It’s already abundantly evident that the #metoo movement has been hijacked, taken from its original purpose of encouraging sex abuse victims to come forward, and has been made into a tool with which one can snipe those that they don’t like.
Is that what’s happening with Russell Brand? I don’t know, but I do know that it’s suspicious that the accusations against him haven’t come forward in a timely manner, but instead were brought out nearly two decades after the alleged crime supposedly occurred, and shortly after he expressed non-establishment viewpoints, and picked up a substantial following.
I’m not taking a side on this matter, considering that the accusations have nothing behind them but the accusations themselves, but also because it’s possible that evidence can surface, showing that crimes may have actually taken place.
But that doesn’t mean that this whole affair doesn’t have the appearance of something sketchy. The accusations were immediately picked up by corporate media outlets, which ran the story with nothing to go off of but the accusations. Which, by the way, is not journalism. Moving in lockstep, Google demonetized Russell’s YouTube channel, in apparent presumption of his guilt.
If the intention were to create a chilling effect to discourage one from gaining a following by pointing out what’s wrong with certain corporate interests, one way to go about it would be to attack their character. And the most effective attack, historically, has been an allegation of sexual misconduct, considering that allegations of that nature have a stronger tendency to bypass a person’s better judgment, making them more likely to assume guilt on the part of the accused.
I’ve noticed in recent months that the methods of corporate media outlets and their butt buddies have been becoming increasingly indelicate. As I see it, there are two things which can cause such a change in approach, one being the confidence that comes from thinking oneself indestructible, and the other is the desperation that one sees out of one who realizes that they are fighting a losing battle.
When you consider the fact the culture war has turned heavily in our favor, it’s not hard to see their desperation.
What will come of this is something yet to be seen. But at this point, I can say that we can try not to be too suspicious of the accusers, in spite of the circumstances surrounding the allegations. They might actually be telling the truth, this time.
Grand-pappy may have needed your help setting up the ol’ VCR, but there was one thing that he knew: You stay the hell away from bears.
While they may have modeled stuffed animals after bears, trust me when I say that bears don’t want to be your friends. In a sense, they’re like Libertarians; they just want to be left alone, but if you do anything that they construe as threatening, you’re not going to stand a chance.
Knowing this, consider the fact that a bunch of tourists at Yellowstone found a family of bears on the side of the road. While sensible people would have stayed in their cars, these yutzs instead left their cars and approached them.
And by approached them, I mean that they ran at them.
And one of them did so with his child in his arms.
See for yourself:
This is absolutely insane.
A group of tourists in Yellowstone was spotted exiting their cars and sprinting towards a mama bear and her two cubs.
I had a close encounter with a bear cub in the woods. I just calmly turned around and walked away. I know how unlikely it is that I’m still alive. That’s because if you’re anywhere near a bear cub, mama bear is going to be close by, and she is not going to be reasonable about the situation. Think some trailer-trash stranger-danger mom, except with the literal ability to tear a U.S. marine to shreds.
Now, consider the fact that a bunch of guys saw a mama bear with her cubs, and ran at them, with one of them carrying his daughter in his arms.
Lucky for them, the mama bear and her cubs decided to just run off. And considering that one of the cubs was poking around, she could have easily decided to provide the cameraman with an example of natural selection at work.
Again, bears do not want to be friends. Most animals don’t. The usually just want to be left alone, and some of them can ruin your day if you don’t. And the first such example one can think of would be bears. They’re the closest thing to land-sharks that we have.
Normally, I wait until December is almost up to post an image that I feel best describes the year. I know that it’s only August, but the contest is over, we already have a winner.
Here it is:
I would have imagined that when Donald Trump went in for his mugshot, he’d put on a wide grin, as if to reassure the MAGA crowd that things are going to work out, and there’s no need to worry. Instead, we get a determined scowl, which means business. Speaking for me, I’d like to see that on a T-shirt. It’s probably already a thing.
Things are really turning up. For the first time, the lackeys of the current administration have arrested the previous president, and it was over something as petty as questioning the results of an election. Which was something that Hillary Clinton has done, but as we all know, this is a two-tier justice system.
To make matters worse, Trump’s lawyers are being charged as well, which has a disturbing chilling effect and sends a message that the Democrat-controlled system is going to come after you if you come to the defense of this person who is outside the cabal.
While the latest development is alarming, it goes to show that the woke elements of the Democrat establishment is growing increasingly insecure. As history has shown us again and again, when a dictator’s grip starts slipping, they become increasingly artless and indelicate in their methods.
The fact is, as much establishment power as the woke has held, they are losing the culture war, and it is becoming increasingly evident to ordinary people. The signs are hard to miss. Have a white-pill block:
The Biden administration’s approval rating plummeted in light of the botched Afghanistan withdraw. The boycott against Bud Light has been highly successful, and the brand is just about destroyed. A similar boycott against Target has proven the point that pushing sexual perversity on children can result in a company’s stock plummeting, and going woke can actually be a violation of fiduciary duties. Starbucks started taking down pride decorations in the middle of pride month, while trying to be quiet about it. The hit single “Rich Men North of Richmond” has debuted at #1 of the Billboard Top 100, and is already widely considered “the protest song of this generation”. Parents have taken notice that sexual perversity is being foisted upon children through the education system, resulting in pushback. Vanguard has ditched ESG. George Soros has lost billions of dollars in investments. High school senior males are tending conservative over liberal by nearly two-to-one and are entering the voting population. Roe v Wade and Affirmative Action have both been struck down by the Supreme Court. Twitter, now called X, is now privately-owned by a free speech advocate.
And there’s more. And by the looks of it, it’s going to keep going, as the left-wing establishment continues to lose control. And as they lose control, they’ll continue to make increasingly-desperate moves, abusing the power that’s slipping away from them.
Sometimes, I wonder whether the people (yet to be replaced by AI) in legacy media believe what they are typing. In some cases, they have to be malicious, because there’s no other way to explain what passes from their fingertips, into their keyboards, into the ether, and from glowing display screens to the disappointed eyeballs of those who have yet to move on to more relevant information sources.
I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, but right now, I imagine you might be thinking, “Oh boy, now what did they do?”
Only writing hit pieces on a new film bringing attention to one of the worst crimes taking place today, child sex trafficking.
What’s amazing about the Twitter snippet above is that all that it gets right is that Sound of Freedom is about child-trafficking.
Every other data point was wrong. QAnon had nothing to do with it. It’s not a superhero movie. The implication of conspiracy theorism without using the term conspiracy theory is intellectually dishonest. And I prefer not to speculate as to why brainworms feature prominently in the thinking of the Rolling Stone author.
I’m noticing a trend where if a person expresses opposition to the real problem of child sex trafficking, then that person is called a part of QAnon, as if to suggest that being part of QAnon is a bad thing. I think it’s about time we handle such petty name-calling by deciding that we don’t care.
You think I’m with QAnon? Go ahead and think that. I don’t care. Think I’m pedophile-phobic? I don’t care.
Because of what Rolling Stone has to say about Sound of Freedom, a film opposing child sex trafficking, let’s see what they had to say about Cuties, a film about sexualizing minors:
Oh.
But, you know, that’s just Rolling Stone. Let’s see what Washington Democracy Dies In Darkness Post has to say about it:
The use of the term low-budget to describe Sound of Freedom is designed to get you to dismiss it out-of-hand, as though you’re supposed to think a film is not worth seeing unless it a big-name production with a budget in the hundreds of millions.
Now, I admit that I didn’t look into the star of the film, or his opinions on QAnon. That’s simply immaterial to the quality or content of the film itself, which mentions nothing about QAnon.
What I do know is that the film is based on a true story about a man who was on a sting operation to crash a pedophile island party and arrest the predators who were participating. During the film, the man embarks on a journey to reunite a family with two children who were abducted by a fake talent agency. It basically watches like a crime drama, but makes the point that child sex trafficking is a very real problem.
Impressively enough, this low-budget indie film has gone on to rival the summer blockbuster, Indiana Jones! That goes to show that there’s something about Sound of Freedom that resonates with people.
In writing it off as a QAnon film (as though that’s a problem), Washington Post risks alienating themselves from the few readers that they have left in this social media age. But at least they didn’t pull a Rolling Stone and call it a superhero movie, right?
But hold on, they had an opinion about Cuties, too. Let’s see what they had to say about that, presumably before painting their toenails black and lamenting democracy’s death in darkness:
You can tell a lot about a person by what they think is normal. Apparently a movie about sexualizing minors is “an unflinching look at what it means to be a preteen girl”. And if you have a problem with that, then the problem is that you “can’t handle it”.
Of course, if you’re of the opinion that sexualizing minors is not a biggie, then you’d probably have a problem with a movie that depicts child sex trafficking in a negative light.
I heard about Sound of Freedom, not by marketing, but by word of mouth. I was already considering seeing it when a fellow patriot offered to see it with me, so I accepted his offer.
It’s a film I recommend, but with the warning that it’s not for the faint of heart. There are no graphic depictions of abuse, but there are strong implications.
Having seen the movie, I can understand the strong desire to do something about the problem. If a person were to “go vigilante”, they might end up creating more problems than they solve, and perhaps even disrupt investigations already in progress. Perhaps the better course of action would be to contact representatives about legislation that could combat child exploitation. Also of benefit might be researching which candidates might be tougher on child exploitation prior to casting your vote in an election.
Of course, you can also tell other people about the movie, Sound of Freedom, and encourage them to see it. It would seem that word of mouth is still effective in bringing attention to media designed to heighten awareness.
When it comes to vigilantism, don’t do anything I wouldn’t do.
Apparently now we’re supposed to conflate any opposition to child sex trafficking with QAnon, who we are supposed to think are bad guys, even though their main deal is opposing child sex trafficking. What is legacy media’s stake in this game?
Thanks for making it easy to take the moral high ground, I guess.
EDIT: Not The Bee already published an article somewhat similar in tone to this one, with a similar title. I wasn’t aware of it when I published this article, but credit to them for publishing their opinion first.
You might know a kid who was interested in playing Chess. But just because a kid was playing Chess doesn’t mean he was good at it.
Oftentimes, when you play against a kid, you would allow special rules that were designed to give the kid an advantage, to give him a chance of winning.
It might be that his pieces couldn’t be taken when they’re on his side of the board. Or it could be that you couldn’t start the game with your strongest pieces. Or it could be that the child would be granted two moves on his turn, while you still have only one. Whatever the special rules were, they were designed as “kid gloves”, to give the child an advantage to help them win the match, which they usually did.
But imagine playing a game of Chess as an adult, being granted the opportunity to benefit from the same special rules that were designed to encourage children to play, playing with the same advantages that these special rules would afford. If you’re like me, you’d be embarrassed to accept such an advantage. But if you were to accept them and when victory occurs, would you really feel like you’ve outwitted your opponent?
Considering the unfair advantage that you’ve been granted, could you really succeed in convincing yourself that you’ve won on your own virtues and merits?
But for a long time, that was how heavily the social media landscape favored left wing viewpoints. Social media networks were run largely by those who were politically on the left. Not only that, the algorithms favored left wing viewpoints, while algorithmically burying any conservative viewpoint. Worse yet, moderation was dominated by leftists, who oftentimes deleted conservative viewpoints outright, not specifying any Terms of Service violations. In many cases, this resulted in a loss of income.
These leftists would even go as far as to shadow ban conservatives, limiting their potential for reaching a wide audience, without them being notified of this, with Facebook leader Mark Zuckerberg denying that such a practice was taking place, committing perjury before Congress.
Through it all, the book burners of the digital age had a partner in crime: the Democratic establishment. This government entity colluded with social media companies to suppress conservative viewpoints, in what is the gravest violation of the first amendment in the history of the republic, and it’s not even close.
While we’ve been repeatedly told that no such thing was occurring, there is a mountain of evidence showing that it certainly has been, not least of which are the Twitter Files. There’s also the fact that the government’s three-letter agencies are embarrassingly bad at keeping secrets, even secrets that are so damning.
Now, a federal judge has ordered them to stop colluding with social media to suppress dissent:
Huge:
A federal district judge preliminary banned Biden Administration officials from continuing to speak and meet with Big Tech officials to pressure them to censor viewpoints the US Govt dislikes.
Can you imagine a grownup kid, one wearing a Burger King crown and a cape made of bedsheets, who for his entire adult life has been playing and winning games of Chess because he’s been playing by the kid’s rules, suddenly having to play grownup Chess with all the other grownups?
Can you imagine him, as his action figures are lined up outside the play area “cheering him on”, slowly coming to the realization that he’s not the brilliant strategist that he thinks he is, as he is suddenly made to play on equal footing with the other adults?
Can you imagine him throwing his toys on the floor, and storming off, stating his intention on making a “better game”, better than the “complicated” game that all the other grownups are better at?
And can you imagine him continually coming back, even though he gets soundly defeated again and again, each time retreating to the comfort of his soup and crayons?
Now, we’re at the point in which you don’t have to imagine it. And you love to see it.
While ignorant political takes are no stranger to Ben & Jerry’s, they took things over the top on July 4th, when they appealed to the inordinate feeling of guilt of their fellow leftists.
If the name Ben & Jerry’s sounds familiar, yes, they are the brand of ice cream that you don’t buy because it’s way too expensive, bad for you, and not really that great.
Anyhow, here’s their crappy take:
This 4th of July, it's high time we recognize that the US exists on stolen Indigenous land and commit to returning it. Learn more and take action now: https://t.co/45smaBmORHpic.twitter.com/a6qp7LXUAE
Like many with a cereal box understanding of history, Ben & Jerry’s apparently believes that Native Americans were a peaceful lot until European colonists showed up, broke treaties by violently attacking them without provocation, then seized their land for themselves.
To get right to the heart of it, the Native Americans were not peaceful. The tribes were pretty much in a state of perpetual war with each other, and they were not gentlemen about it. They were so over-the-top that the ancient Assyrians would have wanted them to chill out.
What they’d do is gather raiding parties then proceed to attack enemy villages while they were asleep. The Native American tribes were in a constant state of war and were continually “stealing land” from each other. After European colonists showed up, the natives lost a game they were already playing to those who were better at it.
Also, Native Americans kept slaves. When a tribe conquered a village, an expected outcome for the conquered people (out of the many that were not off the table, such as torture) was to be enslaved. And there was no sign that this practice would have ended without the settlers showing up and eventually issuing the Emancipation Proclamation.
As many natives that may have been lost warring with the colonists, more were apparently lost to disease. Native Americans didn’t have the same immunity to viruses that were accidentally brought across the Atlantic with the European settlers. When these settlers moved across the land, they sometimes found entire villages which were empty.
Now, if Native Americans still held the land, would we have been better off with their culture?
Travel south to Central America, and you’ll find the Mayans, who performed human sacrifices. There were also the Aztecs, who also performed human sacrifices, but using war prisoners.
And if they remained the dominant culture of the land, do you suppose that Native Americans would have developed the same science and technology that helps ensure that life as we know it isn’t a living hell? After all, we’re talking about cultures so primitive that many of them, at the point of their discovery by Europeans, still hadn’t developed the wheel.
I don’t know about you, but I like the advances that were made possible because a bunch of violent tribesmen were displaced by the civilized and industrious. I like antibiotics because I prefer that small scrapes not be fatal. I like modern agriculture because I like having a full belly, me and billions of others. I like automobiles because I have places to go to. I like climate control because I don’t like trying to sleep in a puddle of my own sweat. I like smartphones because having access to the summation of human knowledge appeals to me.
But hey, if Ben & Jerry’s is serious about returning “stolen indigenous land”, it’s on them to demonstrate how serious they really are. A cadre of Jewish students are calling the ice cream company out, daring them to make good on their own words:
Speaking of stolen land, the Abenaki Nation would like to have a word with @benandjerrys about the land under their headquarters that they are occupying in Vermont.
Will Ben & Jerry’s surrender the land their corporate headquarters is situated on to Native Americans? I have my doubts. When leftists like Ben & Jerry’s shoot off their mouths like this, it’s usually just to virtue signal. They don’t actually believe what they’re saying. If they did, they’d act accordingly.
It would be great if we had nine Supreme Court justices who understood the Constitution. We have six, but that’s still enough to hold the majority.
The first amendment of the Constitution prevailed today, after the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving a website designer who objected to design a website promoting a gay wedding, which was requested by a client.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 long ideological lines that the First Amendment bars Colorado from “forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.”
Why was this even a question? The first amendment protections for one’s religion does apply to the state of Colorado. What’s more, freedom in principle is opposed to the idea of anyone being coerced in any way. A business merely existing does not create any obligation for that business or any of its employees to take an action. If the business decides that it won’t take an action, even in exchange for money, that’s the choice of the business owner, and anyone in their employ can be expected to direct themselves in a manner consistent with their convictions.
Believe it or not, one’s religion isn’t just a name on a banner to be waved about, then promptly ignored at the dictates of some psychopath who is out to create cultural uniformity. A person’s religion actually has an influence on the way they think, and the decisions that they make. Therefore, one’s religion does influence the way they live.
Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said: “Ms. [Lori] Smith seeks to engage in protected First Amendment speech; Colorado seeks to compel speech she does not wish to provide. As the Tenth Circuit observed, if Ms. Smith offers wedding websites celebrating marriages she endorses, the State intends to compel her to create custom websites celebrating other marriages she does not. … If she wishes to speak, she must either speak as the State demands or face sanctions for expressing her own beliefs, sanctions that may include compulsory participation in ‘remedial . . . training,’ filing periodic compliance reports, and paying monetary fines. That is an impermissible abridgement of the First Amendment’s right to speak freely.”
This is the United States, after all. This is a place where freedom of speech is recognized by its foundational document. Compelled speech, by its nature, cannot be free.
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.”
Sotomayor’s use of the term “protected class” implies privilege. The ideals of our nation uphold equality of all people in the sight of God, and under the law. There is no special class that can compel anyone else to either speak or take an action, and no one can be deprived of their God-given freedoms without due process.
A Supreme Court Justice is expected to know that.
She would, as you might expect, attempt to frame this as part of a “backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities”. This is, of course, intellectually dishonest, as there are no gender minorities, there are only men and women, and the “sexual minorities” she is alluding to are actually sexual behaviors, and is actually is valid to question the sociological impact of these behaviors.
But even if she’s dishonest and misinformed, at least Sotomayor isn’t getting what she wanted.
Smith who believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, said she wanted to create a custom web-page business for weddings, but could not do so because under Colorado law she would have been forced to create websites that violate her faith. Colorado said it didn’t want to dictate what Smith said in her web designs, but that if her business is open to the public–as it is–it had to serve everyone.
What kind of state compels a business to serve anyone and everyone, just by virtue of being open to the public? I’m trying to wrap my head around this. Is the idea that, in the act of opening or being employed by a business, a person forfeits their personal autonomy? Did the state of Colorado really believe that there was a point in which an individual, complete with freedoms recognized by the Constitution and the superordinate principles of all of western civilization (and not only the United States), was no longer a partaker of those freedoms by virtue of being employed?
Or perhaps this is actually about power. Perhaps certain people get a thrill out of commanding people, and watching them work because they are compelled to. If so, they need to learn pretty quick that having money does not give them power over everyone. Not everyone is willing to give themselves up just for money.
On Friday, the court ruled against the state and for the web designer in a decision that could have profound consequences in Colorado and 29 other states that have laws requiring businesses open to the public to serve everyone, regardless or race, religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation.
Or, if NPR were to frame the matter more correctly, the freedoms of people and businesses to act in consideration of their consciences has been recognized in a society that proclaimed these principles to begin with.
A sincere “thank you” to the six Supreme Court justices who voted in favor of the web designer for knowing a few things about the country we live in.
In a 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court has just ruled that Affirmative Action programs are unconstitutional, and a violation of the 14th Amendment.
If you haven’t much looked into it, Affirmative Action programs have long been controversial because they promote the consideration of the race of applicants in college admissions for the purposes of meeting racial quotas. Basically, racism per se.
While the court’s ruling was the right call, one could ask why it took so long. After all, American civil rights legislation isn’t exactly new. The 14th Amendment was penned in light of the Civil War, and racial discrimination has since become universally frowned upon. How was it that a program which was hard-wired to discriminate based on race was not immediately recognized as a violation of this nation’s core fundamental principles?
As has been pointed out by many, Affirmative Action has done more harm than good, by virtue of the fact that it presents a more favorable outcome based on the race of the applicant, rather than on the applicant’s merit:
The Supreme Court just ruled against Affirmative Action. Why?
Because it is systemically racist.
Harvard applicants in the top academic decile have different chances of admission depending on their race:
While the expression is often true that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, one should wonder how the solution to the problem of racial discrimination could be a program that discriminates based on race.
In any case, we get to see some pretty bad takes from the left, because the racist program was a favorite among the left.
By the way, I’ve wondered why the left is racist against Asians. If anyone cares to clue me in, please leave a comment.
It was only a year ago that the same Supreme Court struck down the long-controversial Roe v Wade ruling, much to the (sometimes violent) chagrin of those who believed that abortions are an entitlement according to the Constitution. They are not. People have also believed that the Constitution says that an undercover cop is questioned as to whether they are an undercover cop, they must answer honestly.
People really need to actually read the Constitution. If they do, they’ll actually know what it says. It’s not even a long or difficult read.
But hey, another W for those of us who actually understand human nature and how to run a society. Culture has been shifting more in our favor, lately. While I saw it coming, what surprises me is how quickly it’s been happening lately. Still, it’s welcome news.
Pride month isn’t halfway over yet, and we’re getting news of yet another corporation that’s ending the rainbow-colored festivities early, if Starbucks Workers United is to be believed.
Yes, Starbucks. As in, the company that’s in a race with Dunkin to make the most overpriced sugary coffee that adds something like 300 calories to your to your daily tally.
Apparently, Starbucks locations, particularly unionized stores, are taking down pride decorations in an apparent effort to avoid controversy. As you could probably imagine, the professional victims are not taking it well.
BREAKING: In the middle of Pride Month, Starbucks BANS Pride decorations in stores across the United States.
— Starbucks Workers United (@SBWorkersUnited) June 13, 2023
Now, if this turns out to be the case, one might imagine that I’d be up for rewarding them with a few purchases for making the decision to ditch cynical activism and pivoting to profit. But Starbucks still comes off as hella shady.
The fact is, coffee is one of the least expensive beverages that one can make from home. So, why spend a few bucks on a cup from Starbucks?
What’s more, Starbucks is typically in a Target store. And even putting aside Target’s current controversy, shitty public image, and that they overcharge for low-quality merchandise, the fact is, a caffeine high makes a person prone to spending more money. When you know that, you see putting a Starbucks in the front of a Target as shady AF.
For a long while, it seemed like corporate entities were powerless to resist the power brokers of the banking cartels which have been pushing ESG and DEI in an effort to force behaviors. But as the Bud Light effect and the Target effect have proven, the consumers actually do have power. And if the people decide that they’re sick of the bullshit, they’ll just take their money elsewhere, and a higher ESG score won’t be enough to keep mega-corporations afloat.
Before we get too carried away, Starbucks corporate have denied banning pride decorations:
In a statement, a spokesperson for Starbucks told Newsweek that “We unwaveringly support the LGBTQIA2+ community. There has been no change to any policy on this matter and we continue to encourage our store leaders to celebrate with their communities including for U.S. Pride month in June.
“We’re deeply concerned by false information that is being spread especially as it relates to our inclusive store environments, our company culture, and the benefits we offer our partners. Starbucks has a history that includes more than four decades of recognizing and celebrating our diverse partners and customers – including year-round support for the LGBTQIA2+ community,” the statement said.
Wow, that alphabet slop acronym gets longer and more jumbled as a function of time. It’s almost looking like a password that would make the NSA proud!
I suppose we’ll find out with time just how much sway the union has over the Starbucks brand, or whether we’ve been fed misinformation (that falsehoods come from the professionally offended must be taken into account). If true, then we might instead find out just how much sway Starbucks corporate has over unionized stores. The nature of the relationship between Starbucks corporate and unions I profess I don’t understand.
One bit of advice that I can give to Starbucks (as though they’ll listen) is to not pick any unnecessary fights, and play it safe by getting out of culture war battles, and staying out. Especially if joining would mean siding with fringe groups at the expense of the majority.
Now, if someone bases their faith on the words of the Bible, it should be plain to them that the Bible does not speak of homosexuality in a favorable light. In spite of this, there has been an increase in the number of churches that have been welcoming of those in the LGBT community.
If someone’s perspective of their religion is Biblical, they might come to the conclusion that the Boston church has been struck by lightning in an act of divine intervention, due to the popular idea that those who do wickedly enough might be struck by lightning.
It was nearly two years ago that a similar occurrence had taken place when lightning struck a George Floyd mural in mostly clear skies, avoiding the telephone poles, street lamps, and taller buildings to go right for a mural made of brick, and apparently directly struck the image of George Floyd’s face!
This occurred after months of riots over the death of the drug addict who was slain by a police officer, and many spoke of Floyd in a way that elevated him to the status of an idol.
I know that some folk might write these occurrences off as coincidences. And, to be fair, sometimes lightning strikes. But sometimes, lightning strikes in such a way that might inspire pause for thought.
Perhaps it’s time for certain people who claim to be Christian to reevaluate what they stand for, and think about just how well their church holds up to Biblical standards.
Magnetricity 