It will never work without the implicit threat of violence or some concrete form of retaliation - which the Church at large will not support.
Christians - in the majority - would have to vote as a bloc and take over one party with lots of money and dedication to make this effort effective.
The last time that happened big enough to actually change anything was when the “moral majority” rose up to politically kick humanist fanny. However, we failed to remove them from our unelected institutions and change their re-education cabal so they kept “progressing” in culture and society to come back again politically.
What other faith has that component of love and self-sacrifice?
That makes all the other faiths look rather listless. It makes those whose lives are kaka (Hollyweird) totally meaningless, shallow, vapid and worthless, every single solitary minute of life.
Stalinism has returned behind the Pink Triangle and the Rainbow Flag.
Dr. Cass ought to watch some TV; it’s been perfectly ok for a long time now to bash white males on commercials as stupid, clumsy, mean, etc. At least 50% of commercials are built on the premise that white males are dolts incapable of doing squat. Payback by angry female Producers obviously. I wonder if they’re surprised that no male wants to date them.
Christian Catholic Bashing: The Last Acceptable Bigortry?
It’s Spiritual Warfare. Satan isn’t interested in doing battle with other types of religion. Those people are already lost, he’d be wasting his time.
The answer is bound and gagged, and lying on our doorstep.The word "gospel" means "good news."
Philippians 4:8, King James Version (KJV) Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.Journalism as we know it, OTOH, is about bad news.
The Bible says that "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."
Journalism claims, without proof, to be "objective," and by that they mean nothing other, IMHO, than that journalism (which is entirely secular) is actually wise.
As Adam Smith put it,
It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity,Wisdom, and skepticism of claims of authority, are what are called for and are in short supply.
and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing.
Wire service journalism has homogenized journalism around the self interest of journalists in general. That self interest lies in the profitability of journalism in general and in the authority of journalists to say what is important. But when giving one's own self interest free rein, one is least able to exercise the caution which would allow one to make a serious attempt at objectivity. When journalists claim that they, or their compatriots who agree with them, are objective they are at that moment making no attempt to actually be objective. We know this because the only possible way to attempt objectivity is to be honest and forthright about your own motives and self interest. And claiming to be objective is the very opposite of being forthright about your own motives.
If I am correct in stating that a claim of objectivity is tantamount to a claim of wisdom, journalists are behaving in the time-dishonored tradition of the Sophists of ancient Greece. The term "sophistry," which is defined as facile and spurious argumentation, derives directly from the Sophists. "Soph" as the root word meant "wise." The counter to the Sophists arose in Greece under the name "philosopher," meaning "lover of wisdom." Etymologically, "philosopher" is the term for a person who refuses to claim wisdom but who also rejects the claims of others to superior wisdom. A "philosopher" demands facts and logic whereas the "sophist" will pound the table if that's what it takes to distract from the contrary facts and logic. "It depends on the meaning of 'is'" is a modern classic of sophistry. Similarly, "That's old news" as a way of diffusing devastating evidence against the Clintons was sophistry. The age of the facts does not change the facts.
My conclusion is that the homogeneity of journalism under the wire services implies that the wire services themselves are constructs which violate the Sherman Antitrust Act - and that the wire services themselves should be sued into oblivion on that basis. The wire services being the mechanism by which a lie (such as the one against Rush Limbaugh which prevented his becoming a partner in the ownership of the St. Louis Rams) gets propagated and turned into "truth" via the Big Lie. Christians should be on the lookout for such a piling-on of distorted reportage - and be prepared to sue, big time.
The Associated Press was held by SCOTUS to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act back in 1945, but back then its mission - that of conserving bandwidth in the dissemination of news - seemed far "too big to fail." Half a century later, bandwidth is dirt cheap, and that excuse won't fly. SUE THEM INTO OBLIVION!!!
Plenty of Christian bashing here on FR, Christians bashing each other.