Oregon church send lies to Trump

 Recently, an Oregon Church wrote a deceitful letter to President Trump. Their Facebook post says it is not about politics; it is about faith. The ending of the first paragraph of the letter reads. "We raise our voice to you not from a place of partisanship, but from the conviction that flows out of Scripture, which calls us to justice, mercy and humility before God." 

Clearly the letter is about politics, and it is entirely partisan. As it is filled with Progressive political statements.

"Throughout the Bible, we are warned about governments that send troops into cities to silence their citizens." Really, where is that found? No reference at all is given.

"You are not making us safer. You are not making America great again." Now, where have we heard that before? Oh right at practically every protest by the left.

Of course, no Adventist letter would be truly Adventist without fear of upcoming persecution. So the letter seems to equate the National Guard to the Revelation 13 Beasts who are to persecute God's people. They even think that because they wrote this letter, "Must we expect, even by writing this letter, to have a National Guard presence in front of our own church building?" So far, the National Guard presence has been in front of Federal Buildings, particularly ICE facilities, where they carry out the USA immigration laws, which were voted on by the legislature of the Federal government. That is the place you go if you don't like the immigration laws: Congress. Just because the past administration did not carry out the immigration laws does not mean that the laws were done away with.

But the woes of the letter continue: "We recently conducted an evangelism series intentionally designed to serve our neighbors who speak Spanish. Many were afraid to come because of ICE raids and fear of deportation." Again, it is political left propaganda as ICE does not raid churches. 

Even the left leaning Vote Common good says: Legally, ICE cannot enter houses of worship without a judicial warrant. Most ICE warrants are administrative and do not grant entry. https://www.votecommongood.com/how-to-protect-people-during-ice-raids/
You can also see on the ICE website that they don't go to or near places of worship.

But apparently, the letter writer forgets this, or again is just deceitful. Then the letter asserts that there are efforts to dismantle federal assistance programs. Which programs are being dismantled? Members of the church, the letter says can no longer afford their medication. So now the letter has told us that the administration is dismantling assistance programs, and it has already affected members of the church. That was fast! 

Then the letter says: "You adorn the White House as a Babylonian King, surrounding yourself with opulence while the most vulnerable are left to suffer." Apparently, having contributions to build the Ballroom addition to the White House at no cost to the taxpayers is Babylonian opulence!

 The second page of the letter moves from their fear of persecution to their declaration of divine judgment against President Trump. "

Mr. President, you stand under the judgment of Almighty God. A government that crushes the poor, oppresses the stranger, and silences its people cannot escape divine accountability."

 So now, following the United States immigration law, which includes deportation and has done so for as long as anyone can remember, is oppressing the stranger. We just had the second "no kings" demonstration, so it does not seem that people are being silenced. Another Progressive lie is included in the letter.

The letter then begins with the Bible Speaks Community SDA church's demands. "That you immediately cease the brutalization of peaceful protesters at the ICE facility in Portland." Probably not really peaceful protesters that are being brutalized. The protesters seem to be the ones doing the violence. 

Police declare riot at Portland ICE facility, multiple arrests made . Again, more Progressive propaganda, from the people who declare ICE Nazi's.

Then the letter says: "That you end the indiscriminate deportations and family separations that tear apart communities and deny the justice of due process. While criminals should be held accountable under the law, it is not justice to treat every immigrant as a criminal. That is injustice."
 Again, a progressive lie. Many taken by ICE are already under judge-ordered deportation orders, and all get the due process of the law. Certainly, there are no indiscriminate deportations of illegal or legal immigrants. If they write a letter filled with lies, what kind of church are they? Has this church never heard of not bearing false witness? It is one of the 10 commandments. 

My friend wrote a comment on Facebook that he wished his church would write such a letter. I would not be part of any church that wrote the following letter. It is full of false information and false demands that they think God is directing. If God is a part of their organization at all, I am beginning to suspect it is just another false statement. 

Adventist Today Does Uganda really kill the LGBT folks?

 One of the biggest problems with the people over at Adventist Today is they read and listen to only leftist media. Adventist Today is leftist so apparently they only listen to the leftists. The problem is that if a person does that they often only hear the leftist propaganda.  Take for instance this article once again from that font of misinformation Loren Seibold.  Deafening Silence My church supports the killing of LGBTQ people in Uganda.

Quoting what Andrew Klavan often humorously terms the New York Times a former newspaper Seibold says:

They began leaving after Uganda’s Parliament passed a sweeping anti-gay bill in late March that threatens punishment as severe as death for some perceived offenses, and calls for life in prison for anyone engaging in same-sex relations.

While Uganda along with many African countries has long outlawed Homosexuality this so-called new offense is actually something that deals with what the law terms as "aggravated Homosexuality":

Under the new proposed bill, homosexual conduct will still be illegal, but identifying as homosexual without engaging in homosexual acts will not be outlawed. 

The bill, however, retains its more extreme elements, including the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality,” which includes sex with a minor, having sex while HIV positive and incest. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/02/africa/uganda-passes-anti-homosexuality-bill-intl/index.html

Nigeria and Uganda — among 32 of the 54 African nations that criminalize same-sex relations — have some of the strictest anti-LGBTQ laws in the world. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/uganda-nigeria-africa-lgbtq-rights-1.6952765

I was going to put the places in Africa where it was OK to be Gay as that was a title of a Newsweek article but I misread the title so it did not list the 22 countries out of the 54 where it was legal, still an interesting read. Where Is It Illegal to Be Gay in Africa?

 From the Ugandan law:

 3. Aggravated homosexuality

(1) A person who commits the offence of homosexuality in any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2), commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality and is liable, on conviction, to suffer death.

(2) The circumstances referred to m subsection (1) are where-(a) the person against whom the offence is committed is a child;

 (b) the offender is a parent, guardian or relative of the person against whom the offence is committed;

(c) the person against whom the offence is committed contracts a terminal illness as a result of the sexual act;

(d) the offender is a serial offender;

(e) the offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;

(f) the person against whom the offence is committed is a person with disability or suffers a disability as a result of the sexual act;

(g) the person against whom the offence is committed is a person with mental illness or suffers a mental illness as a result of the sexual act;

(h) the person against whom the offence is committed is of advanced age;

(i) the sexual act is committed against a person by means of threats, force, fear of bodily harm, duress or undue influence, intimidation of any kind, or through misrepresentation as to the nature of the act; or

G) the person against whom the offence is committed was, at the time the offence was committed, unconscious or in an altered state of consciousness due to the influence of medicine, drugs, alcohol or any other substance that impaired his or her judgment https://www.parliament.go.ug/sites/default/files/The%20Anti-Homosexuality%20Act%2C%202023.pdf

What most news outlets ignore is that aggravated homosexual activities are not that different from such charges as aggravated child trafficking which also carries the death penalty.

This week, they were hit with an additional charge of aggravated child trafficking, which carries the death penalty if they are convicted, the state prosecutor said Wednesday.The couple recruited, transported and kept the child through “abuse of position of vulnerability for purposes of exploitation,” according to the charge sheet. US couple facing death penalty in Uganda for alleged torture, trafficking foster child

 

Aggravated rape is also a death penalty law in Uganda:

Section 129 (1) of The Penal Code Act provides that:

(1)               Any person who unlawfully has sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of eighteen years commits an offence and is liable to suffer death. Mention the ingredients of the Aggravated Rape https://cepiluganda.org/news-blog/high-court-highlights-the-ingredients-of-aggravated-rape-in-uganda-v-kayondo-david-case

Those things the New York Times called perceived offenses seem to hold the same penalty as they do for non-homosexuals in Uganda. While the laws in Africa and many Middle Eastern countries are much more strict on homosexuality than in Western countries. Most certainly Loren Seibold's fearmongering account of the Ugandan law is not true. That Seibold stands against the majority of Ugandans Christians and Muslims in Uganda only shows the imperialism of his progressive politics.

The Ugandan IRUC is made up of:

IRCU is constituted by; the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), the Church of the Province of Uganda (Church Of Uganda-COU), the Uganda Orthodox Church (UOC), the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (UMSC), the Seventh-day Adventist Uganda Union (SDAUU), the Born Again Faith in Uganda (BAF) and the National Alliance of Pentecostal and Evangelical Churches in Uganda (NAPECU). Similarly, IRCU works with other religious organizations, namely the Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’i, the Methodist and Lutheran Churches. https://www.ircu.or.ug/who-we-are/

The imperialism that so many progressives seem to despise appears to not exist when it comes to the laws of other countries that the Western countries dislike. But it does make you wonder when homosexuality is outlawed in 32 out of 54 African nations, why is Seibold so upset about the Adventist church in the IRUC of Uganda should he not be upset that the Administration of the SDA church is not vocal about all those nations laws. He only seems to get upset when the leftist media tells him to get upset. Funny how that works, at least until you realize that progressive politics is actually the new religion and the once great newspapers are now the propaganda tools for progressives.

 

 

 

AToday Articles says to shut up on social media

 Adventist Today has posted an article that I very much agree with the title but not very much with the article. The article is entitled: How Politics Is Destroying Adventism, and Maybe All of Christianity  by Steve Moran 

One of the things I noticed is his beginning attempt is to sound like he is very balanced. Take this paragraph: 

Right now, today, both sides in the American political contest either explicitly support positions that are blatantly and obviously in opposition to what Jesus taught. The list on both sides is long. Here is just one example: Liberals say they support religious freedom but then they want to crush religious practices they deem to be immoral. Conservatives say they support religious freedom but are pleased to insert God into inappropriate places.

That is fairly accurate for liberals wanting to crush religious practices that are against their morals and desires, for instance how they seem to perpetually complain about Hobby Lobby and things like a religious view of marriage being between one man and one woman. But what about that line about Conservatives supporting religious freedom but insert God into inappropriate places? What does that even mean? Not too specific at all. 

The article continues:

The current truth is that both sides have come to feel like they are in mortal combat for the soul of the nation, and because they see the stakes as being so high, that they are willing to set aside their Christianity and support certain things that are contrary to the cause of Jesus. 

Now, this should be good, He has already labeled the Liberal (meaning here Political Progressive, not classic liberalism) attempt to crush religious freedom.  

But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27,28).
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them (Romans 12:14).
Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful… (1 Corinthians 13:4,5).

That sounds good, You could use that in any time period or any situation. If you think that those statements of love mean that people cannot disagree with each others politics that would very likely be a misuse of the verses. 

 I am completely baffled by the Facebook posts and comments I see, not just from people who say they are followers of Jesus, but even from pastors and thought leaders. Some of these people are spending what must be hours a day feeding their hate for the other side. Some appear to be reading every nasty, unchristian thing they can, then posting as many as 10 to 20 articles in a single day. 

I have been unfriended by many Christians, including people who were at one time close friends, not because of my political leanings—which I tend not to talk about—but rather because I questioned the morality of their disdain for one side or the other. I might have some sympathy for these mean, hateful, hurtful posts if I saw any evidence that this social media activity either made the world a better place, or changed people’s minds, or brought them closer to Christ.

I have been unfriended also, but not by any conservatives, only by Progressives. I of course can't speak to what his friends are posting. Maybe they are nasty and unchristian or maybe that is just his impressive because the views don't match his. Again I refer to his statement about the Liberals crushing religious freedom for anything they think is immoral. Far too often Christianity is being supplanted by political progressivism as it takes the place of the Christian religion. That is where I very much agree with the title of this article.

Then Steve Moran notes that these social media posts show no evidence of making the world better or changing people's minds. Now you could say that mean, hateful, hurtful posts don't change people's minds which I wish was true but it is not. The Atlantic just published an article with four anonymous people claiming that Trump called world war II soldiers lazy and suckers. As of today, I think there are 5 Trump administration people who were there and said no such thing ever happened and they are identified. Yet the article was printed and it was the big story on all the Sunday news shows, and the next morning after the article was released Joe Biden had a campaign ad out on the subject. The idea that hateful, nasty, mean, and false information does not change people is sadly mistaken. It does not make the world better or bring them closer to Christ but these things can and do change minds.

Steve Moran writes this article to try and change minds. It is why I write articles. It is why only Progressive writers are published on Adventist Today and Spectrum. They want to change minds to their views. They are not trying to give the other side a space to make their points. That is the very problem in Adventism today. We don't try to reach conclusions based upon different viewpoints we simply support one viewpoint and push it forward. This is the cause of the destruction of Christianity. I will submit it is not coming from both sides of the political spectrum but only the Progressive side of the political spectrum. I used to consider myself a Progressive SDA. But today that means Politically Progressive SDA. The search for truth was canceled and the search for political power took over. 

The article's conclusion:

It is not wrong to advocate for your political positions or candidates if you can…

1. Talk only about why you support your candidate or position and not tear down others. 
2. Be willing to have conversations, which means listening as much as talking about the issues, and not the people. 
3. Not think badly about those who have differing views, who support the candidate you despise. 

Herein lies the problem. I am just not seeing anyone who seems to be able to do this, which ultimately suggests that keeping your social media mouth shut is what Jesus would do. 

1. In fact, you cannot correct someone if you don't tear down their false statements. It is simply not an option. It will happen. Jesus did it to Pharisees and even his own disciples. *whitewashed sepulchers den of thieves, get behind me satan. 

2. Again in politics, you are talking about ideas and people, the people you will elect, you cannot avoid the subject. Nor should you as people say things. They can be true or untrue if they are telling you lies you have to talk about the people telling the lies because it has an effect on what their actions will be like when they are given power.

3. Again this is another impossibility. You cannot simply accept all differing views. Here in Seattle not long ago at one of the many protests, there was a person with a bullhorn taunting the police. Telling the police present to take their gun and put them to their heads and pull the trigger. In Chicago, a Protestor told people that:

“I don’t care if someone decides to loot a Gucci or a Macy’s or a Nike store, because that makes sure that person eats,” said Ariel Atkins, a BLM organizer, according to NBC Chicago. “That makes sure that the person has clothes.” “That is reparations,” Atkins continued. “Anything they wanted to take, they can take it because these businesses have insurance.”

It is never just about the candidate you despise. These are very much misapplications of logic, No candidate stands upon themselves just as a person, They stand upon what they have said, what their ideas are, and what their actions have been. 

So to Steve Moran, no one does the impossible and illogical things you desire or require. I also don't think Jesus would say just shut up on social media. I do think Jesus would want you to be accurate and thoughtful and logical. But I do think that there are a lot of people who because of the new political progressive religion very much want any opposition to end. 

 

Ryan Bell, case study of Political Progressivism to the religion of Progressivism.

Ryan Bell is back in the news as he was recently interviewed by the Christian Post. In the article entitled: Former pastor Ryan Bell on why he abandoned his Christian faith: I gave it my best shot Bell gives us some clues about how his politics became his religion and the new Progressivism displaced his Chrisitan faith. I doubt he understands how this really happened to him but it is something many of us have warned against for the last several years.

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all profess an all-knowing and all-powerful supernatural being: God.  Progressives may say they do not belong to a religion because they do not believe in God.  But Progressivism professes an all-powerful State.  The State is Progressives' god and determines what is moral and immoral and has the power to destroy whom it wants. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/progressivism_takes_its_place_among_the_major_religions.html

Toward the beginning of his interview Ryan Bell says:

" Another way to think about this is that conservative Christianity is a very bounded community. There are clear markers of who is in and who is out. Part of the theological and ministry project I found myself a part of was widening that community to include more people and a broader analysis of politics. Eventually, it widens so far that it includes everyone and at that point, I didn't feel the need for Christianity, per se. It was just the human family.

Notice how his supposed broader analysis of politics led him to feel no need of Christianity. Progressives often feel that they have the truth on politics, that truth becomes their truth and their believe in their political views is their new religion. Bell continues:

CP: How do you describe yourself now? Would you call yourself an atheist?Bell: There's no one identity that perfectly captures how I think of myself today. I am an atheist, for sure, but there's so much more to me than that. I'm a humanist in the sense that I don't believe anyone is coming to save us. We are the ones we're waiting for. I'm also a democratic socialist, which describes how I understand politics. My humanism and my democratic socialism go hand in hand. I can't separate existential questions about meaning and value from political questions about who has access to a materially good life.

Bell's Progressivism led him to socialism and socialism to humanism which is actually a religion

Roy Wood Sellars, who drafted Humanist Manifesto I, wrote in The Humanist (Vol. I, 1941, p. 5), an article “Humanism as a Religion,” in which he stated:Undeniably there is something imaginative and daring in bringing together in one phrase two such profoundly symbolic words as humanism and religion. An intimate union is foreshadowed in which religion will become humanistic and humanism religious. And I believe that such a synthesis is imperative if humanity is ever to achieve a firm and adequate understanding of itself and its cosmic situation….
Religious humanism rests upon the bedrock of a decision that it is, in the long run, saner and wiser to face facts than to live in a world of fable. https://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/10697-is-humanism-a-religion

With Bell's new Progressive religion it is the way of integrity:

...Do you think this trend is being driven by the current secularization of American culture?Bell: The short answer is, yes, I think there is probably a positive feedback loop of some sort at work here. Secularization is driven by people determined to live their lives out from under old norms that turned out to be very exclusive and harmful to large swaths of the population. That secularization, in turn, encourages others to step out and live their lives with integrity and authenticity. If we take secularization to mean the de-religionization of America, then I think this means people are increasingly comfortable re-evaluating their ethics without reference to religion. People like Joshua Harris have done incredible harm to people by telling them that who they are isn't trustworthy or good. When you start to see the falsehood of that narrative come to life in the lives of the people you've influenced then yeah, that's either going to force you to question the foundations of your belief system or it will force you deeper into denial. Thankfully (from my perspective), Mr. Harris has chosen the path of integrity.

In an article in the Atlantic entitled: "Politics as the New Religion for Progressive Democrats" We read this:

Democrats have traditionally had a strong base of religious voters. A decade ago, more than 80 percent of self-identified Democrats were affiliated with some sort of religion, according to the Pew Research Center. The party was nearly one-quarter Catholic and nearly one-half Protestant, including mainline, evangelical, and historically black denominations. By 2014, those numbers had shifted significantly: Pew found that 28 percent of Democrats identified as religiously unaffiliated.

One of the closing paragraphs of the Atlantic article sums it up:

"Perhaps the takeaway from this data, then, is that the Democratic Party is going through a transformative moment of both sentiment and identity. Many liberals are feeling anger, and finding ways to express that. The elite part of the party, especially those who are well educated, is most engaged. And for these people, progressive politics may offer a form of meaning making, especially if they are disconnected from other forms of ethnic or religious identity."

It is pretty clear that Progressivism will lead to two things. 1. the removal of Christianity and 2. Progression toward socialism. As Bell says. "My humanism and my democratic socialism go hand in hand."  We always have to remember that in socialism the democratic part is just window dressing. 

"But democracy is by no means a limit one may not overstep; it is only one of the stages in the course of development from feudalism to capitalism, and from capitalism to Communism. Vladimir LeninThe goal of socialism is communism.Vladimir Lenin

Bell is on the path to the more Perfect savior of humanity via socialism and communism. We all know the old Soviet Union and its attitude of Atheism the political progressivism of Ryan Bell and frankly, many of the writers at Adventist Today and Spectrum are on that same path.

For Further reading consider this article from Discover the Networks:

Marxist doctrine holds that just as society evolved from feudalism to capitalism, it will inexorably progress still further to socialism and eventually communism. Communists consider socialism to be an intermediary step between capitalism (out of which socialism is said to grow) and communism. That is, communism (whose motto is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”) is deemed a further development, or “higher stage,” of socialism (whose motto is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds”). Communism, in other words, is viewed as the more “perfect” of two systems that both advocate public ownership of the means of production, centralized economic planning, and the widespread redistribution of wealth.

The socialist principle of distribution according to deeds, or the quality and quantity of work that people perform, stands in marked contrast to the communist principle of distribution according to people’s needs. The former, because it accepts deed-based distribution of wealth, is considered easier to implement in a capitalist society without large-scale overhauls of existing political and economic structures. In essence, socialists view capitalism as a viable economic mechanism whose reins must simply be transferred from the currently dominant “oppressor class” that misuses capitalism to exploit workers, into the hands of the “worker class” which could use the system for laudable ends. http://archive.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=115&type=issue

Ryan Bell's radio interview on Social Justice

I was just visiting Ryan Bell's blog Intersections and saw that he and some of his friends from the little video which basically repeated shows people saying they are "social justice Christians" and I noticed that they were interviewed by a Pacifica radio network affiliate on the subject of social justice Christians. For those of you who don't know Pacifica is a politically Progressive radio network. Possibly the last one remaining. What is interesting about this interview other then the amazing factual distortions the host and his guests make is that this is a Progressive host who is unable to quote Glenn Beck but fails to even acknowledge that his own political view is what Glenn Beck is calling attention to. Here is what Glenn Beck said:

"What is that? It seems like such an innocuous phrase. It paints a picture of fairness — many churches use the term as a substitute for "outreach to the poor." Who could possibly be against that? Well, if you've read the news lately: I am. In fact, I even learned from TIME magazine recently that I hate Jesus.

"I'm just full of hate and I want to stop justice!

I'm glad to see Time suddenly cares about God... or am I? The other "news" from The New York Times was that I recommended leaving church if those churches help the poor. And I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those pesky, meddling "journalists"!

I'm not sure why I would expect the media to start searching for the truth now, when they've never let it get in the way before. The truth is this: The term "social justice" has been completely perverted and hijacked by progressives. It doesn't mean simply "help the poor" to them. It does to some people, but not to radical progressives.

And now, just for The New York Times and everyone else who thinks I hate poor people — I know your attention span is about 20 or 30 seconds, but try and pay attention — we'll set the record straight for you here on social justice. The kind I am talking about vs. the kind that they are talking about."

So was Glenn Beck right? Apparently as we see the Progressive radio talk show praise Ryan Bell for his little video. Now to hear the interview you have to go about 2/3 of the way through the program but it begins with a classical Progressive distortion. The host Ian Masters says after the introductions:

And all of you gentlemen are here to rebut I take it Glenn Beck who uh has warned people as to not go to churches who care about social justice (laughs) I must say that struck me as one of the most extraordinary statements and it really hasn't gone its uh largely gone unchallenged I think it is largely because we have such a polarized media now...my first reaction when I heard that him said what a terrible thing churches who preach social justice and hear the word social justice run because it either means you know the Nazi's or the communists...

That pathetic introduction was followed by the agreement of one of the video's sponsors. Ryan Bell goes on to say that it is a testament to how we in America have been co-opted by other interests. Apparently he does not see his part in the co-opting as he falls into lock step with the Progressive movement and distorts the Christian idea of justice into the political concept of social justice.

Glenn Beck actually describes the difference between equal justice and social justice:

"Let's start with equal justice. If I am an illegal alien and I'm stopped by a cop, if I'm here illegally, I pay the fine, go to court; I'm sent home. Under equal justice if somebody else, Canadian, Egyptian, Chinese, Mexican is stopped by the police and they are here illegally, they are get to take it, pay the fine, go see a court and then are sent home. Under social justice, I would be sent home but somebody, because they're somehow or another different than me, they're not. That's the difference between social justice and equal justice."

That is why it is so important to actually understand what the social justice people are saying. Because they attempt to shore up their position by ascribing justice to their social justice. Of course if what they really meant was justice then that is what they would say. But it is not because they are attempting to do politics in the name of religion. Simple the other extreme from the 1980's movement of the moral majority.

I don't mind having a religious perspective influence your politics but the assumption that their politics is the sum total of Christianity and that they have to back up their position with lies and distortions make me have little respect for people like Ryan Bell.

For more see the past articles

Social justice politics and useful idiots

Adventists and Social Justice

Update:5/12/10

I just saw this on the news as they are searching for a new Police Chief in Seattle. I was surprised to see the calls for social justice rather then equal justice:

"Police Search Committee members say the recent controversy over a racially charged incident involving Seattle Police Officers was not a factor in choosing Diaz.

"I don't think the video played a role. We were concerned about ethics and social justice, but we did not discuss the specifics on the video or about the incident," says committee member Charles Rolland.

Mayor McGinn thanked the 26-member committee, co-chaired by Kate Joncas and Rolland, for its work.

"I'm grateful for the hard work and commitment shown by Search Committee members during this important process," McGinn said. "I'm looking forward now to spending time with the finalists, allowing the public to get to know them, and choosing a chief for all of Seattle. I'll be looking for a chief who shares my values of public safety, fairness, and a commitment to racial and social justice."

I wonder does that make Mayor McGinn a social justice Christian or is he referring to his political values?