Isaiah 12:4

What is the background to, and meaning of, Isaiah 12:4?

I first published this commentary on Quora on 25 January 2019. This version may have minor edits.

Quotes below are from the New American Standard translation.

Short Answer

4 And in that day you will say,

“Give thanks to the LORD, call on His name.
 Make known His deeds among the peoples;
 Make them remember that His name is exalted.”

The verse promises complete security to people of a future age who will have placed their trust entirely in God and His works. Although the verse does not apply to this age, the principle behind it is universal. In this age, those who place their trust entirely in God and His works are promised emotional peace, but not the physical victories indicated by the context of Isaiah 26:3. To teach the promise of peace to people of our times, careful teachers will use other verses.

Background

During Isaiah’s time, Israel had been split in two. The northern segment, “Israel,” had been conquered, and its survivors had been carried off to other lands. The southern segment, “Judah,” remained but was overtaken with other religions and corruption. Followers of God not only received mistreatment from their own neighbors, but also saw the same thing that had happened to Israel threatening to happen to Judah.

Those who listened to the prophets knew that God’s punishment was coming. At this time, prophets such as Isaiah not only foretold about the punishment, but also foretold that God would restore their people to Judea. Such promises were accompanied by other details. Such details described a savior who would save not only their people, but all who would turn to Him.

So the prophesies not only warned of judgment, but also promised hope.

These prophesied events came like twin mountain tops lined up in the distance. The hearers could not tell them apart. That is one reason the Jews rejected Christ. They wanted the Second Coming to establish their national independence and dominance.

But from our position between the two peaks, it’s easy to see the difference. One mountain top was the incarnation of God the Son. The other was a Second Coming. During the first coming, Messiah would provide redemption through faith in His suffering; whereas during the second coming, He would assert His authority, judge the wicked, and establish peace on earth.

Isaiah 12:1 and 4 go together, but to appreciate their meaning, we have to place them in context. Verse 1 begins, Then you will say on that day… and verse 4 begins And in that day you will say…. So we need to turn to the previous chapter to determine when “that day” is.

Chapter 10 describes judgement and destruction of Judea. Chapter 11 describes Messiah as a descendant of Jesse, King David’s father. The chapter opens by describing His character and segues into describing His work during His Second Coming. It is here that we find beautiful images such as

And the wolf will dwell with the lamb,
And the leopard will lie down with the young goat,
And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little boy will lead them. (verse 6)

In that time, the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD… The nations will resort to [Messiah] (verses 9 and 10). In other words, faith in God would no longer be a parochial religion of the Jews, but a faith among all peoples.

The remainder of the chapter describes the final restoration of Israel and judgement of its enemies.

Meaning

In this context, now we can appreciate chapter 12.

Then you [the believer] will say on that day,
“I will give thanks to You, O LORD;
For although You were angry with me,
Your anger is turned away,
And You comfort me.

“Behold, God is my salvation,
I will trust and not be afraid;
For the LORD GOD
is my strength and song,
And He has become my salvation.” (verses 1–2)

This could be interpreted either of two ways. The obvious application is that, in the time of Messiah’s Second Coming, God will have forgiven Israel for its blasphemies and crimes. A second meaning comes from the principle described, namely, that there is a relationship between trusting God for salvation and having His justice satisfied. The personal language indicates that the quotations are spoken by individuals and not as a collective nation.

This relationship of redemption and trust allows verse 3: Therefore you [the believer] will joyously draw water from the springs of salvation.. Water represents the cleansing and strength provided by God through this new relationship with Him.

In verse 4,

And in that day you [the redeemed] will say,
“Give thanks to the LORD, call on His name.
Make known His deeds among the peoples;
Make them remember that His name is exalted.”

So in verses 1–2, we have believers rejoicing and praising God, and in verse 4, they encourage each other to praise God and share the good news. They will do so, motivated by thankful hearts described in verses 1–2.

If we apply verses 1–4 to ourselves, it is about the attitude that we should have toward God; and it should have such a magnitude and outworking that we want everybody to share in the same joy. There is no room for “practicing your religion at home” or “freedom from religion.” There should be great joy in salvation, and you should want to shout it from the housetops! (Alas, we are not in the age of the Second Coming yet, and our bodies do not always allow our experience to match up with theory.)

There is one more important implication in this passage. In order for “you,” a believer over 700 years before Messiah’s first coming, to give thanks to God when Messiah returns in 2019+ AD, “you” must be alive and present. This is not an unusual inference. See Mark 12:18–27. Resurrection is implied in the Old Testament and explicitly promised in the New Testament.

I’m sure there are some who will pluck the verse and twist it into some other meaning. Remember this:

If the plain sense makes good sense,
any other sense is probably nonsense.

Can Integration of Muslims Prevent Their Radicalization?

Integration reduces radicalization, but nothing can prevent radicalization among any significant Muslim population. 

First, many recent terrorist incidents have involved men putatively "integrated" into mainstream society in the US and Europe.  If we cannot prevent radicalization of people already in a society -- for example, American-born citizens who convert to Islam and then go to fight for ISIS -- how can we prevent the reversal of immigrants' integration?  Moreover, how can we "integrate" the pre-radicalized jihadist "immigrant" who merely feigns integration so he can wage jihad by either converting or killing the "infidels?"

Second, any large population of a given persuasion will contain outliers. Among Democrats, you have Communists (fairly common). Among Democrats and Republicans, you have KKK members (rare, and blamed entirely on Republicans, but not extinct). Among nominal "Christians," you have violent pro-lifers (extremely rare). And among Muslims, you have violent jihadists (fairly common). 

Republicans and Christians can argue that the KKK and violent pro-lifers do not really subscribe to their ideologies. Democrats can claim the same concerning Communists, but an examination of their ideologies shows only a difference of shrinking degree. Violent jihadists, however, adhere strictly to the Koran; rather, it is the liberal Muslim who deviates from core Koranic teachings. 

Third, how do you force the integration of Muslims into Western society without undermining their religion, without crossing a line into deprogramming or brainwashing? That idea is abhorrent to both "liberals" and Muslims. Education is no cure-all. Many of jihadists, and especially Muslim Brotherhood leaders, hold degrees, even from Western universities.  Education aims at the mind, but secular education cannot convert the heart.  In fact, the educational environment can be counterproductive.  The temptations and challenges of secular universities can stress any devout student who aspires to a high moral code.  (As a former Bible-thumper, I can attest to that.)  I have recently seen a trend hinted at in the press, one I had not seen before, that of the Muslim who "integrates" and then sacrifices himself to pay for his Westernized sins.  Therefore, education not only has limited effectiveness but can result in violent reaction.

Before you read the next paragraph I must warn that I believe, based on both historical and theological arguments, that Islam is easily demonstrated to be a false religion that, despite Muslim paranoia about having their prophet and god blasphemed, is itself built upon lies and blasphemies.  

Secular liberals and liberal Muslims fantasize that violent jihadists are not real Muslims.  But that is not the elephant in the room.  Violent jihad is inevitable among those who follow the Koran.  Encouragement of liberal Islam and of integration of Muslims may reduce radicalization in the West, but it cannot prevent it, and it cannot reduce the radicalization already dominating at the source in Islamist countries.  

The only way to prevent Islamic radicalization is by reducing adherence to Islam.  As long as Christians and secularists fail to adequately address the theological problem of Islam, the jihadist problem will continue to fester.  And in its growing hostility toward evangelical Christianity while remaining neutral toward Islam and even accommodating it, the West does itself no favors.

Copyright 2016, Rich Wheeler

What's So Bad about Being a Liberal?

First, not all that presents itself as conservative is actually conservative.

The Republican Party poorly represents conservatism. In fact, the GOP vacillates between moderately conservative on some issues and liberal economics and internationalism. I would guess that a third of the GOP is actually liberal, a third sticks a wet finger in the air, and a minority is actually conservative. For example, George W. Bush got tax cuts passed early in his administration, but cooperated with Democrat-led bail-outs of banks and GM.

So, let's not use Republicans to define the opposite of liberalism.

Second, being liberal is a good thing; and progress is good when the goal is good and the means are just. Being a liberal or a progressive, however, has a very peculiar meaning that does not necessarily connect to the root words, liberal and progress.

In my definitions (not necessarily standard, but offered for the sake of communication), conservatism seeks to preserve traditional values of liberty, self-reliance, and justice that does not respect persons.

Liberalism, or as the codeword is used today, progressivism, on the other hand, redefines a neutral term. Progress is good, right? Doesn't everybody love progress?

When you say change (as in hope and change) or progress, you have to pick a direction. You have to pick an origination and a destination. Depending on your definition of progress, it may or may not mean something good. The compass has only one North, but it has 359 degree-markers that point away from North.

Suppose your objective were to see far with an unobstructed view, so you climb the highest mountain. Progress would be pretty stupid if it meant trekking off that cliff to the West, wouldn't it? What else could you do? You could build a tower where you are, on your existing foundation. But would you leave the spot just because change is good?

The progressive compass points hard left, to 270 degrees, toward freedom for immorality and toward repression of traditional morality, toward collectivist statism, and toward "social justice" that bases rights on class, skin color, and sexual orientation.

American conservatives see progressive, liberal, socialist, and Marxist, as variations of a single philosophy. That philosophy derives from secular, materialist existentialism, in which interpretation is reality, objective truth is a myth, and the ultimate organism is the state.

Whereas Americanism states that authority flows from God through the People to the government, the progressive spectrum worships the Collective as the ultimate organism, whose people live at its pleasure. Americanism secures rights to the people and assigns responsibilities to the government, but progressivism gives the government rights and the people privileges. Conservative liberalism means personal tolerance and personal giving (to which the restaurant help will attest after any political convention), but Progressive liberalism forces promotion of the tolerable and gives at the expense of others.

If you believe black is white and right is wrong, then, I suppose, being a liberal is great.

What Fact Check Sites Do You Prefer?

Do you prefer Snopes, Factcheck, what? Thanks, L

The fact-check and urban legends sites have helped me avoid embarrassing myself many times. There's nothing like forwarding a request from a 7-year-old cancer victim, only to find that he's now 27, has to pay for his own zip code, and wishes people would stop sending him post cards for his collection.

 

When it comes to political or social issues, however, I don't trust any of them.

• PolitiFact is a project of the St. Petersberg Times, an extreme left-wing newspaper. Click HERE for an example of how their Lie of the Year with which they smeared Mitt Romney turned out to be true.
    
• FactCheck, FlackCheck, and FactCheckEd are a projects of Annenberg Public Policy Center and funded by the Annenberg Foundation. As board chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama (or was he still Barry Soetoro?) helped fund "educational" activities of Bill Ayers, the 1960s terrorist who murdered at least one policeman with a bomb. What does that tell you about FactCheck's neutrality?
    
• Snopes is funded by George Soros, a pro-socialist billionaire and currency manipulator who boasts that he has overthrown at least two European countries. The editors of Snopes are Obama bundlers and one has even held an appointment in the Obama administration.
    
• The Fact Checker is a project of The Washington Post, a veritable media outlet for the Democrat Party.

No short-cut around visiting various sources and weighing the arguments. However, find the following sites quite helpful:

• Media Research Center (MRC) and its network of sites keep tabs on media bias.
  NewsBusters
  CNSNews.com
  MRCTV
  Business and Media Institute
  Culture and Media Institute
  TimesWatch
  MRC Action

If you have a favorite site for checking the veracity of what you hear from the media or the politicians, please let us know in the comments.

When Liberals Get Tough on Crime....

I see a common trope in the news that I call, When Liberals 'get tough on crime....'

• A kindergartener takes a 3/4" rubber GI Joe knife to school
• Seven-year-olds shoot at each other with "finger guns" while playing cops and robbers
• A teenage girl gives Midol to a classmate having menstrual cramps

...and they get suspensions and juvenile records.

• Or an Olympic rifle champion gets arrested for having his target rifle (with trigger lock and a locked bag) locked in the trunk of his car when picking up his child from school.
•  A man shoots an armed home invader and is sent to prison for illegally using a gun.

 When Liberals 'get tough on crime....' predicts the following:

• SWAT teams knocking down the doors of anybody who has ever been diagnosed with depression or anxiety (information courtesy of Obamacare) and who has a record of having applied to purchase a firearm (information courtesy of background check applications)
•  "Clean shoots" by police officers reacting to people startled out of their sleep and pointing flashlights at the intruders.

The second prediction reminds me of a little boy in Modesto, California, who was killed a few years ago by the "accidental discharge" of a shotgun pointed at his back while he laid, hands bound, on the floor during a legal (but mistaken) search of his grandfather's house.

What difference does homosexual marriage make?

JP: What difference does homosexual marriage make? How would someone getting married to someone else affect you in anyway? Never understood why we as conservatives are so hell bent on less government, but then turn around and try to twist government into a watchdog for religious or social dogma. If we want less government, then stay out of the bedroom. What 2 consenting adults do, in their own time, is none of your, or my business.

"Twisting"? 

• JP, you twist government into a watchdog for so-called homosexual rights. That twists government into a bigger government.
   
• You want to twist homosexual acts (the bedroom privacy sham) into the same thing as homosexual marriage. That twists logic.
   
• You twist government recognition of families that can create children into the same thing as a police state. That twists truth into a lie.
   
• You twist the effects on insurance rates, employment rights, and freedom of association into having no affect on others. That twists short-sightedness into a gag order.
   

In short, your cliches are just plain twisted.

Obama: You Didn't Build That

People think that Me-me-me-my-my-my-I-I-I-bama's speech makes sense only because his speechwriters sugarcoat false reasoning. His error stems from the hidden socialist dogma that the business is not responsible for the roads, utilities, regulators, delivered in tones of fake outrage. Rather, he implies, the contributions of employees, utility workers, bureaucrats, etc, add significant value to the business. This assumption deceives for two reasons.

First, the business pays, through taxes to the government, wages to employees, interest and fees to lenders, and dividends to stockholders, for all those things Ibama says contributed to building the business. A new business may pay afterwards instead of before, but it still pays. It says that if you pay somebody to do make something you thought of, they get all the credit, as though you had nothing to do with it.

This couldn't be more wrong. If you buy a painting, you own it. If you buy a pizza, you have the right to eat it. Likewise, if you pay for all those ancillary contributions, then you get the credit for building the business.

Second, all those external factors would exist whether you build the business or don't. The contribution is mutual because, without the business, unused roads and utilities would be failures due to lack of use and would be failures due to lack of sponsorship. The electric company, the construction companies, employees, and bureaucrats profit from the presence of the business.

By Ibama's reasoning, when you build that business, you get to take credit for all those other things, too. But Ibama is a committed Marxist, so he loses his sense of reality amid all the big words and false intellectualism. "You didn't build that" is sophistic: It sounds brilliant, but when you slow down and think, you hear the foolishness.

Liberals Misunderstand America's Melting Pot

The melting pot is just an implement. It brings to mind a stew, since it has been contrasted with a salad bowl. However, I think the correct image comes from metallurgy, where various ingredients should blend to form an alloy such as steel.

Staying with the stew pot (I think more people can relate to cooking than to metallurgy), we have three cooks brewing a terrible mess. 

One cook, the conservative, wants to maintain the stew's distinctive balance of flavors, the recipe that made the stew a distinctively American stew.

The second cook, the newcomer, comes in numbers that upsets the balance of flavors and, in fact, refuses to abandon the flavor that he left behind. He sees only the rich nutrient content of the American stew and fails to value the recipe that made it great. That is, he brings the values that caused the conditions from which he fled and clashes with values that made America great. While conservative cooks welcome newcomers, an excess of newcomers can turn the stew into a completely different dish.

The third cook, the liberal, rejects the Judeo-Christian broth on which the soup was based. He waters down and neutralizes the distinct American flavor. He tries every other continent's distinctive dish; after all "change is good." Doing so, he leaves a hole into which the newcomers add the flavors of their impoverished, oppressed, corrupt, fan-ruled countries of origin.

We don't have a situation where we neutrally teach children about other cultures' recipes. Liberals rule the State Church (the education system). They use their power to belittle and suppress the conservative flavor. In its place, they teach the recipes of materialistic humanism and even the recipes of the newcomers. Thus, we see generations of agnostics, pictures of schoolchildren bowing in Muslim prayer, and children becoming "gay" before it is even developmentally appropriate for them to know about sex.

By suppressing the conservative values that redirected rights from the state toward the individual and by encouraging those whose native cultures produce totalitarianism, liberalism -- both political and religious -- threatens to destroy American and that for which she stands -- or used to stand.

The analogy holds up for the metallurgical melting pot, too. With the right ingredients, the product can resist oxidation, spring back into shape, or separate a nucleus from its cell's membrane. With careless formulation, it can be easily dulled, can oxidize overnight, or can even be toxic -- but that's assuming you're willing to separate it from all the unmelted dross. And liberals aren't willing.

New Word: Cacostocracy

An acquaintance asked me if I could beat a forwarded definition of an ineptocracy. It wasn't bad, but I don't give the crooks and traitors in charge of the White House and Senate enough credit to call them merely inept.

Coincidentally, I was thinking about my own word, cacostocracy, that morning while listening to Whistle-blower Wednesday during KSFO's morning commute show. I guess it's about time I defined it.

cacostocracy (cack'-o-stock'-ruh-see), from Gk. kakos "bad, evil":

A political process of putrefaction in which pernicious politicians

for personal empowerment, pursue profane payments proffered by the powerful for propitious and partial treatment, and

pawn profitable persons' futures to finance the favor of degraded, desperate, and dumbed-down demographics, thereby

protecting prolonged, perverted "progress"

• - by proliferating the pampered,
• - by planting pestiferous policies to oppress productive people, and
• - by paring proletarian producers into dispossessed, dis-empowered, dependent peasants.

Does the Good That Catholicism Does Outweigh the Bad?

This post replies to an article (included, below) sent to me by a sweet Roman Catholic lady. The article, written by a Jewish author, excuses the Roman Catholic Church from the actions of a few bad apples. The author advises Catholics to ignore the attacks from leftist media and hold their heads high over the good things their church does.

My Reply:

Dear H_____:

I've come to the conclusion that every good organization does no better than the sort of members it it has.  If it has human members, it has weaknesses that will eventually corrupt its practices, its message, and its reputation.

Human history, as recorded in the Bible and as interpreted through biblical principles, reveals a pattern of waves of God mercifully setting up ways for us to govern ourselves. Humans subsequently overwhelm each system with a tsunami of failure, demonstrating again how man's fallen nature permeates and overwhelms everything he touches.

Judaism, in particular, demonstrated the failure of a representative form of salvation. Priests mediated between sinners and God and enforced a code of righteousness. God gave that code not to justify man, but for the dual purposes of guiding man to the knowledge of his utter inability to achieve righteousness and of symbolizing the ultimate source of righteousness. "Universal guide to human behavior" was only secondary. The Jews, however, failed to recognized the Source, when He came, because they set about to achieve righteousness on their own. They focused on the code instead of on the Giver of the code.

Some such Jews became the church's "Judaizers"  that Apostle Paul opposed, from the provinces to the council of the apostles.  They wanted to continue the failed systems of human-earned righteousness that had failed in Judaism.  For example, they interpreted circumcision as a gateway to God's grace, just as many feel that baptism or other human actions convey God's grace today.  They failed to grasp that God bestows His grace Himself, not through the hands of the recipient or any other human intermediary.  Paul had to correct even Peter for such errors.

I could argue against the Roman Catholic institution on the basis of its history. The gospel of liberty as taught by the apostles survived centuries of oppression by the institution set up by a Roman emperor who straddled the factions of Christianity, preferring not one most likely to serve God's Kingdom, but one most likely to further Rome's empire. Despite political, unjust civil, and military actions against biblical believers, the spiritual church survived countless reinventions of its human facade.

Even from a post-Protestant perspective, one can see a history of institutions wandering from the truths that originally set them apart, making necessary the departure of believers, faithful men who believed the Word of God rather than the words of men, to set up new institutions.

Having to allow for the corruption that comes with every human presence, I must instead judge the works-based gospel that catholicisms spread.  (Not to get off topic, but, yes, the plural is intentional.)

I have seen enough human failure everywhere I've gone, including in my own footsteps, that I will take pride not in myself, nor in my efforts, nor in any human organization, but in the God who freely bestows His grace and who graciously sets up His works among men.

I send this to my non-Catholic friends just to set the record straight.  Thanks for understanding. Love, H_____
---------------------
THE CATHOLIC   CHURCH

Excerpts of an article written by non-Catholic Sam Miller - a prominent    Cleveland Jewish businessman:
"Why would newspapers carry on a vendetta on one of the most important institutions that we have today in the United States, namely the Catholic Church?

Do you know - the Catholic Church educates 2.6 million students everyday at the cost to that Church of 10 billion dollars, and a savings on the other hand to the American taxpayer of 18 billion dollars.   The graduates go on to graduate studies at the rate of 92%.

The Church has 230 colleges and universities in the U.S. with an enrollment of 700,000  students.

The Catholic Church has a non-profit hospital system of 637 hospitals, which account for hospital treatment of 1 out of every 5 people - not just Catholics - in the United States today.

But the press is vindictive and trying to totally denigrate in every way the Catholic Church in this country.   They have blamed the disease of pedophilia on the Catholic Church, which is as irresponsible as blaming adultery on the institution of marriage.

Let me give you some figures that Catholics should know and remember.  For   example, 12% of the 300 Protestant clergy surveyed admitted to sexual intercourse with a parishioner; 38% acknowledged other inappropriate sexual contact in a study by the United Methodist Church, 41.8% of clergy women reported unwanted sexual behavior; 17% of laywomen have been sexually harassed.
Meanwhile, 1.7% of the Catholic clergy has been found guilty of pedophilia.  10% of the Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia.  This is not a Catholic problem.

A study of American priests  showed that most are happy in the priesthood and find it  even better than they had expected, and that most, if  given the choice, would choose to be priests again in face of all this obnoxious PR the church has been receiving.

The Catholic Church is bleeding from self-inflicted wounds.  The agony that Catholics have felt and suffered is not necessarily the fault of the Church.  You have been hurt by a small number of wayward priests that have probably been totally weeded out by now and a number of bishops who failed to act.

Walk with your shoulders high and your head higher.  Be a proud member of the most important non-governmental agency in the United States.

Then remember what Jeremiah said:  'Stand by the roads, and look and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is and walk in it, and find rest for your souls'.   Be proud to speak up for your faith with pride and reverence and learn what your Church does for all other religions.

Be proud that you're a Catholic."

The "Scientific" Laws of Islam

Reference: Iingam, Rama. Iddat, a Scientific Concept in the Islamic Law to Identify the Paternity. factoidz.com. Downloaded 18 December 2010.


Something surprised me while I looked at writing samples from a web site that pays writers for short articles. The article is Iddat, a Scientific Concept in the Islamic Law to Identify the Paternity. The web site identifies writer Rama Iingam as its #4 expert in Divorce and Family Law.

The writer wishes to convince readers that many of [Muslim Law's] concepts are logical, reasonable and above all... scientifically based and have withstood the test of time.

Before we proceed, we need to define Iddat:

Iddat is quite scientific and it is helpful to identify the paternity of a child. Iddat is nothing but a period of probation a Muslim woman has to undergo immediately after she was divorced by her husband or on his death.

By probation, he means isolation. The law prevents confusion over paternity by ensuring that no child is conceived immediately after divorce or after the death of a husband. Here's the interesting part:

When a Muslim wife below the age of 8 who is under the menopause stage, even if her marriage is consummated, she need not undergo Iddat, when she is divorced or when her husband died.

How many 8-year-olds have undergone menopause? Hopefully, the author meant 'puberty;' so we will let that slide.

I admire Rama Iingam's courage to expose Islam's allowance for consummation of pre-pubescent marriage. Or, I am thankful for his naive exposure of a law, Iddat, that should be spelled Idiot.

What kind of culture condones consummation of marriage to a little girl who is only seven years old, or even younger? Muslims get quite worked up over others' sacrilege toward their false god. Perhaps they should concern themselves more with the blasphemy that is Islam.

Censorship

Blanket, unqualified condemnation of censorship promotes verbal and visual anarchy. 

Anarchy can work only in a society of perfect people. 

I have yet to learn of any such culture.

Artsy-Fartsies Upset over "Censorship"

References

• Bigley, Michael. Artistic Censorship in DC. Washington Grantmakers Daily. (Undated; downloaded 4 December 2010).
• Starr, Penny.Smithsonian Christmas-Season Exhibit Features Ant-Covered Jesus, Naked Brothers Kissing, Genitalia, and Ellen DeGeneres Grabbing Her Breasts. Penny Starr. CNSNews.com. Monday, November 29, 2010.

Recap: One (1) display that displays intolerance toward the religious beliefs of many Americans gets pulled from a Smithsonian exihibit full of (debatably) pornographic displays; and we are supposed to feel threatened by this "censorship."

What does the above have to do with the Grant Applications and Philanthropic Revenue Streams LinkedIn forum on which it was posted? Let me rescue the author. If public reaction surprised the partnership -- that is, assuming the grant makers, the artists, and the Smithsonian did not intentionally bait the public -- the story illustrates a grant partnership that failed to recognize the environmental constraints of the project, undoubtedly due to the artistic fringe's insensitivity to, or disrespect for, the public.

Is this childishness hypocrisy or just faux indignation? Grown-up people get censored every day to protect the feelings of the Left. For example, I cannot fully expressing my opinion about the display's iconoclasm (to put it euphemistically) because it could cost me future employment. Do the artsy-fartsies think they have been censored? Awww, poor babies!

Is it "censorship" to refuse to force taxpayers to fund a venue for propagandists who have many alternate venues? Would it be "censorship" not to facilitate the violation of community standards of decency? Is it "censorship" to stop facilitating propaganda hostile to many citizens and to their religion?

If this is censorship, then at least some censorship is good.