embrace right now, don’t be surprised if it becomes the official platform of the Democratic National Committee the moment it becomes clear they can win the presidency while giving churches, synagogues, and mosques the sin tax treatment.

In addition to showing the left’s trajectory on religious freedom, O’Rourke’s comments also reveal why conservatives are faring so poorly on the LGBT front of the culture war.

While most Americans would probably describe their general approach to human sexuality as “live and let live,” most Americans also intuitively understand that the “live and let live” doctrine gets complicated when people’s sexual practices and identities follow them into public places. When that messiness arises, both conservatives and progressives have the chance to convince people that their respective solutions will get things tidied up. Why, then, are conservatives losing so many of these battles for the hearts and minds of the general public?

The Folly of ‘Live and Let Live’

To answer that question, consider transgenderism. “Live and let live” flies out the window the moment a man identifying as a woman shows up in the ladies’ bathroom and makes the women in the room uncomfortable. Likewise, how do you solve the problem when public schools demand that teachers use students’ preferred pronouns and some teachers object?

Progressives promise to clean up this mess by carrying their beliefs to their logical conclusion. Transgenderism, they argue, is a perfectly valid identity the state should celebrate and defend. And because it harms people to have their identity rejected, the state must therefore compel others to acknowledge it — thus, force institutions to have transgender bathroom policies. Force taxpayers to subsidize transgender surgery. Fire teachers for refusing to use students’ preferred pronouns. Follow Canada’s example and remove children from their parents if they refuse to embrace their kid’s trans identity.

Conservatives, however, have shown little willingness to follow their own principles likewise to their logical actions. By and large, we assert that transgenderism is, at best, a phase and, at worst, a form of mental illness, so it should follow that the way to clean up the mess is to use the state’s power to hinder those who would do physical and psychological harm to those struggling with a false sense of identity. Yet we are largely unwilling to urge the state to do this.

We aren’t willing to say that mothers who shove their supposedly gender-nonconforming children in front of TV cameras should have their children removed from their homes. We aren’t using the power we have in red states to pass laws promising revoked medical licenses and perhaps even jail time for doctors who prescribe puberty-blocking drugs to minors and chop off perfectly functional sex organs. When trans students show up at schools and demand that teachers use their preferred pronouns, we aren’t willing to say, “The solution to this problem is to forbid males from coming to school dressed as females and vice versa while they get the help they need.”

In all of this, we refuse to clean up the “live and let live” mess by carrying our beliefs to their logical conclusion, which frequently convinces the undecided public that they should probably side with the people who will. That’s why Sen. Elizabeth Warren didn’t consider it political suicide to cheer the bravery of a 9-year-old girl living as a boy. That’s why we’re losing.

Conservatives Need More Than a Supreme Court Ruling

It is, of course, important for conservatives to keep defending those dragged into court for refusing to accept the new LGBT orthodoxy. And God bless those florists, bakers, and educators who have refused to acquiesce to the state’s demands, but not everyone has the mettle or the ability to wait five years for a favorable Supreme Court ruling.

For their sake, it would behoove conservatives to remember that you don’t win culture wars by refusing to fight until you get to the courthouse steps. Likewise, it’s also worth remembering that those who lose culture wars will eventually lose the constitutional protections in which they’ve sought sanctuary.

Sure, O’Rourke’s vindictive tax policy would likely be ruled unconstitutional by today’s Supreme Court. But the more comfortable our culture becomes with the idea of destroying dissenting churches via the power of taxation, the less confident we should be that future justices will maintain today’s understanding of the First Amendment. After all, if the Supreme Court, high on elitist zeitgeist, can stick its hands into the void and invent a constitutional right to abortion or to marry anyone, it can also invent a constitutional right to a clean conscience, which can only be preserved by silencing those repentance-preaching pastors and priests.

Quite simply, conservatives need to win converts to prevent progressives from devouring us. And that won’t happen if we refuse to carry our beliefs to their logical conclusions. So at the risk of rekindling the Ahmari-French debate, when conservatives express discomfort with the concept of obscenity laws, see drag queen story hour as a “blessing of liberty,” and won’t scream in defense of gender-confused children who are being abused by the people who are supposed to protect them, we aren’t clinging to our first principles. Rather, we’re forgetting the very first principle — namely that earthly governments are instituted by God to punish the wicked and reward the good in order to give us a peaceful and quiet life.

Because of this, we shouldn’t hesitate to use the state’s power to defend ourselves and our children from the kind of metastasizing libertinism that rots every brick of the public square it touches. If we don’t, as the journey from Lawrence v. Texas to Beto v. Traditional Christians, Jews, and Muslims shows, those who have gotten comfortable using the state to impose their perverse morality on us won’t tire of doing so any time soon.

Hans Fiene is a Lutheran pastor in Illinois and the creator of Lutheran Satire, a series of comical videos intended to teach the Lutheran faith. Follow him on Twitter, @HansFiene.
Photo LifeSiteNews

 

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/16/hiding-behind-the-supreme-court-wont-stop-beto-orourkes-crusade-to-punish-orthodox-religion/

%d bloggers like this: