Designed for Sex

Note: During the next several weeks (as with the last few weeks), I will be blogging sporadically due to lack of net access. - Larry

Touchstone magazine has an article titled, Designed for Sex: What We Lose When We Forget What Sex Is For
by J. Budziszewski.

In the article Budziszewski, an authority on natural law, tackles our human nature regarding sexuality. This is not a quick read. Prepare yourself for the hard work of thinking through the issue. But when you are through, whether you agree or not with Budziszewski, you will have a better understanding of the concept of natural law, which, as Budziszewski notes, has been the "main axis of Western ethical thought for 23 centuries". Here is an excerpt.

In the case of every other biological function, only one body is required to do the job. A person can digest food by himself, using no other stomach but his own; he can see by himself, using no other eyes but his own; he can walk by himself, using no other legs but his own; and so on with each of the other powers and their corresponding organs. Each of us can perform every vital function by himself, except one. The single exception is procreation.

If we were speaking of respiration, it would be as though the man had the diaphragm, the woman the lungs, and they had to come together to take a single breath. If we were speaking of circulation, it would be as though the man had the right atrium and ventricle, the woman the left atrium and ventricle, and they had to come together to make a single beat.

Now, it isn’t like that with the respiratory or circulatory powers, but that is precisely how it is with the procreative powers. The union of complementary opposites is the only possible realization of their procreative potential; unless they come together as “one flesh”—as a single organism, though with two personalities—procreation doesn’t occur.

A Label that Sticks

In my June 26 post, Identity as Criteria, I mentioned Paul Scalia's article dealing with people wanting to be identified using the criteria of their sexual orientation rather than their humanity. I promised that if First Things posted the article online that I would provide the link.

A Label that Sticks by Paul Scalia. Enjoy!

The Time That Is Given To Us

The terrorist attack on London should be a reminder to all of us that the War against Terror is actually a World War. We are each involved whether we like it or not. The terrorists are now threatening Denmark and Italy. Most of us had no problem going into Afghanistan. But many question the wisdom of Iraq; that it has no connection with the War on Terror. But the group claiming responsibility connected the action with both Afghanistan and Iraq. If this group is truly responsible, then clearly they see a link that many have questioned.

Dennis Prager made some interesting comments yesterday. We think of the dead. These are people that woke up in the morning, off on their day, expecting to see their families that night. And the injured. These are people who in an instant became brain-damaged, lost their sight and/or hearing. Some will be burned horribly; disfigured so badly they will refuse to go out in public.

They weren't wearing uniforms. They were just normal everyday people going about their lives. But that's the goal of terror. To make people fear living even routine, boring, normal lives.

Prager said that evil arises in each generation. This is true. My grandfather's generation had the Nazis. My father's generation had the Cold War. My generation has the evil of Islamic fascism. We may wish that it is not so but it is.

In the Fellowship of the Rings, Frodo says "I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened." The ring represents evil.

Gandalf responds:

So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work, Frodo, than the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the ring. In which case you also were meant to have it, and that is an encouraging thought.

There are other forces at work. Our only decision is what we will do with the time that is given to us. Will we fight evil or will we allow it to fester.

Lord will you give Britain the strength to deal with this attack, comfort for the victims and their families, peace to those who would otherwise be filled with fear, and resolve to world to stand against the darkness that would bind us.

This Date in American History - July 6, 1775

Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms - July 6, 1775

July 4th is the day that we celebrate this country's Independence from a tyrannical government, which was proclaimed through the signing of the Declaration of Independence. But, nearly a year to the day earlier, another Declaration was issued; this to justify the colonists' creation of an army.

"We are reduced to the alternative of chusing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force. -- The latter is our choice. -- We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. -- "

The final draft is the work of John Dickinson and Thomas Jefferson. In an ironic twist of history, Dickinson was actually opposed to a separation from Britain. His task was to temper Jefferson's first draft, which was considered to harsh. Dickinson's opposition to Independence led him to abstain from voting on and signing the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Causes text is located at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/arms.htm

Feelings, Nothing More Than Feelings

A comment on my blog entry The Darkened Heart, brought "Interview with Arrested Soulforce Family" to my attention. The interviewer was really excited about his "scoop" on the family that the pro-gay theology organization, Soulforce, placed in the spotlight during their protest of Focus on the Family back on May 1st. The interview turned into a lost opportunity for the him and for his readers. It provided no real information beyond what the news articles had already provided. The interview was just another avenue for the Reitans to emote.

I analyze the interview and include the questions that could have been asked to clarify and to explore the intellectual foundation upon which the Reitan family's arguments supposedly rest.

Independence Day

Today is the 229th anniversary of the founding of these united States.

"Yesterday, the greatest Question was decided, which ever was debated in America, and a greater perhaps, never was nor will be decided among Men. A Resolution was passed without one dissenting Colony, 'that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, and as such they have, and of Right ought to have, full power to make War, conclude Peace, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which other States may rightfully do.'" --John Adams to Abigail Adams, July 3, 1776

Regarding Independence Day:

"We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom alone men ought to be obedient." --Samuel Adams

Founder Benjamin Rush recalled Independence Day 1776: "Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the House when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress [John Hancock] to subscribe what was believed by many at that time to be our own death warrants?" He lamented, on the 35th independence celebration, "scarcely a word was said of the solicitude and labors and fears and sorrows and sleeplessness nights of the men who projected, proposed, defended, and subscribed [signed] the Declaration of Independence." (emphasis added)

The Declaration lays the framework for the break with the throne. It provides in the first paragraph and a half a definition of human rights, what makes them unalienable, and the purpose for government tied to those rights. The document then lists the "abuses and usurpations" by the King. In conclusion, the Founders declared their right to be independent.

As you celebrate this Independence Day, reflect, not just on our liberty, but the basis of that liberty, the vision the Founders were truly putting their lives on the line for, and the men and women through these 229 years who have fought, sacrificed, and died for that vision.

For more information, see these links at the National Archives and Records Administration:

Transcription of the Declaration:
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Main page for the Declaration of Independence, which provides background information, history, high-resolution images:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/declaration/declaration.html

Making of the Charters: "A New World Is AT Hand" exhibit:
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/charters.html

Britney and Kevin's Unborn Child

What exactly resides in the womb of the human mother? . In this morning’s Oregonian article, “Blazers trade down, then trade up”, John Canzano writes how the Portland Trailblazers, in drafting another player out of high school, has become an extremely young team.

“Player personnel director Kevin Pritchard, way back in his coaching days, suggested that getting "REAAAALLLY young" (he said it just like that) wasn't such a bad thing. I'll trust him there. But we're talking about a team that just got so young (new average age around 23.5 years) that you half expect the Blazers will consider using that conditional pick in 2006 on Britney and Kevin's unborn child. “ (emphasis added)

Unborn child? When removed from the rhetoric of the pro abortionists, people will naturally refer the unborn as a “baby” or a “child”. In our hearts we know exactly what the unborn is. It is only when those who have the power to destroy these children for there own convienence use words like fetus, embryo, cell mass to hide the truth.

The Establishment Clause in its Historical Context

Washington Post columnist George Will provides some historical background that shows why Monday's Supreme Court rulings on the Ten Commandments actually violates the Framers' (including Thomas Jefferson who, though not an actual Framer, is the authority upon which modern day Separatists rely) intentions regarding the First Amendment. See "Thou Shalt Split Hairs".

The fallacy of Separation of Church and State

Melinda Penner of Stand To Reason makes some salient points today that "Non-establishment is what the First Amendment affirms, not 'separation of church and state'" in her blog entry, "The Ten Commandments and the Supreme Court".

Identity As Criteria

Paul Scalia, a priest of the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia and chaplain of the Arlington chapter of Courage, makes an interesting observation in the current issue of First Things. His comments are in the context of school organizations identifying children by their sexual orientation:

"The child is lovable, and is loved. That love, more than anything else, instills in adolescents the trust and confidence they need to struggle with whatever painful and saddening realities they face.

"Difficulties arise when the child insists on being accepted and loved not as a person but as a 'gay,' 'homosexual,' or 'other' - when he wants to be loved according to that label. Clearly this situation ... requires parents to insist continually that, no, their child is not just the sum of his sexual attractions, that they can love their child while rejecting some of their actions.

"Adolescents need to hear precisely this: People's sexual inclinations do not determine their identity."

While Fr. Scalia is specifically addressing sexual orientation, his thinking applies much more broadly, for example regarding race or ethnicity. This labeling divides and ultimately reduces a person's humanity to mere criteria; emphasizing certain criterion and reducing others. If the chosen criteria are not recognized then those holding the criteria see themselves reduced; second class citizens.

It is their clinging to a set of criteria as their identity which ultimately reduces their humanity.

I will include a link to the article, if and when, First Things places the article on their website.

Update (7/23/2005): First Things has indeed provided a link to this article, A Label that Sticks.

History of Repeated Injuries and Usurpations

The History of the present King of Great Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States, To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World, ... For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us."
- Declaration of Independence

"... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
- Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
- Benjamin Franklin

The Supreme Court ruled today in Kelo v. New London that "cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development . . . giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue."

Does anyone, who has even a tiny knowledge of the Founders' and the Framers' worldview believe today's Supreme Court decision aligns with their intent on property rights? That under the tyranny of King George that they believe it was okay for a government to take away private property and give to another private entity?

Then: When quartering the King's Army one still retained possession of one's property. Sometimes homes were burned to the ground.

Now: Local governments can simply take your property, bulldoze it, and give it too someone else.

The Founders and Framers must indeed be proud.

Michael Schiavo's Parting Shot

ABC News reports that Terri Schaivo's remains have been buried in Florida. The grave marker contains the words: "I kept my promise."

This parting shot from Michael Sciavo reveals his deep hatred for Terri's parents and siblings. Originally, he was adamant about burying Terri at an undisclosed location in Pennsylvania despite her parents wishes to have her buried in Florida.

So now he changes his mind, buries her close to the parents with his parting shot confronting them every time they visit their daughter's grave. "Hey, Schindlers, 'I kept my promise!' to kill your daughter. So there! In your face!" Micahel Schiavo appears to be a man who cannot let his hatred go until he lashes out bashing and battering those he hates.

This is just speculation on my part but I suspect that Michael went from an attitude of caring for Terri during those initial years to killing her as a way to assuage his anger towards the Schindler's.

Last item: The grave marker lists Feb. 25, 1990 as the date his Terri "Departed this Earth." This is a blatant lie. I'd like to hear Micahel and his death-embracing lawyer, George Felos, explain why Michael sued for (and won) money for Terri's rehabilitaion if she had already "departed from earth." This is simply a blatant lie.

Father's Day

My kids gave me a booklet they made with various pictures of us along with captions. Each picture was a memory of something we've done together; like canoeing, making campfires, coaching their basketball teams, and even the burping contest we had during boys weekend. It reminded me that my job is to raise good citizens but that also I am supplying them with memories that they will have for the rest of their lives just as my father provided (and still provides) for me.

Several years ago, the boys gave me a poem that they attached to a piece of construction paper they had decorated. I have it posted at my office as a reminder of a father's real purpose:

"Walk a little slower Daddy," said a child so small.
"I'm following in your footsteps and I don't want to fall.

Sometimes your steps are very fast,
Sometimes they're hard to see;
So walk a little slower, Daddy,
For you are leading me.

Someday when I'm all grown up,
You're what I want to be;
Then I will have a little child
Who'll want to follow me.

And I would want to lead just right,
And know that I was true;
So, walk a little slower, Daddy,
For I must follow you."

- author unknown

Mythical Conclusions From The Schiavo Autopsy

Sample Headlines
Columbian (Vancouver, WA): "Autopsy: Terri Schiavo was beyond medical help"
Oregonian (Portland, OR): "Autopsy: Schiavo's status was irreversible"
AP: "Schiavo Autopsy Shows Massive Brain Damage"

USA Today: "Schiavo autopsy confirms diagnosis: Brain damage was ‘irreversible,' examiner finds"

Melinda Penner of Stand to Reason writes why these articles miss the point. As Penner states, "None of us are valuable because of the things we can do or offer society; we are valuable in virtue of the kind of beings we are."

From the AP story:
"This damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons," said Pinellas-Pasco County Medical Examiner Dr. Jon Thogmartin, who led the autopsy team. He also said she was blind, because the "vision centers of her brain were dead." See Penner's comments.

George Felos, attorney for Michael Schiavo, said the findings back up their contentions made "for years and years" that Terri Schiavo had no hope of recovery. Think of all the terminal people in the world. Guess we can just off them

The finding that she was blind counters a widely seen videotape released by her parents of Terri Schiavo in her hospice bed. The video showed Schiavo appearing to turn toward her mother's voice and smile. She moaned and laughed. Her head moved up and down and she seemed to follow the progress of a brightly colored Mickey Mouse balloon. The parents said the video that showed she was aware of her surroundings, but doctors said her reactions were automatic responses and not evidence of consciousness. ... The parents said the video that showed she was aware of her surroundings, but doctors said her reactions were automatic responses and not evidence of consciousness. This is interesting not only in the diagnosis she was blind but, also, that there was no explanation given for why she would follow the balloons. It's hard to imagine "primitive visionary reflexes" occurring if she was blind. As to the correlation of brain function and consciousness, see my previous post "Philosophy As Medical Omniscience".

The cause of death was ruled dehydration from removal of the feeding tube, but the underlying reason for her brain damage was officially listed as "undetermined." In other words, she wasn't dying. She would not have died except that the tube was removed. Michael Sciavo and George Felos basically said Terri can be killed because she does not have any value in our eyes.

As to the Columbian's Headline that Schiavo was "beyond medical help"; no she was not. Terri was not beyond medical help. She was receiving, at the very minimum, the medical help someone in her position requires: basic nutritional care. She was only considered "beyond help" to those who see no value in helping those that are less fortunate in physical or mental ability. She was "beyond help" to those in power who say another must obtain their definition of consciousness.

Nature's Homophobic Bigotry

Associated Press writer, Daniel Yee, reports some revealing facts in his article, "More Than a Million in U.S. Live With HIV". Yee writes:

"Health officials say the prevention failure in part has come from an abandonment of safe sex practices by gay and bisexual men - who account for almost half of HIV cases. Experts think they may be weary of STD prevention messages. The majority of the others infected are high-risk heterosexuals and injection drug users. ... The CDC also warned those demographics may soon change because heterosexual blacks, women and others infected after having high-risk sex (such as with someone with HIV, an injection-drug user or a man who has sex with other men) now account for a larger proportion of those living with HIV than those who are living with full-blown AIDS." (emphasis added)

Notice the driving force behind the increase in HIV: unsafe sex by gay and bisexual men, intravenous drug users and high-risk heterosexuals (i.e. heterosexuals who have sex with the first two groups or someone who is already infected).

Why would non-high risk heterosexuals not be driving the increase in HIV cases while male homosexuals consist nearly half? Could it be in the way nature has designed the human body for sexual activity. In short, the penis is designed sexually for the vagina not the anus.

Activists want society's approval of homosexual behavior; the very behavior which we all know of life is detrimental to its participants' health. They want us to turn our faces from the incredible suffering and loss of life that this behavior produces. And when one turn their face from this destruction of humanity, they are labeled homophobes, hate-mongers, and gay-bashers for starters.

Activists' true anger, though, is against the very Nature that discriminates against homosexual activity in its design of human sexuality. It is Nature that is homophobic.

The Christian Mind Tackles the Problem of Evil

Several weeks ago, Stand to Reason mentioned The Christian Mind blog. Keith Plummer brings critical Christian thinking to a variety of issues in the public square. In an era when many people believe Christianity to be ignorant, Plummer harkens back to the tradition of the greatest thinkers of Western civilization; many of whom were Christians. I have added his blog to the nContx list of links.

Today, Plummer posts an online discussion he had with an atheist regarding the problem of evil and appropriately titled "An Atheist's Problem with the Problem of Evil".

Following Their Hearts of Bigotry

I've previously commented on the bigotry and intolerance of the homosexual activists in Oregon as they try to push through a civil unions bill which will give benefits only to same-sex relationships at the same time they oppose a reciprocal-benefits bill which would give benefits to any two adults unable to marry. A thought occurred to my while reading an article from the Eugene (OR) Register-Guard. The article states:

"Opponents of the reciprocal-benefits bill have called it woefully inadequate. Among the areas they said it fell short was its lack of legal protections for a same-sex couple's children, the right to benefits through spouse-survivor life insurance, or the right to continue workers' compensation benefits if a partner is killed or disabled on the job."

I mentioned before it is interesting that the opposition doesn't say how to make the reciprocal-benefits bill better for any two adults. Instead they cling to giving benefits only to same-sex couples.

My thoughts is this: if they can't support reciprocal benefits for any two adults because it falls "woefully inadequate" then why don't they change the civil union bill to include benefits for any two adults?

The answer is that benefits for any two couples does not place homosexual relationships on the same level as heterosexual relationships. The radical homosexual activists were given a test to show that they were really for equality and they failed.

Because equality is not their goal. Normalization of homosexuality is.

The Real Meaning of Sex

This month’s issue of Touchstone magazine has an excellent article discussing why the Christian view of sex actually conforms to the way the world actually is.

I encourage you to read Bodies of Evidence: The Real Meaning of Sex Is Right In Front of Our Eyes by Frederica Mathews-Green. It will make you think.

The Bigotry of Oregon Civil Unions

The sponsors of Oregon Senate Bill 1000, which would grant civil unions and make homosexuals a protected class, have taken a different path. They have created SB 1073 which authorizes civil unions but removes the "non-discrimination" language.

I've commented on this notion of civil unions in Oregon and why it is really marriage by a different name. It is interesting that civil union advocates have dismissed SB 3476 which would provide some of the specific legal remedies - like hospital visitation, health care representation, estate issues, medical records access, etc) to any two people who are unable to marry regardless of sexual orientation. They say it doesn't go far enough.

Instead of working to make the reciprocal benefits of SB 3476 better, they reject it entirely and go back to advocating state sanctioned marriage benefits. This reveals something very profound about the civil union advocates.

Though they tout equality, they only want benefits for same-sex relationships. SB 3476 actually helps more people then SB 1073. If it is bigoted to "deny" legal benefits and rights to same-sex relationships (which is the claim of same-sex marriage advocates) then it is equally bigoted to deny those benefits to other, less conventional, family relationships.

Civil union advocates are not interested in equality in any meaningful sense of the word. They want to normalize homosexuality. They need same-sex relationships to be on the same (or as close to the) level as opposite-sex relationships. To have other relationships on that same level does not hold same-sex relationships on a special level.

For more information, see the Oregon Family Council web site.

The Sith Lord and his Apprentice

We live in an age of anti-intellectualism. Another great example comes from Frank E. Decker of Vancouver and published in the pages of the local Columbian newspaper. My comments are italicized.

It's just a great sci-fi film
What is it with the religious right in this country? Why does everything always have to be about them and their politics? I'm speaking about the recent allegations that George Lucas and the final installment of the "Star Wars" saga is really nothing more than a 2-hour, 26-minute Bush-bash.
Since some non-religious people have made the same charge of Lucas, are they still part of the "religious right"? By not defining his term, Mr. Decker, seems more intent on creating a pejorative then actual expressing who he is actually criticizing..

I remember when the first "Star Wars" installments were released. Even then there were right-wing fanatics spouting off about how the movies were anti-Christian.
Did Decker view the Ant-Defamation League as fanatics for calling the movie, The Passion, anti-Semitic? What about when Muslims feel they are stereotyped as terrorists on TV or film? In Episode IV, an officer of the Empire refers to Vader's adherence to the Force as an "ancient religion". The Force surrounds everything in the universe. It allows immortality (see Yoda, Obi Wan, and even Anakin). Star Wars is filled with immense metaphysical undertones many of which are in direct conflict with Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam. To say that the movie has anti-Christian elements is hardly fanatical. By the way, for those with a Catholic background, the expression, "May the Force be with you" is properly responded to with "And also with you!"

Now they've abandoned that crusade to bring their newest savior into the limelight. George W. Bush insisting that Vader's comment, "If you're not with me, you're my enemy," is a play on Bush's speech on terrorism and that the evil Vader is actually a metaphor for Bush.
Bush's statement from his Sept 20, 2001 speech was "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Now Vader's: ""If you're not with me, you're my enemy". Is Decker trying to say that common sense cannot not say, "Hmm, I can see a similarity here"? The Associated Press reports that even the "Cannes audiences made blunt comparisons between "Revenge of the Sith" -- the story of Anakin Skywalker's fall to the dark side and the rise of an emperor through warmongering -- to President Bush's war on terrorism and the invasion of Iraq." Is the Cannes audience really just right-wing fanatics? I'd like to see that evidence. Further, the AP article states the following:

Lucas said he patterned his story after historical transformations from freedom to fascism, never figuring when he started his prequel trilogy in the late 1990s that current events might parallel his space fantasy.
"As you go through history, I didn't think it was going to get quite this close. So it's just one of those recurring things," Lucas said at a Cannes news conference. "I hope this doesn't come true in our country.
"Maybe the film will waken people to the situation," Lucas joked. (emphasis added)

Even Lucas sees the similarities even though he claims that it was unintended.

I wonder if these intellectually challenged sci-fiphobes are aware of how many leaders and dictators in history have used that same line. Or, what about the words of their spiritual leader in Matthew 20:13, "He that is not with me is against me"? Is Vader therefore a metaphor for Jesus as well?
Intellectually, challenged sci-fiphobes?!? No wonder the Columbian honored this writer with the May 2005 Wodsmithing Letter of the Month. I do agree with Decker that similar lines have been used throughout history and Lucas says he was looking at the way history repeats. But it doesn't follow that just the statement has been used before that Lucas may not have used it intentionally to make a statement about Bush. There is only one person that knows for sure. It is not I nor is it Decker. It is Lucas. There is enough evidence for reasonable people to draw the conclusion of intent just as the Cannes audience did. To say they are intellectually challenged reveals much about Decker's own anti-intellectualism.

"Star Wars" is sci-fi entertainment. It's great storytelling, nothing more. Find another witch hunt, folks, and let the rest of us enjoy a great story.
Good. Might as well get one more pejorative smart bomb. Perhaps Mr. Decker can now sleep well knowing that he has used his feelings to become strong in the anti-intellectual Force, wielding his pejorative powered lightsaber to save us all from the forces of reasonableness and common sense - which after all lead, in the galaxy of his mind far, far away, to the "Dark" Side.

May the Force Be With You.

And also with you.

Inappropriate Memorial Day Comments

I attended the annual Memorial Day Remembrance at the Washougal (WA) Memorial Cemetery. This was my first time attending and I found the ceremony somber yet inspirational. Except for Washougal Mayor Jeff Guard's comments. He thanked the organizers and mentioned some of his relatives buried in the cemetery then mentioned the number of dead from Iraq and said that "even though this might be a controversial comment, maybe it is about time to bring them home."

No matter how we feel about the current war, we were not there to make political statements. We were there to come together as a community to honor those who serve this country, who protect this country, and who will die in the cause of liberty regardless if those of us in the relative safety of our homes agree on the definition of that cause.

The mayor's comments were juxtaposed against the elegance of the other speakers, poems, prayers, and tributes. The mayor's comments do have a place but a Memorial Day Remebrance was not it. I do not believe he meant disrespect but that was the result

In this morning's Camas-Washougal Post-Record, a letter to the editor appeared for which I heartily agree:

Mayor's remarks inappropriate
The following is a letter submitted by e-mail to Washougal Mayor Guard following his remarks at the Memorial Day services at Washougal Cemetery.

Mayor Guard, I am writing to you regarding your remarks made May 30 at the Memorial Day ceremony at Washougal Cemetery.

Thousands of our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard men and women have been wounded or killed to protect the freedoms we hold dear, including the right to dissent and freedom of speech. Freedom of speech, however, does not make it your place to include your anti-war remarks at a Memorial Day ceremony honoring the members of our Armed Forces both living and dead.

Your remarks were at best poor judgment and at worst rude and insulting to those of us who have served our country in the armed forces, the families of those who have served and to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect our most precious possession, our freedom as a nation.

You may agree or disagree with our governmentÂ’s attempts to bring stability and peace to a region that has known nothing but dictators and terror for many years, but to announce those views at a ceremony honoring our war dead on Memorial Day was unacceptable. This is a day to honor those who have been taken from us and whose sacrifice should never be forgotten, not to spout ones own political views.

We feel you owe the veterans, their families and the community an apology for your ill-timed remarks.

Floyd N. McCreary
RMCM USN Retired
Washougal

Where, oh where did all the pro-aborts go

This past week, Charlene Dorcy received a 63 year sentence in return for pleading guilty to killing her two daughters.

Dorcy, is the Vancouver, Washington woman who drove her daughters, Jessica and Brittany to an abandoned gravel pit, fed them a snack, and then shot them. She drove back to Vancouver and turned herself in.

But where are all the pro-abortion supporters?

Here we have a mother who didn't want her children and she made the decision to abort them. Isn't that what freedom of choice is all about?

No you say? Then what exactly is the difference between Brittany, 2, and Jessica, 4, and the unborn?

Their size? Brittany and Jessica are larger than the unborn. So since an adult is larger than the Dorcy girls the adult (like Charlene Dorcy) must be more of a person than her daughters. If not, then size should not matter with the unborn.

Stage of Development? The Dorcy girls are more developed than the unborn but then an adult is more developed than the Dorcy girls. If development does not allow justification in the killings of the Dorcy girls then it is also irrelevant in regards to the unborn.

Environment? How does the changing of location (i.e. passing from inside the womb to outside the womb) change a beings nature from non-human to human? Did moving the Dorcy girls from Vancouver to a gravel pit make them any less human? Of course not. That is why no one sees a problem in charging the mother for killing them.

Dependency? If viability makes us human, then all those dependent on kidney machines or pace-makersare not persons. No ethical difference exists between an unborn child who is dependent upon its mother and a kidney patient who dependent upon a kidney machine. The Dorcy girls were dependent on their parents to survive in regards to money, food, shelter, clothing, etc. According to the May 27 Columbian, the Dorcy parents argued the night before the girls were killed over finances. Charlene Dorcy ended the financial burden.

Charlene Dorcy exercised her right to choose; her right to privacy. But pro-aborts are willing to let her hang rather than hold to the consistency of their position thereby revealing to the world the inhumanity of their hearts.

Entertainment Tonight's Mary Kay Mud Mask

More on the moral stupidity of Entertainment Tonight and their celebration of Mary Kay LeTourneau who married the now-adult but then-child she raped, Vili Fualaau.

From this past week's column of Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center we find how truly reprehensible this show is!

Here's my favorite line of the column:

ET reporter Jann Carl hyped the wedding as "the icing on the cake of a notorious soap opera that still sparks admiration and outrage around the world." Wait a minute. Just who "admires" the rape of a 12-year-old boy, other than the folks at Paramount? She then hyped her exclusive first interview with the couple. She cooed: "Was it everything you dreamed?" Without giggling, Carl explained the new Mary Kay Fualaau hoped to teach again in the future, failing to add: If some school administrator can just compassionately look past that registered-pedophile record.

To bad the American Psychological Association didn't have Jann Carl and the resources of Entertainment Tonight writing their 1998 Psychological Bulletin article, "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples", which suggested adult sex with willing children might not be harmful. They might not have had to retract the article.

Supporters of "Unworthy of Life"

Brian Baird represents my district in the U.S. House of Representatives. This is his take as printed in the May 25 Columbian, Local Angle - Baird supports research. (Note: The Columbian only supports article links for a short time).

Wednesday, May 25, 2005compiled by Columbian staff
Congressman Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, joined 237 other House members Tuesday in voting to expand stem cell research.
President Bush has promised to veto the legislation, a decision that Baird criticized as shortsighted.
"The president's extreme position on stem cell research is not based on science and it is not based on compassion," Baird said in a statement.
"Stem cell research holds the promise of curing life-threatening diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and childhood diabetes. How can the president claim to value life when he is depriving millions of Americans the promise of lifesaving medical cures?"

What does Baird actually think the President's position is? The President is against this legislation because it allows federal funds to be used in embryonic stem cell research; research which destroys the embryo. As I stated yesterday, a human sperm unites with a human egg to form a unique human being. An embryo is simply a stage of development from implantation up to eight weeks. These are scientific facts!

This places Baird on the horns of a dilemna. If he denies these facts then his position violates his own standard of being based on scientific fact. However, if he acknowledges that a human being exists at conception then he is advocating the destruction of human beings because of "the promise of curing life-threatening diseases".

Here's a question for Baird. Suppose two year olds were discovered to have an enzyme that would cure for "life-threatening diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and childhood diabetes" and even cancer and AIDS. The only catch is that extracting the enzyme will kill the two year old. Would Baird advocate killing the two year old?

If not, why not? What is the rational difference in the nature between the two year old human being and the embryonic human being? Why would you kill one and not the other?

If you wouldn't kill the two year old then how can you "value life when [you are] depriving millions of Americans the promise of lifesaving medical cures?"

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

On Tuesday, The U.S. House passed a bill expanding public funding for embryonic stem cell research. A CNN report stated "Supporters point out there are embryos in fertility clinics that would never be used to create babies, but could be used for research purposes." (emphasis added) On the Al Franken show today, Al and his guest described that the bill "only uses embryos that would be destroyed (or discarded) embryos anyways." (emphasis added)

Scientifically speaking, when a human sperm and a human egg unite there is a unique human being. Embryo is simply a term to described the stage of development of that human being. Therefore, a human embryo is "the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception." (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

So let's substitute the stage of development terminology with the ontological (i.e. nature of being) terminology in the two above statements.

"Supporters point out there are human beings in fertility clinics that would never be used to create babies, but could be used for research purposes."

Al Franken and Guest: the bill "only uses human beings that would be destroyed (or discarded) human beings anyways."

Of course, we can redefine their humanity by obfuscate the true nature of those human beings using sterile sounding scientific terms. Then we kill them in the name of helping people with horrible diseases.

To hear in the corridors of the laboratories, a Dr. Franken-stein exclaiming, "It's Alive!"

That is, the doctrine of "Some Life Is Unworthy of Life".
Not the human embryo. It was being discarded anyway.

Potential vs. Actual Persons

In today's Columbian letters to the editor, a found this gem. It is an example of how someone can throw in a word that will obfuscate the real issue. Here is the letter of Margie Bouchers of Yacolt, WA (emphasis added by me):

Extending the logic
I had to chuckle reading Karen Korinke's May 13 letter, "Guard rights of innocent," in which she refers to fetuses as "preborn people." I had a bit of fun extending her line of thinking.
Why not harvest every sperm and egg from every individual on the planet, young and old alike? Surely each sperm or egg has the potential to be a preborn person. These sperm and eggs would be housed in places called Preborn Orphan Banks.
For those men who wasted their sperm, why, we could charge them with reckless endangerment. Further, anyone refusing to participate in this glorious life-enhancing process would be judged as felons and therefore as heinous murderers and could also be put to death.

I highlighted the word potential for a reason. Karen Korinke's letter talked not about potential people but preborn people.

Bouchers inserts the word potential to obfuscate the issue. In order to justify in her mind that the taking of preborn life is okay she has created this concept of potential vs. actual people. Here's the question for anyone who makes this distinction: Scentifically, when does a potential person become an actual person?

A human sperm with 23 chromosomes merges with a human egg with 23 chromosomes to create a unique human being. If, at this point, we only have a potential person then what criteria must this potential person obtain in order to have obtained actual personhood?

Note that those who make this distinction must know the criteria. If they don't know the criteria then how do they know they are aborting a potential person rather than an actual person?

Is birth the demarcation line between actual and potential persons? If so, then what is the magical thing that occurs simply by passing through the birth canal? And since pro-aborts advocate partial birth abortion (i.e. the head still resides in the birth canal while its skull is pierced and its brains sucked out then obviously it is the head that must undergo this transformation since all but the head has passed from the birth canal.

Of course, those who hold to potential personhood won't define the criteria for actual personhood. They don't because their criteria would eliminate some obvious actual persons. Level of Consciousness as a measurement? Do those with Downs Syndrome qualify? What of the newborn? An adult is more conscious of their surroundings than a toddler? Does an Alzheimer patient qualify as an actual person?

In their attempt to obfuscate the obvious, the holders of potential personhood actually create more issues than they resolve. And it shows their diliberate dishonesty because they never seriously try to identify the demarcation between potential and actual.

Any use for government?

This letter to the editor by Joel Littauer appeared in yesterday's Columbian and is another example of the type of examples (in this case a strawman fallacy) those who do not want religious thought to have any influence in the public sphere. My comments are italicized.

Any use for government?

If the religious right wing of the Republican Party is correct that we should trust in God and him alone we should carry their message forward and use it.

Littauer makes no attempt to define the religious right wing. Does Littauer believe this is all those who are religious? What does he think these people mean by "trust in God and him alone" and then how does that align with their actions. In fact, most of those he would identify as the "religious right" believe that their are rights and wrongs and that those rights and wrongs are grounded in something outside of what human beings may define as right and wrong. (By the way, this doesn't mean the non-religious cannot be moral. It does mean that they are acting inconsistent with their worldview).

First, we could save ourselves trillions of dollars by firing the United States government.

Most religious people believe that government is instituted by God and that one of its mandates is the protection of its citizens. Secondly, most of these religious people hold to a high view of the constitution which instilled a secular government based upon Judeo-Christian ethics. Remember, it is the Declaration of Independence which founded this country. The Constitution established (after the Articles of Confederation proved ineffective) the government based upon the principles in the Declaration. Principles like "we are endowed by our Creator . . .".

If God will save us from our enemies, why do we need a Defense Department? Get rid of it.

Again, one of the principles of government according to God is the protection of its citizens which is why it is it is in the Constitution.

If only knowledge of God is necessary, why do we need an Education Department? Get rid of it.

Where, exactly, in the Constitution does it say the federal government is to control education?

If faith makes medical research irrelevant, why do we need a Health Department? Get rid of it.

Who, among those Littauer describes as the "religious right", are saying that faith makes medical research irrelevant. It is irrational to accuse those who believe there are true and false views of the world would hold those views as irrelevant while commending those holding to moral relativism (i.e. all views are equally valid) as clinging to the relevancy of medical research. In the area of abortion, for example, who holds medical research as irrelevant? Is it those who say that human life occurs when the human sperm and the human egg unite (conception) or those who say that it is just a mass of cells (of course, all living things are actually masses of cells) or manipulate language calling it a "fetus" to disguise the beings true nature. Fetus is a scientific description of a stage of development. That is why we can have a human fetus or a dog fetus. "Human" and "dog" refer to the type of being the creature is. Fetus refers to the stage of development from three months up to birth. Pro-aborts try to blur the lines of medical research by creating a "right to choose" to terminate the fetus which is like saying there is a right to choose to terminate the from three months up to birth. Littauer doesn't have a problem with the religious making medical research irrelevant. He has a problem that there are absolute truths that moral relativists will not be able to make medical research malleable to use as they want such as ignoring that human life begins at conception and therefore we can't just kill it when it becomes inconvenient to us. It is not the religious who advocate the Nazi doctrine that some life is unworthy of life.

If the Constitution is quaint and outmoded, and the Bible is the only standard to be respected, why do we need a Justice Department? Get rid of it.

Again, most religious people do not believe the Constitution is quaint and outmoded. They believe that it is not a "living document" which is code that each generation can change its meaning based on how they define the words (see aforementioned "right to privacy", etc) rather than the amendment process defined within its . If the Constitution means that then no one is safe. Each generation is at the mercy of those in power.

And why go on paying the costs of the Bush presidency when all we really need is a religious leader? Pat Robertson? Jerry Falwell? No. Too expensive. We can outsource the work. I'm sure an African tribal witch doctor will do it for much less and with a straighter face.

Oh yes, build a good strawman (depend on God alone means no need for government), knock it down and then just for good measure (and to satisfy his obsessive bigotry toward the religious) ridicule those he's attacking. Good show!

Entertainment?!? Tonight

I don't usually watch ET (Entertainment Tonight) but thought there might be some information on the Star Wars movie. Instead, I was treated to the top story on ET, the wedding of Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualaau.

Letourneau was convicted of child rape for having a sexual relationship with Fualaau when he was 12. As far as I am concerned Letourneau had issues, she did something wrong, did irreparable harm to her then family and to his. She has paid the penalty for her crime and she is moving on by marrying her victim.

Why exactly is ET involved at all. What exactly about this is Entertainment? The woman is famous for child molestation. And ET has her wedding set-up as the lead-in followed by interviews with her and Fualaau (although, I'm not sure you'd call his few words an interview) then later in the program other spicey tidbits about the soon to be newlyweds.

Sorry, I didn't make it past the first five minutes so I can't report on the rest of the sh-ow. Hey, let's dumb down our audience. Sad to say, they probably had a large audience who was riveted to their sets. Which may provide some insight into our current Age of Stupidity. Safe to say, I learned my lesson regarding watching ET (Excretment Tv).

When a pregnant woman is actually a pregnant man

According to the Feb 9th Montgomery Advisor, Alabama Democrat State Senator Alvin Holmes offered $700 to any legislator "who could find a passage in the Bible explicitly defining marriage as a sacred bond between a man and a woman." Four days later, The Advisor reported that "Holmes is now offering $5,000 to anyone who can cite specific verses outlawing same-sex marriage."

Of course, Holmes never identified the criteria by which he would accept that the Bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

World Net Daily reported that when someone had left a Bible for Holmes opened to a passage regarding marriage but to Holmes "the language of the verses weren't definitive on the subject, however, and ... the passage didn't prove anything."

1 Corinthians 7:2 states: "Since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband." To which Holmes is quoted "OK, but what that says [is] ... if two people should get married and if they are of the same sex then he becomes his wife and he's the husband."

I really hope this is a misquote of Holmes. If not, this shows that he isn't really interested in what the Bible has to say. He isn't interested in what the Bible actually says. He has his position and he will twist language to ridicule and marginalize his opposition. How do I know this? A simple word study of this passage and a little bit of grey matter exercise.

The word for wife in this passage is the Greek word pronounced goo-nay. It is used specifically to describe a wife or a woman throughout this passage (e.g. see 1 Cor 7:3, 4, etc). This same word is used specifically for a wife by Christian writers outside of the canonical writings such the Epistle of Aristeas (2nd century BC) and Philo of Alexandria (1st century AD) [See A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature, Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, 1952].

Of course there is an easier way to expose Holmes' foolishness. The same word that he thinks can be translated as "he becomes his wife" is used by this same author, St. Paul, in Galatians 4:4 so we should be able to substitute the male gender:

"But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a [man] ..." Ouch that has got to hurt! Of course, Christ wasn't born of a man which is clear when the actual translted word "woman" is used.

Here's some other passages with the same Greek word. Substitute the terms "man" or "husband" for the bracketed words:

1 Cor. 11:8 - "For man did not come from [woman], but [woman] from man; neither was man created for [woman], but [woman] for man."
Holmes translation - "For Man did not come from man, but man from man; neither was man created for man, but man for man." Me thinketh that Paul does protest too much! Of course, the context for these verses is set in 1 Cor 11:7 where Paul states: "A man ... since he is the image and glory of God but the woman is the glory of man." In Genesis, man was created in the image of God while woman was created out of the side of man.

1 Thess. 5:3 - "... destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant [woman]" Does Holmes really think this passage refers to a pregnant man?

Mt 14:21 - "The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides [women] and children." Or is it five thousand men, besides men and children?

The gospel according to Alvin Holmes makes no sense. But then his point was not to make sense of what the Bible actually says. He already knows what it says. He just doesn't want to abide by it and so he ridicules and marginalizes those who do see the words of the Bible as accurately reflecting the world in which we live.

Mr. Holmes owes someone $5000 but he has neither the courage nor the character to follow through.

45 Years of "For Better, For Worse; For Richer, For poorer; In Sickness and in Health"

My parents celebrate their 45th wedding anniversary today.

It has not always been easy for them. They married less than a year out of high-school and had three kids under the age of three years of age by the time they were 22. My father's parents were less than pleased with the marriage. And, as with many young, young adults there were growing pains within their love for each other.

And when my sister died in 1992 at the age of thirty, one wondered if the grief would end their relationship as it has many others who have suffered the loss of a child. Yet through all those struggles, one item always formed the foundation of their relationship: Perseverance.

They persisted in a culture that says when the marriage gets rough that it is okay to move on. After all, it is love that is important. But love in our day and age is defined as an emotional euphoria; giving one a "buzz", that cloud nine excited feeling of meeting that special someone.

The problem is that no relationship sustains those feelings. Feelings ebb and flow. Sometimes the ebb may last a long time. Then what?

That is what the marriage are for. You know the "for better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health". Those aren't just meaningless words of some silly, formal cultural ritual. The vow is supposed to mean something.

Of course, one doesn't really need a vow when things are "for better; for richer; and in health." That's not hard. The vow is for when the going becomes difficult, in the times "for worse; for poorer; and in sickness."

What my parents modeled was that love isn't just about emotions. It is about committing yourself to the other person and to the relationship even when it would be easier to move on. They modeled that promises are just to be kept when you feel like it but when you don't feel like it. Perserverance builds character.

It is an idea that many in their generation as well as mine have missed resulting in much hurt and despair. And therein lies the paradox. Letting their emotions guide them to happiness has actual resulted in much unhappiness. And in the scars of the failed relationships that litter their past.

Congratulations Mom and Dad on your 45th Wedding Anniversary.

A Serious Definition of the Religious Right

There is much weeping and gnashing of teeth of late in regards to the religious right, a term that is used more often than not as a perjorative. Those that use it as such tend, I think for obvious reasons, not to define the term.

My definition of the religious right is one who holds a high view of Scripture, that its meaning can be known (interpretation), and that its actual meaning is to be applied to one's life (application) to, as St. Paul says, conform oneself to the image of Christ.

Dr. John Mark Reynolds offers a much more detailed definition of the religious right. It is worth the read and contemplation.

Un-Civil Unions

The May 5 Oregonian states of Senate Bill 1000, "Would allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions, granting them the same rights under state law as married couples."

Oregon voters just last November passed, by 56%, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man, one woman. Supporters of SB 1000 state the bill does not grant marriage. Let's do a little thought experiment to determine the difference between item tow items.

Item #1 contains consists of components A, B, and C. We'll call it item ABC.
Item #2 contains consists of components A, B, and C. Calling it item XYZ doesn't mean it is different from item ABC.

But supporters of SB 1000 say if we call it XYZ then it is not ABC. If civil unions grant the same rights under state law as marriage then civil unions is the same as marriage:

(civil union rights) same as (marriage rights)

(civil union rights) = (marriage rights)

Supporters counter that civil unions is not like marriage because it does not offer the federal rights of marriage. The flaw with their argument is that the state does not have control over the federal realm only the state realm. (Not to mention the argument against the Federal Marriage Amendment which was the states should decide; of course states can only decide what is in the state's realm). Therefore, since civil unions grant the same rights as marriage then civil unions is marriage in the eyes of the state. And as such it violates the clearly stated will of the majority of Oregon voters.

But then, as we have seen many times in the past, the drive to normalize same-sex relationships rarely acknowledges, let alone bows, to the will of the people.

"Pay No Attention to the Parts in the Bucket Behind The Curtain"

Great letter in today's USA Today. I'm surprised the Board published it but congratulate them for having the courage to do so. The language of obfuscation of the pro-abortion movement is to hide these very facts.

Here is the letter:

Abortion should not be a game of tolerance

On the topic of abortion, politicians who play a tolerance game in order to win votes need to grow up and quit abusing a wonderful governmental system, created to be “for the people” (“The changing politics of abortion,” Cover story, News, Monday).

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm stated, “I don't feel that in our state it (abortion) is viewed as a black-or-white situation. People see it in shades of gray.” I would venture to say that this is true for many other Americans, and this is precisely the problem.

Abortion is not a gray issue. Death is not gray, confusing or hard to diagnose.

I think everyone who is pro-choice should have to spend one day in an abortion clinic. They could then see the broken, dismembered and burned human beings rudely disposed of.

I commend all who stand up for human rights, but please don't disregard the thousands of human beings who are being ripped, sucked or flushed from their mothers' wombs daily.

Ryan Neuhaus
St. Louis

Defense: England Oxygen-Deprived at Birth

An AP article, "Defense: England Oxygen-Deprived at Birth," states that "Defense lawyers sought leniency for Pfc. Lynndie England ... [because she] was oxygen-deprived at birth, speech impaired and had trouble learning to read."

The story goes on to say, "When asked by judge Col. James Pohl whether England knew right from wrong, [West Virginia school psychologist Dr. Thomas] Denne said she had a compliant personality and tended to listen to authority figures. On Monday, England told Pohl that she initially resisted taking part in the abuse at the Baghdad prison, but that she succumbed to peer pressure. "I had a choice, but I chose to do what my friends wanted me to," she said. Rick Hernandez, a defense lawyer, said the psychologist's testimony helped England by establishing that her ability to reason was lower than that of her comrades.

Here's my question. Why did she resist at first? Another AP story by T.A. Badger quotes England as saying, "'No, no way' at first when a fellow soldier asked her to pose" for the now-infamous picture of England smiling and "pointing at a naked detainee's genitals while smoking a cigarette." Did she resist initially because she knew it was wrong?

The moment Lynndie said she initially resisted she acknowledged that she was capable of evaluating the moral environment. Even in an impaired state she admits to enough moral sense to make a decision. Therefore, the deprived of oxygen argument is meaningless and is being used as an emotional appeal.

Her "ability to reason" may indeed be lower than others but that is irrelevant. The question is can she make that judgment. Lynndie, herself, admitted she could.

The Darkened Heart

Dr. John Mark Reynolds scores in his analysis of the "Rev." Mel White's protest of Dr. James Dobson and Focus on the Family. See his post, "Salazar has a chance to repudiate extremism". Be sure to read his comments to the Rocky Mountain News article.

My absolute favorite part of the Rocky Mountain article was this quote:

"Focus on the Family does not focus on families. They teach from a theology that is morally bankrupt," said Jacob Reitan, Soulforce's youth director, who stood between his mother and father. "It teaches mothers and fathers to reject their gay sons and their lesbian daughters, and it has to end. We cannot go on any longer dividing our families."

Dr. Reynolds shines the light on the darkness of Reitan's view to which I add the following thought.

St. Paul makes the observation in Romans 1 (note: the progression) that the "wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth ... For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God ... but they became futile in their speculations and their foolish heart was darkened." Paul says these men's hearts were darkened first then (and only then) did God give "them over in the lusts of their hearts ... they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator."

"For this reason (that is, because of the darkened hearts) God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another.

First, the unrighteous suppress the truth, they become futile in their speculations, and their heart becomes darkened. God gives them over to the passions of their darkened hearts. And they engage in creature worship of which one is "exchanging the natural sexual function (between opposite sexes) for the unnatural (between same sexes).

Homosexual behavior isn't the sin anymore than adultery is the sin. Turning from God is the sin. Homosexuality, adultery, gossiping, slander, etc. are merely the symptoms identifying the disease that each of us have.

Reitan, White, Soulforce and others have turned their faces from God and want the truth, which exposes their tru condition, suppressed.

The "Jesus Never Spoke Against Homosexuality" fallacy

Ona Shepperd of Vancouver, WA writes in the April 24 Columbian (C6):

"I'm sure that if Jesus prayed for homosexuals, it went something like this: God, help this person, made in your image and likeness, to be strong and forgive those who are bigoted and intolerant of differences in your creation."

I'm not trying to single one person out because many supporters of homosexual behavior do this; remember the ever popular, "Jesus never spoke against homosexuality." Ona simply was more creative in speaking this view. Although they would deny it, these people actually have a low view of Scritpure and an anemic understanding of Christology. Here's why:

1. Jesus called himself the Son (i.e. in the image) of God. In other words, he is the very essense of God. Not any old God but the God of the Old Testament.
2. In the OT, God does speak about homosexual behavior and in rather unflattering (and in the eyes of today's culture) bigoted and intolerant terms. Gen 18:16 - 19:29; Lev 18:22, 20:13
3. Jesus is called the Creator (Jn 1:3, Col 1:15-17)
4. God "created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Gen 1:27
5. After making the woman from man God said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." Gen 2:20-24. Jesus reiterates this statement in Matthew 19 to show the proper purpose of marriage.
6. The Bible's teaching on sexual behavior is consistent - within the confines of marriage and since marriage is between a man and a woman that would exclude homosexuals.

Therefore, Shepperd's statement amounts to this:

"I'm sure that if Jesus prayed for homosexuals, it went something like this: God, help this person, made in your image and likeness, to be strong and forgive me who is bigoted and intolerant of differences in My creation."

Pope Benedict XVI

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was selected a few hours ago as the next pope. He has taken the name Pope Benedict XVI.

For some insight into this man, visit Roman Catholic Blog and read the full text of Cardinal Ratzinger's "Dictatorship of Relativism Homily".

Out of our sadness over the loss of John Paul II, we can celebrate a man to lead the Catholic Church. One who is true to the Truth. One who knows, and isn't afraid to voice, the message that the world so desperately wants crushed; that the Truth is that we need to conform to the image of God rather than the world's message of transforming God to the image of the world.

It won't be long before the world will, as is its nature, rail against the light being shone on the darkness of their soul.

Patriot's Day

April 19 is Patriot's Day commemorating the Battles of Lexington and Concord.

Two hundred thirty years ago tonight (April 18), Paul Revere rode the countryside to warn that "The Regulars (i.e. British) are coming". By dawn of the next morning (April 19), the events that Ralph Waldo Emerson called "the shot heard 'round the world" began at the Battle of Lexington and Concord; the first battles of the American Revolution.

The Library of Congress has a great write-up as well as many links on various aspects of the Revolutionary War.

Discussion of the military aspects of the terrain (then and now) including a picture of the North Bridge. (Note: you will need to page down).

"Concord Hymn" by Ralph Waldo Emerson

Info on Paul Revere's ride

"The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere" by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Servants of the Truth

Saturday, the cardinals destroyed Pope John Paul II's ring and lead seal providing the formal end to his reign. Monday, they begin the process to select his successor. I have already written my thoughts of John Paul. My Aunt Kathy sent me an email with her thoughts and, with her permission, I am sharing excerpts:

"Hi Larry,
Your thoughts on Pope John Paul II were very moving. It has been such a sad time. We all knew he wouldn't be with us forever, but we wanted him a little longer than God planned. He taught us a lot about life in his thoughts, words and actions (especially in the value of suffering) and he also taught us about death. Uncle Dean & I had a Papal Blessing from him at St. Peter's Bascillica in 1995 and I will never forget his face as long as I live. There was so much love! I knew I was in the presence of someone very special. I was brought up in the belief that I must model Christ--so much that people will see Him in me. That is a difficult thing to do, but each day I get up and try my best. I saw Christ in Pope John Paul II.

One of the local pastors of a protestant church here in Albany said Pope John Paul II was "the leader of the Universal Church--he was a leader for all of us". I think he was right. It must have been like that when Peter led the church. How sad his followers must have been when he was put to death. Their loss was no greater or no less than ours, I am sure.

Anyway, Pope John Paul II spoke one time to reporters covering his United Nations visit. This is part of what Pope John Paul II said to them:

"You are indeed servants of the truth; you are its tireless transmitters, diffusers, defenders. You are dedicated communicators, promoting unity among all nations by sharing truth among all nations. If your reporting does not always command the attention you would desire, or if it does not always conclude with the success that you would wish, do not grow discouraged. Be faithful to the truth and to its transmission, for truth endures: Truth will not go away. And I say to you, take it as my parting words to you — that the service of truth, the service of humanity through the medium of the truth, is something worthy of your best years, your finest talents, your most dedicated efforts."

Thank you, Aunt Kathy for the reminder, your encouragement, and your love.

The Big "No Dah!"

The Oregon Supreme Court ruled today that the 3,000 marriage licenses issued last year to same-sex couples were invalide because Multnomah County had no authority in the matter. The AP reported that "The court said while the county can question the constitutionality of laws governing marriage, they are a matter of statewide concern so the county had no authority to issue licenses to gay couples."

Up to this point, we've been told that these couples were anguishing because their marriages were in limbo. Of course, Basic Rights Oregon and the Multnomah County Commisioners who hatch this underhanded plot in secret have never apologized (nor did they apologize in their Press Release today).

They thought that if they marriage licenses were issued then it would be very difficult to have them revoked. And if not for Oregon's new constitutional amendment that would probably have been true.

It was obvious last spring the county did not have authority to issue licenses. They trotted out their attorney to say that the constitution and the law did not explicitly say that marriage was between a man and a woman.

Think about this. The Oregon constitution was written by 19th century men at a time when homosexual behavior was considered a crime against nature; an abomination. The framers did not need to explicitly define marriage because everyone knew the definition of marriage. No honest person can say that the framers really intended to allow same-sex marriages even though they found homosexual acts abominable. If they didn't intend same-sex marriage then no constitutional violation exists for not allowing those marriages. To say the framers weren't explicit is to obfuscate their actual intent.

Oregon's Constitutional Amendment only made explicit what was already in the Constituion. If the framer's were alive they would have said, "No, Dah!" although perhaps with somewhat saltier language.

The "Equal Rights" Washington Deception

Equal Rights Washington, a political advocacy group for the homosexual community, is spending $25,000 on TV ads in order to revive House Bill 1515, which supposedly would ban discrimination against homosexuals in housing, insurance and jobs. A National organization may double that amount.

George Cheung, the group's executive director stated, "A couple of senators are standing in the way of Washingtonians who overwhelmingly want the anti-discrimination bill passed. It's time, once and for all, to end discrimination and treat everyone equally." (emphasis added)

Overwhelmingly? Then why has this bill failed for 30 years. What is their evidence of overwhelming support? Their fact sheet states:

"A recent Harris poll found that most Americans support employment anti-discrimination laws for lesbians and gays – only 30% are against them. Washingtonians, with our strong tradition of individual rights, are even more likely to approve of LGBT anti-discrimination laws."

They mention a poll of Americans but not for Washingtonians. They presume that because Washington has a "strong tradition of individual rights" that its citizens would be for this particular law. They made a statement of fact of "overwhelming support" based on no evidence but rather a leap of faith. Maybe Washingtonians do support this bill but maybe they don't. One does not have enough evidence to make a statement of fact as ERW did. It is a public relations lie for political gain.

ERW also states:

"According to the most recent US Govt General Accounting Office report on litigation related to LGBT employment discrimination (in those states that have laws protecting LGBT persons), there has been no overall increase in total discrimination cases filed. LGBT-related discrimination accounted on average for 3.5% of cases filed."

How does a law that you admit makes no difference in the number of discrimination claims filed accomplish your stated goal to "once and for all, end discrimination"? The answer is that it doesn't.

ERW admits that "many major Washington employers have already embraced LGBT employees" (emphasis theirs) in their anti-discrimination policies. The problem is that not ALL have or even will. And dissent is not allowed on this issue.

Supporters would rather crush liberty by protecting what their own (as well as other sources) facts say do not need protecting. In doing so, they fight "discrimination" by discriminating against those who exercise their freedom of choice in a way that supporters deem unacceptable.

Mean-spirited, Defenders of Discrimination

The Columbian reports today that legislator Jim Moeller is unhappy with his Republican counterparts in the Washington state Senate, who last week used a parliamentary maneuver "to push aside House Bill 1515, which would protect gays from housing, employment and financial discrimination."[1]

"I think that the move was mean-hearted," said Moeller, one of four gay House members. "It really paints the Senate Republican caucus as the defenders of discrimination, and that's unfair because I know some people in that caucus who really don't buy into that."

As I mentioned before, The Columbian (Vancouver, WA) published my article, 'Gay rights' bill tyranny in disguise, on why this legislation is not needed. My footnoted version is here.

Mr. Moeller has a history of crying wolf (see Jim Moeller's Record for examples). He excels at painting himself (and his cause) as victims. However, disagreement does not necessarily equate to discrimination. And Mr. Moeller believes you discriminate against homosexuals unless you bow before their agenda.

If you don't believe this then ask this question: " On what conditions would Mr. Moeller consider the bill's opponents to not be 'mean-spirited' and 'discriminatory'"? The answer is, if they agree with him and support the bill!

If he denies this then he must answer on what grounds can someone oppose this legislation and not be mean-spirited?

BTW, if he believes that it is not mean-spirited to oppose the bill but that using the parliamentary maneuver was the "mean-spirited" and "discriminatory" act then where was his outrage during the last session when his side used a parliamentary maneuver to force the House to address similar legislation (HB 1809)? [2]

Will Mr. Moeller answer these questions or will he continue to assassinate the characters of those who oppose him? The clock ticks.

[1] Don Jenkins, "Transportation budget doesn't please Wallace," Columbian, 4/11/2005, page C1.
[2] Don Jenkins, "Senate shutdown kills House bills, Columbian, 3/6/2004, page C1.

Being Transformed into the Image of Christ

We, who with unveiled faces reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." - 2 Cor 3:18

As I write, Pope John Paul II lies near death. I am not Catholic but this is a sad time. A great man of God is nearing the end of his race, a race he ran extremely well, and for which he will enter into his eternal reward. The Pope has shown compassion and conviction in his life. He has spoke for those without a voice, the weak and the vulnerable. He has stood for righteousness and stood against evil. In fact, in a world increasingly incapable of even recognizing evil, he has shown the light of Christ into the darkness of man's soul.

Dr. John Mark Reynolds provides some elegant tributes:
John Paul the Great
Gallant Knight of Christendom

Hugh Hewitt provides some informative links on John Paul II's theological work "Theology of the Body" and the papal succession process. He also posts emails he has received from people expressing their gratitude to this man.

In 1987, I attended the papal visit in Pontiac, Michigan. Beyond the experience of seeing and hearing the Pope, I remember something that struck me as quite odd at the time. I had attended sporting events at the Pontiac Silverdome and there is the usual people rushing to and fro, especially after the game. Cutting people off. After the Pope's visit the atmosphere was remarkably different. 90,000+ people calmly exited the building, singing and praising the Lord, talking with perfect strangers as if they were family - because, after all they were (and are) brothers and sisters in the Lord. This atmosphere reflected this man - gentleness, compassion, strength, love of Lord and each other.

A picture at the back of the Pastoral Visit guide provides, for me, a summation of Pope John Paul II's ministry. John Paul has his arm around a girl of around 10. Her head is upon his chest, eyes looking up at him. He is looking down at her with love and compassion. Words do not give the picture justice. It reminds me of how Christ interacted with others.

Pope John Paul II was indeed a model of one being transformed into the image of Christ.

To my Catholic family and friends, my heart grieves with you. And like you, I look forward to that day when we will all see this great man after God's own heart once again; this time in the Lord's presence.

Rest in Peace: Terri Schiavo

This is a day of sorrow. Dr. John Mark Reynolds expresses better than I my wish of Rest in Peace: Terri Schaivo.

Suicidal Arguments and the Loved Ones that Make Them That Way

One of this site's goals is to evaluate arguments by placing them in their proper context. In yesterday's Columbian (Vancouver, WA) Letters to the Editors, a Mr. Bob Donohoe writes to "Beware Religious Right", provides an example of an argument that annihilates itself.
Note: This is the Columbian's title not Mr. Donohoe's. My comments are italicized.

Beware religious right
Everyone has his or her own understanding of God and religion. However, when one group or faction thinks they must governmentally impose their beliefs on others, serious conflict and loss of personal freedom occur.

This is what the religious right is doing. They are imposing their beliefs on others as evidenced by attacking gays, limiting sex education, opposing Planned Parenthood and a woman's right to choose, intervening in the Schiavo case, manipulating the media, banning books, debunking science and using government funding to promote their ideology.

Next will be control of how you dress, your hair style, how you talk and what you eat.

Not to mention where you smoke; what behavior you have to accept as normal; abstinence is best but since you are just a horny animal use this latex thing that's been stretched out by a cucumber; how some life is unworthy of life (i.e. unborn babies and the disabled); manipulating the media by "religious right" consorts of Dan Rather, The New York Times, The LA Times, Air America, etc; how banning books is wrong but banning the "religious right" is "religious 'right'-eous"; and using government funding to teach ignore how life came from non-life. Oh wait. That's the "non-religious right". Sorry, please continue.

All people should have the freedom to live their own lives by what they believe.

That's what the "religious right" is doing.

However, no group should try to force others to adopt their beliefs.

If "no group should try to force others to adopt their beliefs" then Mr. Donohoe should not be telling others that they abide by a belief of not "imposing their beliefs on others." This is, itself, a view that the "religious right" should adopt Donohoe's belief, namely not to "force others to adopt their beliefs." If it is wrong to "force others" then Donohoe has violated his own principle in criticizing the "religious right" for "imposing their belief on others." That is Donohoe's belief not the belief (according to him) of the "religious right."

Separation of church and state is critical and needs to be upheld.

Does this mean the "religious right" should have no vote or that they should have no voice?

Government should be focusing on issues for the common good of all its citizens health, education, jobs, and the environment not promoting religious ideology and interfering in the private lives of citizens.

Religious ideology, like non-religious ideology, is simply a worldview; that is, the way in which we view the world. Religious ideology says there is someone or something above us humans that has some impact in the way the world actually is. Non-religious ideology says there are only humans or if there is someone or something above human, he/she/it has no influence in the way the world actually is.

Mr. Donohoe appears to want to impose his non-religious ideology on those with a religious ideology. That sounds like anti-religious bigotry.

If Mr. Donohoe believes the views of the "religious right" are wrong then fine. We can argue those views in the marketplace of ideas. And may the best view win based on the most well-thought out arguments. Unfortunately for Mr. Donohoe, this one occupies a drawer at the morgue.

Sexual Orientation & Anti-Discrimination Laws

Here in Washington state, the legislature is pushing to add sexual orientation to the state's non-discrimination law. HB 1515 was passed by the House in February and passed out of the Senate Financial Institutions, Housing and Consumer Protection Committee last Friday, March 25.

The Columbian (Vancouver, WA) published my article, 'Gay rights' bill tyranny in disguise, on why this legislation is not needed. My footnoted version is here.

Now, I find out the supporters, not only want to push their view of morality down the throats of all Washingtonians but they wish to circumvent the normal timeframe legislation normally takes effect; that is 90 days after being signed "giving citizens a chance to challenge the measure by referendum."

The legislation contains an emergency clause that will allow the legislation to take effect immediately. "Said Sen. Karen Keiser, D-Kent: 'For a person who suffers discrimination, it is an emergency.'

Or could it be that the supporters do not want to give the very citizens who will be bound by this legislation, a chance to oppose it.

Terri Schiavo, Emotional Appeals, and Logic

In the Saturday, March 26 Oregonian (Portland, OR), the AP reported Michael Schiavo’s attorney George Felos making an astonishing claim. As Terri Schiavo’s parent’s were nearing the end of the legal options to save their daughter they pleaded for someone to save their daughter.

To which Felos stated that the “Schindlers had abondoned all pretense of the law and are simply making ‘a pure emotional appeal.’”

The claim by Felos’ client, “Terri would not want to live this way,” is at its basis an emotional claim. The fact that Felos was able to wrap the appeal in legality does not make it any less of an emotional appeal.

Further, Felos confuses legality with morality. That is just because something is legal doesn't make it moral nor is an illegal act necessarily immoral.

To criticize the parents for making a “pure emotional appeal” after they exhausted all other options in order to save the daughter they love; the daughter they offered to care for on their own with no help from the husband who has sired two kids with another woman. Felos statement is nothing less than kicking the parents when they are down; pouring salt in their wounds. Feel the compassion.

Philosophy As Medical Omniscience

From the Associated Press:

The public sees fleeting videotaped images of Terri Schiavo, appearing to many to turn toward her mother's voice and smile. They hear what sound like moans and laughter. They watch her head move up and down, seemingly following the progress of a brightly colored Mickey Mouse balloon. And often they ask: How could anyone conclude but that she is aware of her surroundings?

People in persistent vegetative states ... retain a handful of primitive reflexes that are naturally misinterpreted as conscious behavior.

"The mere noise of walking will make the eyes flicker," said Lawrence J. Schneiderman, a professor at the University of California, San Diego medical school who specializes in the bioethics of medical futility and end-of-life care. "And there may be a grimace, so the relatives will say, 'Oh, she's happy to see me.'"

Here's the question. How does one know that these actions are nothing more than "primitive reflexes" and not actual conscious behavior? These people are materialists who believe that consciousness come from a certain area of the brain. If that part of the brain is damaged then they "naturally" think consciousness no longer exists. All that is left for them is "primitive reflexes." Their philosophy has made the diagnosis not their science.

In February, the AP reported on Feb. 12, 2005 that Sara Scantlin suddenly began to talk. The article states,

"For years, she could only blink her eyes - one blink for "no," two blinks for "yes" - to respond to questions that no one knew for sure she understood ... After two decades of silence, she began talking last month. Doctors are not sure why.
Scantlin still suffers constantly from the effects of the accident. She habitually crosses her arms across her chest, her fists clenched under her chin. Her legs constantly spasm and thrash. Her right foot is so twisted it is almost reversed. Her neck muscles are so constricted she cannot swallow to eat."

Then this startling statement:

Scantlin's doctor, Bradley Scheel, said physicians are not sure why she suddenly began talking but believe critical pathways in the brain may have regenerated.

"It is extremely unusual to see something like this happen," Scheel said.

But the medical experts know regarding Terri.

I don't know whether Terri would ever get better (and since she hasn't had therapy in ten years, I guess the odds are against it). But whether she gets better isn't the question. Terri's is a human being simply because she is human not because a certain part of the brain happens to function. She is a human being even without the part of the brain some in the medical community say contains consciousness.

But then I'm not omniscient, medically or otherwise.

A Reflection on Hell

"The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." - Matthew 13:41-42

As part of my Passion Week observance, I fast on Good Friday. The pangs of hunger, the headaches, the general misery from these few hours sans sustenance provide a small reminder of what my Savior endured to free humanity from the bondage of my sin nature.

Terri Schiavo is encountering that on a much more pronounced level. Father Rob Johansen documents Terri Schiavo's Exit Protocol (the instructions the hospice staff are to follow during her starvation and dehydration death) which describe what she is going through during the process of being killed. Catholics in the Public Square summarize the effects from the lack of nutrition and hydration.

I have the ability to distract myself from my puny pangs of discomfort. Terri cannot. She can only lay there accompanied every second of every minute, hour upon hour, by the catastrophic effects occurring in her body. She is completely alone with her suffering; separated from that which sustains her and with no remedy.

Isn't that what Hell is like? The suffering, the torment. Separation from that which sustains us (God). The weeping and gnashing of teeth where the worm never dies. The difference is that Terri's Hell on Earth-induced death will end with the death of her earthly body. While horrific, our self-appointed medically omniscient gods divine her earthly hell will last from five days to two weeks.

But the eternal hell won't end. The worm never dies.

On this somber Good Friday, we encounter this eternal reality and the fact that through Jesus Christ's sacrifice and our acknowledgment of that sacrifice, his angels will not throw us into the "fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" but will quench our thirst with His very being.

It is something to remember especially in light of the injustice of this world, that there will be perfect justice one day from which those not covered by the blood of Christ will be weeded out.

If published accounts of her faith are true, Terri Schindler-Schiavo will not be counted a weed and her brothers and sisters in Christ will one day find out if "she wouldn't want to live like that."