Friday, July 29, 2016

Keswick's Errors: Ecumenicalism & Summary of Other Errors, in an Analysis and Critique of So Great Salvation by Stephen Barabas, part 1 of 17

               Keswick theology has severe problems.  These problems are natural in light of Keswick’s corrupt roots.  Keswick’s errors and heresies include its ecumenicalism, its theological shallowness or even incomprehensibility, its downplaying of the role of God’s Word in sanctification, its distaste for careful exegetical and systematic theology and the Biblical dogmatics arising from such theology, its allegorical hermeneutical methods and exegetical fallacies, its shallow views of sin, and its perfectionism.  Furthermore, Keswick supports certain Pelagian or semi-Pelagian positions, improperly divorces justification and sanctification, is confused about the nature of saving repentance, denies that God’s sanctifying grace always frees Christians from bondage to sin and changes them, and fails to warn strongly about the possibility of those who are professedly Christians being unregenerate.  Keswick likewise supports an unbiblical pneumatology, supports continuationism as opposed to cessationism, advances significant exegetical errors, distorts the positions and critiques of opponents of the errors of the Higher Life movement, misrepresents the role of faith in sanctification, supports Quietism, and denies that God actually renews the nature of believers to make them less sinful and more personally holy.  Keswick’s grievous errors and heresies should have no place in any Christian’s life.
The Keswick Convention intentionally “stands for no particular brand of denominational theology.  It could not, and have on its platform men of many different denominational affiliations.”[1]  There is an (alleged) “ecumenical value of Keswick . . . gathering together as it has done men and women of . . . almost all Protestant denominations,”[2] for “denominational differences are put aside as of little importance in comparison with what all Christians hold in common.  The motto of the Convention is, ‘ALL ONE IN CHRIST JESUS.’”[3]  Following the great desire of Lord Mount-Temple and his associates to unite heresy, apostasy, and orthodoxy in a melting pot of ecumenical spirituality,[4] the Broadlands, Oxford, Brighton, and Keswick Conventions fulfilled the wishes of their ecumenical founders.[5]  Therefore, at Keswick, “men . . . forget their religious differences . . . [and the conflict] of creeds . . . [and] of sects,” so that “Keswick has . . . no[t] weakened any of the old . . . denomination[s.] . . . Its aim has been to send back Church members . . . to their old circles.”[6]  Keswick united Anglicans with their sacramentalism, Quakers with their false gospel, Lutherans with their baptismal regeneration, and many other religious organizations and individuals of “almost every shade of religious opinion.”[7]  Keswick accepted the Broadlands idea that “[i]t is not our creed, but our conduct, that proclaims what our life is.”[8]  The Keswick Convention consequently brings together “ministers of all denominations,” uniting “High Churchmen and Low Churchmen,” despite the damnable sacramental heresies of High Church Anglicanism, and in this union spiritual wolves and sheep discover that “the things on which they honestly differ are as nothing[.]”  Keswick wishes to “hasten that day” when the Anglican “Church and Dissent join hands” and “reunion is an established fact.”[9]  The piety of Keswick is such that “the dividing-lines between church and church are forgotten.”[10]  Indeed, Keswick founder Canon Harford-Battersby’s goal was “the Re-union of the Churches . . . bringing together on a common basis members of all Christian churches,”[11] a goal which shall be fulfilled in the one-world religious system centered in Rome and described by the Apostle John as “BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH” (Revelation 17:5).  Keswick follows the pattern of Robert and Hannah Smith’s “preaching[,] [which] was not sectarian; they led no exodus from any of the Churches, but taught only the need for the Higher Life.”[12]  Robert Smith “presented himself as an unattached teacher, who would fain serve all denominations alike.”[13]  He would not visit a city and proclaim the Higher Life without broad and ecumenical support.[14]  He declared:  “I am not aware of a single instance in which these [Higher Life] meetings have led Christian persons to change their denominational connection.”[15]  On the contrary, he affirmed:  “I have reason to believe that hundreds have been saved by . . . this line of teaching . . . from temptation to change . . . their ecclesiastical connections.”[16]  After years of Keswick Conventions, its leaders could boast that their “movement, so far as is known, never resulted in a change of the Church connection of a single individual from that in which it found him.”[17]  Keswick consciously and strongly embraced the teaching of the Broadlands Conference that “a desire to proselytize . . . is entirely opposed to the spirit and teaching of Jesus.”[18]  Keswick maintained the passionate ecumenicalism of its founders and early leaders.
The doctrinal confusion that results from Keswick ecumenicalism has plagued the Convention from the time of its founding until modern times. As at Broadlands a “great variety of spheres of thought were admitted for consideration, and wide and progressive views were presented and listened to,”[19] so at Keswick theological liberalism and apostasy were presented and listened to.  For example, following the steps of Hannah W. Smith in the rejection of eternal torment, George Grubb, a key Keswick leader from the 1880s onward, denied hell in favor of annihilationism or conditional immortality.[20]  In 1899 Grubb was the first Keswick leader sent out to bring the Higher Life message to the world.  He was an effective speaker; Keswick theology and annihilationism arose everywhere he went.[21]  In response to the annihilationism of Grubb and other Keswick missioners such as Gelson Gregson, Keswick co-founder Robert Wilson declared:  “If Keswick won’t own those whom the Lord does—Grubb, Moore, Gregson, etc., where are we?  High and very dry I fear?”  In response to a query by a lady Keswick missionary who held to annihilationism,  “John Battersby Harford, as honorary secretary of the Keswick Missionary Council, insisted . . . that there was no official Keswick opinion about whether conditional immortality was true or false.”[22]  Rejecting what Jesus Christ plainly taught about hell (Mark 9:43-48) was acceptable at Keswick.
Thus, Grubb “traveled extensively in . . . [spreading the] ministry [of] . . . the Keswick message,” being among a select number chosen by Keswick to spread the Higher Life “far afield” to countries such as “Australia, Canada, . . . India and the Far East . . . the United States . . . and other lands.”[23]  Indeed, Grubb “was the first to be sent abroad as a ‘Keswick deputation’ speaker—a most fruitful aspect of the Convention’s ministry . . . Mr. Grubb traveled widely as an ‘ambassador at large’ of Keswick and was greatly used . . . especially in India, Ceylon and Australia . . . his . . . ‘return home’ visits to Keswick . . . invariably had a stimulating effect,” his messages making a “profound impression,” so that he was among the “most renowned . . . [and] most distinguished exponents” of the Keswick theology.[24]  At his worldwide Keswick venues Grubb promoted his heresies, from annihilationism to the Broadlands Conference doctrine[25] that people could make Jesus Christ return more quickly,[26] while exemplifying Keswick ecumenicalism by “cross[ing] the oceans” specifically to “conduct a mission” for the “extreme high church Bishop of Cape Town.”[27]  Grubb similarly spread the Higher Life doctrine of a post-conversion Spirit baptism at Keswick in England and worldwide,[28] being Keswick’s “important influence . . . [and] advocate in the 1890s of the baptism of the Spirit,”[29] as well as “drawing particular attention to th[e] subject [of] . . . [h]ealing . . . at Keswick . . . influences [that] were to find their way into Pentecostalism in Britain and North America.”[30]

See here for this entire study.

[1]              Pg. 29, So Great Salvation, Barabas.
[2]              Pg. 9, So Great Salvation, Barabas.
[3]              Pg. 186, So Great Salvation, Barabas.  Similarly, at the Keswick-type Swanwick conferences led by Jessie Penn-Lewis, “[m]inisters of many denominations, lay workers, and spiritual teachers” came together around Keswick and mystical theology “in one spirit, and without controversy over divergent points of view” (pg. 276, Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis:  A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard; cf. pgs. 299-301).  Visions were seen and expounded at such conferences, in accordance with the continuationism of the participants (e. g., pgs. 118-119, Transforming Keswick:  The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall).
[4]              Pg. 134, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple.  London:  Printed for private circulation, 1890.
[5]              Pg. 119, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple.  London:  Printed for private circulation, 1890.  Thus, for example, at Broadlands “all shades of religious opinion” were present (pg. 139, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple.  London:  Printed for private circulation, 1890); at the Oxford Convention “High Churchmen and Low Churchmen sat side by side; and Nonconformist ministers [joined them,] [a]ll united in prayer[.] . . . It was surely a reason for praise to God that so many Christians, differing strongly on important subjects, should listen . . . [to the Higher Life] addresses on Holiness [by men including] Mr. R. Pearsall Smith [and] W. E. Boardman” (pg. 119, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago:  Revell, 1874).  Those of “the Society of Friends . . . Episcopalians . . . Presbyterians . . . Methodists . . . Congregationalists . . . Baptist[s] . . . Wesleyan[s],” and others all joined together in ecumenical unity (pgs. 262-263, 342; cf. 177-178).  Oxford ministers also recognized the value of Western and Eastern Catholicism; they proclaimed:  “Many of the [Russian Orthodox] priests are believers, and are circulating the Word of God” (pg. 230).  One minister testified:  “I was converted through the instrumentality of a monk” (pg. 191).  Those who believed in the corrupt sacramental gospel of the Anglican High Church movement did not come under conviction and see their need to receive the true gospel; rather, they went away “comforted, consoled, peaceful, [and] joyful” in their false gospel (pg. 362).
[6]              Pg. 176, The Keswick Convention:  Its Message, its Method, and its Men, ed. Harford.
[7]              Pgs. 10, 427, Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875.
[8]              Pg. 184, The Life that is Life Indeed:  Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson.  London:  James Nisbet & Co, 1910.  For Broadlands and Keswick, creed and conduct were to be set against each other.  For Scripture and in true spirituality, creed and conduct mutually reinforce one other in evaluating the presence or strength of spiritual life.
               The rise of the “People’s Church” movement, which through the influence of the Brighton Convention rejected historical Christianity for a Higher Life agnosticism, illustrates where the unscriptural Keswick disjunction between creed and conduct can lead:
[T]he Oxford-Brighton movement was . . . the means of forwarding the agnostic ‘Peoples’ Church’ through an attendant at Brighton, who, in a joyous sense of a yielded will, and full trust, feeling the force of the historical difficulties in Christianity, tho [sic] he seemed as earnest, sincere, consecrated and true in heart as ever, felt led with the same sort of personal devotion to making a church for the large class of morally good men among the working classes whom he found seemingly incapable of Christian faith, in its historical sense, and he formed congregations out of such. (pg. 20, Forward Movements, Pierson)
[9]              Pg. 191, The Keswick Convention:  Its Message, its Method, and its Men, ed. Harford.
[10]             Pg. 177, pg. 11, Evan Harry Hopkins:  A Memoir, Alexander Smellie.
[11]             Pg. 221, Memoir of T. D. Harford-Battersby, Harford.
[12]             Pg. 13, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey.
[13]             “The Higher Life Movement,” Chapter 4 in Perfectionism, Vol. 2, B. B. Warfield.
[14]             Pg. 432,    pg. 12, Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875.
[15]             Pg. 432, Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875.
[16]             Pg. 185, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago:  Revell, 1874.
[17]             Pg. 19, Forward Movements of the Last Half Century, Arthur T. Pierson.  New York, NY:  Funk & Wagnalls, 1900.  The importance to Pierson of this ecumenical anti-separatism as one of the merits of Keswick was such that he emphasized it again on pg. 41; a “conspicuous result” of attendance at “Keswick meetings” was for people to “incline to stay where they are, ecclesiastically,” even in denominations with a “dead and formal service”; “no man or woman ever yet being known, through its influence or under its teaching, to leave one communion for another” (pg. 41, Ibid).
[18]             Pg. 150, The Life that is Life Indeed:  Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson.  London:  James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
[19]             Pg. 18, The Life that is Life Indeed:  Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson.  London:  James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
[20]             Pgs. 88-97, The Keswick Story:  The Authorized History of the Keswick Convention, Polluck.
[21]             Pg. 110, Transforming Keswick:  The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
[22]             Pgs. 113-114, Transforming Keswick:  The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall.  Italics reproduced from the original.  After all, as an authorized statement of Keswick declares, “Conditional Immortality . . . [is] a doctrine . . . lying in that doctrinal limbo where revelation grants no sharp outlines . . . not . . . clearly heterodox.  The matter lay rather within the scope of private judgment” (pg. 95, The Keswick Story:  The Authorized History of the Keswick Convention, Polluck).  God’s Word states that the lost “shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night” (Revelation 14:9-11); but, for Keswick, such texts are not clear.  Who can tell from such a passage whether “tormented with fire and brimstone . . . for ever and ever . . . no rest day nor night” means the lost are tormented with fire and brimstone for ever and ever, and have no rest day nor night, or whether they are annihilated, so that they are never tormented with fire and brimstone, but rest peacefully day and night?
[23]             Pg. 21, Keswick’s Authentic Voice, ed. Stevenson.
[24]             Pgs. 249, 17, Keswick’s Authentic Voice, ed. Stevenson.  See         pg. 141, Transforming Keswick:  The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall, for the Keswick connection of George Grubb’s nephew Norman.
[25]             E. g., those who adopted Broadlands’ doctrine could “hasten . . . the coming of the kingdom of God” (pg. 269, The Life that is Life Indeed:  Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson.  London:  James Nisbet & Co, 1910; the teaching of Broadlands included hastening both the current and eschatological aspects of the kingdom, hastening it “in any and every way.”).
[26]             Pg. 247, Transforming Keswick:  The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall.  This teaching of the Broadlands Conference was also promoted by other Keswick leaders such as Jessie Penn-Lewis. (See pg. 181, The Overcomer, December 1913.)
[27]             Pg. 90, The Keswick Story:  The Authorized History of the Keswick Convention, Polluck.
[28]             Pgs. 51-52, Transforming Keswick:  The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
[29]             Pg. 76, Transforming Keswick:  The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
[30]             Pg. 178, Transforming Keswick:  The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall.

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

A World of Lies Starting with a Church of Lies

Satan is the Father of lies (John 8:44) and as the prince of this world, he rules a world of lies.  The lies fool most of the people almost all of the time.  It's worse than ever.

Someone hacked the emails of the Democrat National Committee (DNC), gave them to Wikileaks, who dropped them on the first day of the Democrat National Convention.  The emails revealed at least a DNC conspiracy against Bernie Sanders, rigging the primary against him, and then collusion of the mainstream media with the Democrat Party.  Anyone who cared already knew the reality of both the conspiracy and the collusion -- facts however denied by the type of people who wrote the emails.  To start, Democrats already lie about the conspiracy and collusion like much of everything else they lie about, so they got caught, right?

As soon as Wikileaks published the emails, the spin from Clinton campaign manager, Robby Mook, was that the Russians hacked and then leaked the emails because they want Trump to win, another lie.  When asked how he knew this, Mook said "experts" were saying that.  He was just repeating the experts.  When asked who those experts were, he gave no answer.  More lies.  The media colluded with the Clintons by continuing the story of a Russian conspiracy.  This is has been the talking point in the media since then, turning the story from a DNC conspiracy and collusion to the Russians messing with a U.S. election [the latest:  Trump jokes about Russia finding Hillary's 30,000 emails, and CNN reports that Trump is encouraging Russia to hack Hillary Clinton -- speaking of a clown car].

Julian Assange laughed at the Russian conspiracy theory.  He said that the DNC has admitted they've been hacked many times.  No one needed the Russians for that.  As an aside, why would anyone think now that Hillary Clinton's personal server wasn't hacked if the DNC had been hacked?  Wikileaks published the emails, not Russia. The leaker himself, Julian Assange, professes the leak.  Everyone know he's the leak.  Nothing is more patently obvious than Wikileaks leaking.  Professional leakers at Wikileaks leaked.  The DNC says it's the Russians and they keep repeating this lie.  They know their audience -- extremely gullible.

I had never ever listened to one Bernie Sanders speech, not even a small percentage of one.  On Monday night, I listened to about half of Elizabeth Warren's speech and then half of Bernie's.  Warren wrote a speech that anticipated a supportive crowd and without that, it was painful.  She herself is painful to watch.  I had never heard a speech from her, and I really don't get her popularity.  I do know she herself lied at least half a dozen times in the short time I watched her.  She lies with tremendous ease.   Incidentally, she looks nothing like an American Indian, one of her claims, another lie.  I started watching Bernie's speech because after watching part of Warren's, I was wondering how or if he could bring the convention back from a dangerous precipice.

As rigged as the election has been against Bernie Sanders, his entire worldview is an elaborate lie. What he spews forth could never work.  Like Margaret Thatcher famously said, 'he would soon run out of other people's money.'  Sanders is a liar of the Henry Hill variety, who is selling everyone on a boys band, yet he doesn't know a lick of music.  He offers everyone about everything they would ever want with no possible way of accomplishing it.  He did it again in his speech and said that Hillary is the best possibility left to redistribute all the free handouts.

In the midst of his speech, Sanders said that Hillary Clinton believes the scientists on climate change. No one needs a scientist to observe climate change.  Climate changes.  However, the scientists she believes, as is so often the case, start with a false presupposition and then rig the "evidence" to bolster that presupposition, actually sounding very much like the nomination of Hillary Clinton.  Most of what every speaker says to promote her is lying.

Most churches in the world play the same type of charade that the DNC is doing at its convention. Bernie Sanders in his speech touted Clinton as a champion of diversity.  The DNC divides Americans with identity politics and calls it diversity.  Most churches pander to members and constituents by accepting diversity in belief and practice.  Come how you are.  Worship how you feel.  Almost everything is tolerated.

What's wrong with the United States?   The gospel must be freely offered, attempted to be preached, to everyone.  The gospel is the solution.  It must be the gospel though.  The gospel isn't being preached much.  Believers are often ashamed of the gospel, the actual gospel.  I'm not saying they aren't ashamed of their successful church growth methods.  They love those.

After the obvious first explanation, the gospel, the problem, as I see it, is the inability to point out what's wrong.  There is so much toleration of error, because men are uncertain about absolute truth. You can't tell anyone they're wrong today.  They don't want to hear it.  They don't think you should be saying it, because no one can really know for sure.  This is diversity, by the way.  You accept it.  It's diverse.  We need diversity.  No, it's wrong.  It's sin.  It's ungodly.  If people aren't sure about the Bible, which they're not, not sure they can know it or apply it, then no one can or should be judged.

The only acceptable truth is that everyone is accepted, everyone except the intolerant.  I think the North Carolina bathroom law is insufficient. However, look how serious professional basketball is about it.  They removed the NBA all star game from Charlotte because of the intolerance of transgender bathrooms in the state of North Carolina.

The message to police today is that you must tolerate certain behavior.  If you live in an urban area, like I do, and you get out every day, which I do, then you see bad behavior every day.  I could write a very thick book on it.  Anyone who lives in a place like I do, knows this.  If you say anything, you're in trouble.  You're the one in the wrong.  People are afraid to say or do anything, except for people with bad behavior.  The people with the bad behavior are more and more bold, because they feel less threatened than ever for behaving like they do.  This started with churches who won't tell people that they're wrong. It's antithetical to church growth.  If the churches won't stand, then no one should expect anyone to stand, especially the Democrat National Committee.

Sunday, July 24, 2016

Vote Your Conscience

Three words came out of the Republican National Convention the most memorable and controversial: "Vote Your Conscience."  I'm sure that I've never heard those three words used more.  I became curious to their usage and meaning.  At Google books, "vote your conscience" occurs 2,810 times. Before the year 2000, "vote your conscience" appears there 15 times.  That leaves 2,795 times the year 2000 up until today.  This phrase was not in popular usage until after 2000.  Why wasn't it used before?  More than ever, people don't understand the conscience.  When they did, they didn't say "vote your conscience."  In a day when the conscience means the least, it is used the most.

Upon "vote your conscience" becoming popular, you could see what it meant to those using it.  The phrase means, "do not vote along party lines," or, "vote for someone outside of your party."  By the way it is used, it has little to nothing to do with the conscience.   Since the concept of the conscience is biblical, the person saying, vote your conscience, sounds like he's encouraging something biblical. Someone against "voting your conscience" also sounds like he's against doing something that must be biblical.

How would someone vote his conscience?  The conscience doesn't provide information for voting. The conscience warns someone based on his highest perceived standard.  The conscience doesn't tell someone how to vote.

I won't be relying on my conscience for my vote in November.  I don't remember ever depending on my conscience in any election ever.  To vote in a democratic republic, someone should study the candidates and the issues, developing a checklist for the pros and cons of each possibility.  My priority for voting is what is best for the country.

Friday, July 22, 2016

I am a Pigeon: A Manifesto for Marriage Equality, Animal, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Transspecies Rights

       As the sexual revolution continues to make progress in the United States, spearheaded by whatever five members of the Supreme Court happen to think at the moment, whatever laws an executive branch regulatory agency passes without Congressional authority, and whatever new ideas tenured Marxists and media moguls wish to propagate, it is time for the next frontier in the revolution to take place.  It is time for those—like me—who identify as pigeons to be accorded our equal rights in society.
            It is true that my birth certificate states that I am a man.  It is true that every cell in my body screams out that I am a male human being.  No matter—my species identity is different from this.  Alternative gender identities are so, like, yesterday.  Species identity is where the really cool stuff is.  Queer species identity is the new alternative lifestyle, and we are coming out of the closet.  After all, there is no room for us in the closet anymore, as we have shoved into the closet the Bible, nuns who do not want to pay for abortifacients, bakers and photographers who want to obey their conscience, and people who think God’s plan is one man and one woman for life.  Such passé ideas must no longer be tolerated in the public square, and the old First Amendment protections for free exercise of religion must fade away before the new rights to debauchery without consequences and without criticism, these new rights not being given by God (for His ideas about sexual morality are not a little different) but by the majority of our nine black-robed gods and by lawless presidential and bureaucratic, extra-congressional diktat.
            In accordance with my species identity, I no longer only want to be able to use whatever restroom and locker room tickles my fancy.  That is not enough—indeed, merely allowing me to violate the privacy and safety of the 99.999% who think my species identity is bird-brained nonsense is to compromise my constitutional rights.  It is no longer enough for me to defile the minds of little girls by stripping naked in front of them in their locker rooms.  I now demand the right to be able to use the bathroom on whatever car in the company parking lot I desire, as do my fellow Pigeon-Americans.  I demand the right to vote—in at least one polling place, perhaps in several, without showing an ID (and for Democrats, of course)—on the behalf of all of my fellow pigeons, who have been cut out from the political process for too long.  Pigeon-Americans must join the ranks of the LGBTQWKWVVC (Lesbian-Gay-Bi-Trans-Queer-Who-Knows-What-Very-Very-Confused), those on the government dole, the dead (who consistently vote nearly 100% Democrat except when their voting rights are unconstitutionally restricted), and other ne’er-do-well and downcast womyn, male-oppressors, and both-neithers, who have seen the light through years of educational and media indoctrination (and some medical marijuanna) and who together form the core of the Democrat party’s base.  I also demand the right to marry another pigeon, and demand that I receive the tax benefits, inheritance rights, adoption rights, and all other privileges of natural marriage when I do so—I must be free to marry whomever, or whatever species, I love.  The egg of marriage equality will not be fully hatched until bestiality is made equal to fornication, adultery, polygamy, sodomy, sadomasichism, molestation of the underage, and whatever else my lusts desire—all of which must be accorded exactly the same legal rights as natural marriage.  I demand, not only the ability to use whatever locker room and bathroom I desire, as well as the ability to go on your car, from the top of tall buildings, on your head, and wherever else I want whenever I want, but also that you pay for my $100,000 species-reassignment surgury with your tax dollars.  Furthermore, I demand that any doctor who cannot in good conscience mutilate my body and surgically implant feathers on me have no conscience protections, but be fired immediately, if not arrested.  I also demand quotas in college admissions and employment for Pigeon-Americans—if we are not represented at your business at an exactly equal level to the ratio of pigeons to people in your city, we will sue you into bankrupcy for discriminating against us.  Not only so, but if you DARE to even SUGGEST that I am a man, and not a pigeon, I demand that your hate speech be punished with long prison sentences, forfiture of all your property, and—what may be an even worse punishment—hours and hours of diversity and sensitivity training saturated with leftist drivel.  Indeed, you will not be allowed to even dare to think—not for the smallest fraction of a second—that I am not a pigeon.  Such hate-thoughts will lead you to micro-aggressions that will be punished severely.  Furthermore, all dissent from my equal status as a Pigeon-American must be crushed.  In the public schools you are funding with your tax dollars, we will teach that if a five-year-old boy thinks he is a girl, or a pigeon, or a Big Bird, or an elephant, or a dolphin, or a Cookie Monster, or a cockroach, that such ideas are natural and healthy, and we will, without parental consent, chop off arms, legs, or whatever other members are necessary to surgically make impressionable young people conform on the outside as nearly as possible to whatever gender or species identity their flights of fancy have led them to.  (It will take a lot of time to convince the children that such unnatural absurdities are true, so we will drop—if it has not already been done—the teaching of Read’n, ‘Ritin', and ‘Rithmetic to make sure that the youth are Politically Correct and Species Sensitive.)  If you go to a private school and your teachers dare to call me a man, not a bird, we will take away your accreditation and force your school to shut your doors.  Finally, if you homeschool and dare to call me a man, we will take your kids away from you.  Passing on such anti-bird species hatred will not be tolerated, but crushed with an iron fist, in our tolerant and diverse society.
            We are slouching towards Gomorrah very quickly as a country—it was only in 2003 that the gods on our Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws, and a mere ten years later that they found a penumbra of an implication of a hypothesis of a will-‘o-the-wisp that proves that there is a constitutional right for men to marry other men.  We Pigeon-Americas are expecting our rights to be vindicated very soon, even if it means the end of your freedom and the final and utter destruction of constitutional liberty for ungodly, lascivious, and immoral tyranny.
            It will happen sooner than you think.

          The article above was originally published here.