Forcing One's Morality on Others - Part IV

On May 28, 2008 the following letter to the editor by Paul Holmes appeared in the Columbian (Vancouver, WA) newspaper attacking Christianity's view of homosexual behavior. My comments are in italics:

This is the fourth in a four part series.

Paul Holmes writes:

And fourth, you are not being harmed by either gays or lesbians. Let others who do not believe as you do live their own lives with equal protection under the law.

If you must crusade, do so against divorce. In the Bible, Jesus actually is quoted regarding marriage, "so they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." You have tens of millions of your fellow Christians whom you can re-convert."

Christians have and do "crusade" against divorce. And they are roundly criticized for doing so.

Further, Holmes only takes part of the passage from Matthew 19. Why did Jesus speak against divorce? Placing the passage in context gives us the answer.

Jesus stated, "Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?

Then we come to the part Holmes quoted: "so they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Jesus stated divorce is bad because the Creator made a man and a woman to come together as one in union. Divorce rips the union apart.

Thus, Christ clearly states the purpose of marriage is to bring together male and female. I have no doubts that Holmes lauds Christians (i.e. those who claim to follow the teachings of Christ) who support same-sex marriage even though it goes against the very reason Christ said marriage was created.

Yet, it is clear that Christians - again, those who claim they are followers of Jesus' teachings - who support same-sex marriage are rejecting Christ's clear teaching on marriage.

In doing so, they are refusing to conform themselves to the image of Christ in order to believe whatever their own hearts fancy.

Lastly, is the claim that we are not being harmed by gays and lesbians. Individually, no. But to the extent that anyone supports same-sex marriage does harm us because it harms society:

• Basing public policy on the lie that homosexuals do not have the right to marry when they have the exact same right to marry as all citizens - does harm society. (see The "Gay's Can't Marry" Myth)


• Redefining the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from applying to citizens to applying to relationships (see Equal Protection Under the Law) then refusing to apply that new definition to ALL relationships (e.g. polygamy, polyamory) - does harm society.


• Claiming there is no difference between the two genders and teaching children that - does harm society.


• Denying children either a father or a mother - does harm society.
  
• Equating the civil rights movement, which showed that race is an inherent and inconsequential part of the design of human beings, with the claim of sexual orientation (a sexual desire for one's own sex that is at odds with their physical sexual genitalia) - does harm society. (See The Foundation for Human Rights)


• Claiming that the federal and state constitutions (e.g. Massachusetts), which were written by men living in a society that believed that homosexual acts were an abomination of the laws of nature, actually allow homosexual relationships - does harm society.


• Refusing to allow citizens of your state (again reference Massachusetts) to vote on a constitutional amendment making marriage between one man and one woman - does harm society.


• Circumventing state constitutions (e.g. Oregon), which states that marriage is between one man and one woman, by granting all the rights of marriage to homosexual relationships by calling it civil unions or domestic partnerships - does harm society.


• Having judges strike down a law passed by 61% of the voters in the country's most populace state (i.e. California) that explicitly defined the understood definition of marriage (one man - one woman) in that state - does harm society.


• Then, having those same California judges refuse to offer a stay of their decision AFTER an marriage amendment (adding the struck down marriage definition to the constitution) was added to the November ballot thereby allowing marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples and creating chaos should the amendment pass - does harm society.
  
• Claiming that defining marriage as one man-one woman is a ban on same-sex marriage while completely ignoring that it would also be a ban on other types of relationships (e.g. polygamy, polyamory) - does harm society. (see California's Top Court Legalizes Polygamy)


• Demonizing and marginalizing those who disagree with same-sex marriage as Holmes did in his letter - does harm society.

Willful violations of constitutions by judges and legislatures. Redefinition of constitutional concepts. Circumventing the will of the people. Hijacking the civil rights movement. Assassinating the character of those who stand in opposition.

This is only a partial list of harm that same-sex marriage advocates have wrought upon our society.

Forcing One's Morality on Others - Part III

On May 28, 2008 the following letter to the editor by Paul Holmes that appeared in the Columbian (Vancouver, WA) newspaper attacking Christianity's view of homosexual behavior. The person named White is a letter writer to which Holmes is responding. My comments are in italics:

This is the third in a four part series.

Paul Holmes writes:
Third, I would expect White, if he is a practicing Christian, to not engage in homosexual activities. That would certainly be against his beliefs. But keep the practice of your beliefs within you own circle of believers.

Holmes' belief that one should "keep the practice of your beliefs within your own circle of believers" is his belief. He is saying that others who do not share his particular beliefs regarding homosexuality should abide by his belief. That is hypocritical.

By the way, since Holmes was worried about adhering only to what the gospels say, Jesus did have something explicit to say about hypocrisy (see Matthew 7:1-6). Namely, don't do it.

And, of course, Jesus commanded his followers to "go and make disciples of all nations ... and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." (Mt 28:19-20)

If Holmes is really worried about Christians following what Jesus and the Gospels taught, he would be praising Christians for not keeping "the practice of [their] beliefs within [their] own circle of believers." Praise is not forth coming because adherence to Jesus' teachings is not Holmes' goal.

There is something even more troubling than Holmes' self-refuting morality. In his letter, White directed his comments at Christians. White states, "what are you Christians thinking when you vote for a lifestyle contrary to the teachings of Christ." Holmes is condemning White precisely for "practicing his beliefs within his own circle of believers."

It appears that Holmes believes that Christians should not have a voice nor have a vote in matters where they do not agree with Holmes' worldview.

That view is profoundly arrogant in its anti-intellectualism.

Next post: Holmes' claim that If Christians must crusade to do so against divorce which "tens of millions" of Christians have engaged and to leave gays and lesbians have equal protection under the law.

Forcing One's Morality on Others - Part II

On May 28, 2008 the following letter to the editor by Paul Holmes that appeared in the Columbian (Vancouver, WA) newspaper attacking Christianity's view of homosexual behavior. My comments are in italics:

This is the second in a four part series.

Paul Holmes writes:
Second, in reading the four gospels (Christ’s actual words and teachings) it is a long stretch to even find a reference to homosexuality.

Therefore, what? The unstated premise is that whatever is not mentioned in the gospels is okay. By this logic, Holmes would have to say gay-bashing and child molestation are okay since neither is mentioned in the gospels. I doubt Holmes would go there which brings us back to what exactly is Holmes' point.

Second, refer to my point in "Forcing One's Morality on Others - Part I" regarding Jesus being the Hebrew God who did have something to say about homosexual behavior.

Next post: Christians should keep their beliefs to themselves.

Forcing One's Morality on Others - Part I

On May 28, 2008, the following letter to the editor by Paul Holmes appeared in the Columbian (Vancouver, WA) newspaper attacking Christianity's view of homosexual behavior. My comments are in italics.

This is part one in a four part series.

Keep morals to yourself
I must disagree on so many levels with David White’s positions in his May 23 letter, "Agenda is morally wrong," and his question "Do you think His will … is to promote a lifestyle that he calls an abomination?"

First, Christ never called the homosexual lifestyle "an abomination." That was Paul, who never knew Jesus.

This is a sign that the person really doesn't know much about Christianity. First, Christ called himself the Son of God. That is a claim to deity. Not any deity but the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, which very clearly calls homosexual behavior an "abomination".

Further, Jesus stated "I have not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17) Clearly, Jesus called the homosexual lifestyle an abomination.

Holmes provides no evidence to support his claim that Paul never knew Jesus. Luke writes of Paul meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9). In Acts 26:15-17, Luke recounts the words of Jesus to Paul, "I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you."

This is the same Paul, who repeatedly calls himself an apostle and servant of Christ (see the beginnings of Paul's letters, e.g. Romans, 1 & 2 Timothy, etc). An apostle is one who is commissioned by Christ. How can Paul be commissioned by one he supposedly never knew?

So Holmes' very first claim is false.

Next post: Holmes' claim that there is no reference to homosexuality in the four gospels.

Equal Protection Under the Law

Is not being able to marry someone of the same sex a denial of equal protection under the law? That is the claim of the same-sex marriage advocates. Homosexuals are denied equal protection under the law and are therefore treated as second-class citizens because they cannot marry whomever they want.

Equal Protection under the Law is an explicit appeal to the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (emphasis mine)

The first thing to notice is that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly mentions persons. As Constitutional scholar John Eidsmoe has stated,

"equal protection" means that persons similarly situated are to receive equal treatment.

Let us suppose that A, having completed his undergraduate work with a D- average and a score of 127 on his LSAT (Law School Admission Test), sought admission to a state law school, as did B with a 4.0 average and an LSAT of 750. If B were admitted to law school and A was rejected, A would not have a basis for complaining that he had been denied the "equal protection of the laws." Why not? Because there was a rational reason for choosing B and rejecting A: his superior grade point, and his superior aptitude scores.

In other words, equal protection clause does not prohibit all discrimination. It prohibits only discrimination that lacks a rational basis. Had A been rejected because of his race, he would have a basis for complaint, because race is not a valid basis for discrimination. Had A been rejected because of his religion, A again would have valid basis for claiming denial of equal protection by a state institution. But A could not claim denial of equal protection of the laws if there was a valid or rational basis for choosing B and not choosing A.[1]

So the equal protection clause pertains only to individuals not to relationships. If it applied to relationships then practicioners of polygamy and polyamory could also claim they are being treated as second class citizens. Yet, these are relationships in which same-sex marriage advocates overwhelmingly (it's not even close) refuse to allow the equal protection under the law.

Homosexuals are quick to say that sexual orientation is no different than race and therefore is not a valid basis of discrimination. They claim homosexuals are born that way. What way? They are born with a sexual desire for the same sex. The unstated truth is that they are also born with the sexual organs for the opposite sex. This fact is ignored because it reveals the inherent contradiction with which homosexuals are born.

They uphold the subjective feelings while ignoring the objective physical part of their nature. Yet, skin color is an objective characteristic of our human nature. Claiming sexual orientation is the same as race is to say a subjective (by definition, one that can only be confirmed by the subject) characteristic of our human nature is the same as an objective characteristic such as skin color while ignoring the objective characteristic of gender.

Therefore homosexuals, as individual citizens, are similarly situated in regards to marriage in that they have every right as every other citizen to enter into a marital relationship as long as they adhere to the same criteria as every other citizen is obligated to follow: marry someone of the opposite sex.

In demanding the opportunity to marry someone of the same sex, same-sex marriage advocates attempt to redefine the Fourteenth Amendment from protection for persons to protection for relationships.

Clearly, every relationship is not similarly situated. Same-sex marriage advocates implicitly concede this fact every time they refuse equal protection to polygamy and polyamory .

[1] John Eidsmoe, "The Christian Legal Advisor, Baker Book House: 1984, p.173.

The "Gays Can't Marry" Myth

Same-sex marriage advocates claim they are fighting for the right for homosexuals to marry.

The fact is homosexuals have always had the same rights to marriage as every other citizen. They simply must adhere to the exact same criteria to which every other citizen must adhere, that is, everyone can marry someone of the opposite gender who they are not too closely related and to which both meet any age requirements.

Homosexuals counter that this criteria discriminates against them because they cannot marry whomever they wish. But no one has the right to marry whomever they wish. You cannot marry a nine-year old. You cannot marry your sibling.

In fact, same-sex marriage advocates do not want those types of relationships to be recognized as marriage, either. In other words, they are perfectly fine with promoting marrying whomever one wants as long as it only applies to a same-sex relationship.

Once the argument their arguments are applied to other types of relationships, same-sex marriage advocates suddenly have no problem discriminating.

Innocence

Last week, I responded to the website, Victims of Christianity, which claims that Christianity causes "overt physical harm" (see Victims of Christianity?).

The second example that the site's author, Mark Smith, provides is of the Rev. Kyle Lake who was electrocuted in a baptismal fount. Smith states that Rev. Lake is one of the people "who would have all been better off, if religion were not in the world." So a tragic accident becomes the fault of religion.

I asked the question: How many people died in car accidents today? I guess they "would have all been better off, if [cars] were not in the world."

Smith provides a response page where he responds those who have challenged him. One person wrote regarding Lake's death that many hundreds of people were affected by the death of this young pastor." (The words in red are highlighted on Smith's site showing Smith's emphasis).

Smith responded:

"Mark Smith here} Why should any Christian that knew him be "affected" by his death??? IF they REALLY believed all the hype about heaven and such, then they SHOULD be overwhelmed with joy at Kyle's "promotion" to a better position. The FACT though, that Christians cry at funerals just as much as anyone else proves Christians, deep down inside, really don't believe their own propoganda. Deep down inside you know the truth, that this life is all there is, and you cry at that
realization."

What Smith misses is that Christianity teaches that we are relational beings. Human beings are in relationship with each other and with God. When someone dies we cry, we mourn the loss.

In fact, Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus ... right before he raised Lazarus from the dead! Just because Rev. Kyle has obtained a "promotion" and is alive, we still mourn the loss. It is a tragedy. But tragedy does not have meaning unless there is value. What gives human beings value? Other human beings? If so, then human beings can also assign non-value those over whom they have power. Suddenly, some human beings are defined as property as per the Dred Scott decision or parasites as per the Nazis regarding those they deemed undesirable.

The atheist has the same problem. Why does the atheist cry at someone's death? Why does Smith believe there is even the concept of an innocent. The concept of innocence is moral language. If human beings are merely the results of evolutionary processes then there is no such thing as innocence. There is only the survival of the fittest. In the whole of the cosmos, human beings would be no different than amoebas.

"The FACT though, that [atheists] cry at funerals just as much as anyone else proves [atheists], deep down inside, really don't believe their own propaganda."

Deep down inside Smith knows the truth, that this life is not all there is. His very objections to Christianity depend on a transcendent moral standard given by a transcendent moral stahdard giver who has stamped each and every human being with transcendent value. And when the transcendent value is violated, deep down we know.

That's why Smith objects. Deep down he knows human beings have value and that value means that human beings must be treated in a way that acknowledges that value.

Smith's atheistic worldview cannot explain that. In objecting, Smith reveals that he really doesn't believe his own propaganda.

The Secession of West Virginia - June 20, 1863

From the Library of Congress's Today in History page:

On June 20, 1863, West Virginia became the thirty-fifth state in the Union. The land that formed the new state formerly constituted part of Virginia. The two areas had diverged culturally from their first years of European settlement, as small farmers generally settled the western portion of the state, including the counties that later formed West Virginia, while the eastern portion was dominated by a powerful minority class of wealthy slaveholders. There were proposals for the trans-Allegheny west to separate from Virginia as early as 1769. When Virginia seceded from the Union in 1861, the residents of a number of contiguous western counties, where there were few slaves, decided to remain in the Union. Congress accepted these counties as the state of West Virginia on condition that its slaves be freed. "Montani semper liberi," "mountaineers always freemen," became the new state's motto.

What is interesting about West Virginia is the way in which in became a state. Abraham Lincoln and many in the North did not believe that states had the constitutional right to secede. So, in 1861, when states in the South began seceding from the Union, the North viewed this as an unconstitutional act. Lincoln had support from the North to save the union. The support for ending slavery would come later.

Those in the western regions of Virginia opposed their state's secession in 1861 as illegal. Throughout the year they met and the voters in the western counties voted to create their own state. In 1862, the new state approved a new constitution and on June 20, 1863 Congress admitted West Virginia into the Union under condition that slavery would be abolished in West Virginia.

The irony of history is that the Union said states could not secede (i.e. leave the Union) but allowed West Virginia to seceded from Virginia and the Confederacy.

For more information:
History of West Virginia website
Summary of Statehood for West Virginia

Victims of Christianity?

The following claim about Christianity appeared in the comments section of an article about Oregon Senator Gordon Smith on oregonlive.com. The individual is responding to another poster regarding same-sex marriage:

'It's about fairness and equality, not religion (which also includes the right to not be reiigious). "God" has nothing to do with this. The history of Christianity is largely one of slaughter. I recommend you Google "victims of christianity" for enlightenment.'
Posted by Layne on 06/18/08 at 10:28AM

The poster went on to discuss the marriage issue which I may address at another time. My comments, however, will address his claim that "the history of Christianity is largely one of slaughter".

First, I would encourage everyone to engage Layne's Google challenge. Take the very first site that comes up titled "Victims of Religion" by Mark Smith. The first is the victims of the Jonestown massacre. An example of religion but hardly an example of Christianity.

The second example is of Rev. Kyle Lake who was electrocuted in a baptismal fount. Smith states that Rev. Lake is one of the people "who would have all been better off, if religion were not in the world." So a tragic accident becomes the fault of religion.

How many people died in car accidents today? I guess they "would have all been better off, if [cars] were not in the world." The Rev. Lake example is silliness. Tragedies happen. This example reveals more about the Smith's motivation - namely his hatred of God - than it does about religion.

The site does provide other examples where innocents were harmed or killed by those acting under religion including Christianity. Let me offer several thoughts.

First, was the perpetrators in each of the crimes acting consistently with the code that they claim they are following? The only time the code can be accused of being the source of barbarism is if, in fact, the code is the source of barbarism.

How does Christianity whose founder taught his followers to "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Love your enemies" teach barbarism? So, where Smith does offer examples of those following actual Christianity (rather than cults or other religions) it is actually examples of people acting inconsistently with the code they claim to follow.

We do not fault the Hippocratic Oath, which provides a rigid standard of conduct for doctors, because some doctors act inconsistent with it.

Second, the site holds up atheism as the answer to religion's barbarism. Time for the Facts! Take a look at The Guinness Book of World Records under Genocides and Massacres (1996 edition):

• The atheistic Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot massacred a third of Cambodia's 8 million people.
• The atheistic regime of Mao Tse Tung massacred 26.3 million Chinese between 1949 and 1965. The US Senate Judiciary Committee estimated that the number between 1949 to 1971 between 32.25 and 61.7 million.
• Hitler murdered 6 million Jews and countless thousands of others.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn estimated the loss of life under Lenin and Stalin at 66 million.

The crimes committed in the name of Christianity, while a blight, pale in comparison to the human carnage and destruction resulting from ideologies that had no room for God. And my examples are only from the last century.

Lastly, Layne and Smith claim that what religion has done is wrong and there are innocent victims to prove it. That is moral language. Religion ought not do those things. In fact, one ought not join a religion.

The claim is that religion has violated a transcendent standard of right and wrong.

Yet, if there is no God then there cannot be a transcendent standard of right and wrong (i.e. a moral standard that applies to everyone, at all times, in all places). Morality, then, becomes a personal preference of each human being.

If that is the case then Layne & Smith have a moral view and the religions he rails against also have a moral view. Who are they to tell religions that their actions are wrong. How do they claim these were innocent victims. Obviously, the perpetrators did not view those harmed as innocent victims nor thought their actions immoral.

In essence, Layne and Smith are saying everyone must adhere to their (i.e. Layne and Smith's) personal preferences of right and wrong. They have elevated their own view of morality to a transcendent standard.

Who are Layne or Smith to say that their personal moral preferences takes precedence over others? They have no grounds in which to condemn anyone.

All that is left are the irrational rantings of those who hold Christianity up to the very transcendent standard of right and wrong that they say doesn't exist.

Bad Argument for Abortion - Part II

In an online discussion forum, person A (not their real name) asked, "How many anti-abortion supporters on this board have adopted an unwanted child?"

Person B responded, "Probably not many. One of the things I despise more than anything are these 'group homes' that bring in pregnant women, especially teens, and 'help' them so they won't terminate their pregnancies. After the baby is born, it's adios and good luck!"

Here's my response:

Person A, how does whether anti-abortion supporters adopting an unwanted child change whether the child is a human being? It may show they are inconsistent but it does not change the child's nature or the question if it is worthy of life.

Person B, you state: "One of things I despise more than anything are these 'group homes' that bring in pregnant women, especially teens, and 'help' them so they won't terminate their pregnancies. After the baby is born, it's adios and good luck!"

How did these girls get into these group homes? Did the group homes kidnap them? No. The women (and yes - especially teens) come to them on their own accord. The homes give them love, many for the first time. These are women who have no where else to turn. All many of them wanted was love and the man said "sure baby I'll love you, just put out." And when the girl gets knocked up the guy leaves.

These girls want their babies, and the homes provide them with suppport, shelter, and programs to prepare them for the responsibility of living on their own as a parent.

Far from saying adios and good luck these homes give these girls a foundation upon which they can grow, get out of their dependence upon others and give their lives hope. And many of these girls will tell you years later that they are very thankful for the impact these homes made in their life.

I find it interesting that person A lambasts anti-abortion supporters if they do nothing (like adopt unwanted children) and then person B lambasts them when they do something (like help pregnant women).

Bad Argument For Abortion - The Unwanted Child

Time and again, when I have argued against abortion, abortion supporters will mention the unwanted child. Not allowing the unborn to be aborted will bring an unwanted child into the world.

My response to those making this claim is this: can I kill the unwanted toddler?

If not, why not? If being unwanted is justification for being killed and the toddler is unwanted then we should be able to kill the toddler. Yet, except for extreme examples like Peter Singer, no abortion supporter has ever supported the killing of unwanted toddler.

What is the difference between the unwanted human being inside the womb and the unwanted human being outside the womb?

The usual answer is that the toddler is an obvious human being. Then that is the question: whether the unborn is a human being.

Of course, we know from science that there is a living human being at conception. The only difference between the unborn human being and the toddler is the stage of their development and their location (inside vs. outside the womb).

Can we kill an unwanted toddler because they are not as developed as a teenager. Can we kill the the unwanted teenager because they are not as developed as an adult?

Further, what happens that suddenly confers humanness on the unborn once they pass from inside the womb to the outside world?

And who is responsible for making the child unwanted? It is those who conceived that child.

Unwanted-ness says nothing about the unborn child. It solely speaks about character of the parents .

Batting for the Other Team

The Seattle Mariners are in trouble.

Not for their pathetic play between the foul lines. Not for possession of the worst record in Major League Baseball.

No. They are in trouble for removing two women from a game because someone complained they were kissing in the stands in front of a crowd that included children.

In an AP story, the Mariners stated the women were removed "because of their behavior - which included 'making out' and 'groping' in the stands - and not because of their sexual orientation." The Mariners told the women they "could continue to kiss, but they had to tone it down"; the women refused and they were removed.

Sirbrina Guerrero claimed that she and her "date" were not groping or doing anything different than a heterosexual couple seven rows in front of them.

Unfortunately for Guerrero, two women kissing or showing affection is very different from a heterosexual couple kissing or showing affection.

Homosexuals claim they are born with a internal sexual desire or orientation toward people of the same gender. However, they are also born with the physical sexual organs that are made for the opposite gender.

Two women showing affection may be satisfying their internal desire but they are at odds with their physical organs. This is an inherent contradiction between their two natures. This is why the homosexual movement emphasizes internal subjective sexual orientation and de-emphasizes their external objective sexual orientation. They must distract from the natural contradiction with which they are born.

When a man and woman show affection, however, they are in keeping with both their internal subjective sexual orientation (i.e. a desire for the opposite gender) and also their external physical objective sexual organs (i.e. genitalia which is made for the opposite gender). There is no contradiction.

This is why people are uncomfortable with these types of public displays and why they would have to explain to their families; because their is a natural contradiction between the two natures. Some would say that is just a societal norm that is unenlightened.

The question is why would society even have such a norm in the first place? Because it is a basic fundamental observation of nature that opposite genders are made for each other. To deny that is to deny the way the world actually is (aka. reality).

Of course, the mouthpieces of the Gay "Equality" Totalitarian Movement (GET'M) dutifully attacked the Mariners.

A spokesman for the totally misnamed Equal Rights Washington stated, "Certain individuals have not yet caught up. Those people see a gay or lesbian couple and they stare or say something." Sex-advice columnist Dan Savage called for a "kiss-in" to protest the Mariners.

All of which raises a thought. Activists for the homosexual movement are offended by this. They paint themselves as victims of intolerance. But activists never concern themselves with how they are offending others.

In fact, they justify their offending of others. Those who are offended by two women kissing in front of themselves and their children are called homophobes who "have not caught up yet".

The homosexual movement long ago jettisoned their struggle for true rights and now demands acceptance. If you don't accept them unconditionally then GET'M will get you. They will call you names. They will stage "kiss-ins". They will say and do whatever it takes to destroy your reputation.

One has to wonder what names these avatars of tolerance would call you if they were not so "tolerant".

The sad part is that even if the homosexual movement manages to force everyone to accept them they'll still be missing something; coherency between their internal sexual desires and their physical sexual organs. Their nature is out of sync.

Perhaps Dan Savage can do a "kiss-in" protest against nature.

Senator Edward Kennedy

Great news!

Senator Edward Kennedy's surgery today to remove his malignant brain tumor was successful according to a statement by the surgeon as reported by abcnews.com.

I am amazed at our technological abilities. The report stated that Sen. Kennedy was awake during part of the surgery.

"after cutting into Kennedy's skull, Dr. Allan Friedman — the surgeon wielding the scalpel — had to find a pathway through the brain to get at the tumor. For this he needed the patient's conscious help to avoid damaging brain cells essential for speech, movement and other important functions."

I find that incredible. I wonder what Kennedy was thinking during this time. One has to have some level of apprehension and yet to have to stay calm in order to communicate with the doctors.

The report says that Kennedy will require further treatment like chemo. And they report that "regardless of how well Kennedy's body tolerates these treatments, he will be facing a cancer with a high rate of mortality."

Here is to Senator Kennedy's successful recovery. But if the cancer wins, I pray that Kennedy will not suffer, that the peace that is found in Jesus Christ will encompass him and his family, and that through this strength he will be a model of dignity for others facing any deadly disease.

Memorial Day 2008

I was out of town over the Memorial Day weekend and was not able to salute those who have given their lives for the principles upon which this Republic stands.

My son, however, took part in our local community's Remembrance celebration at our local cemetary. As a first year Webelo, his pack, along with other Cub and Boy Scouts, were asked to stand at attention during the entire ceremony. They stood at attention through the speeches by the mayor and by a couple of the veterans. They stood through the 21-gun salute and other symbolism of the ceremony.

When I asked my son about it, he stated, "We just stood there and did nothing."

My wife and I explained that it might seem like nothing to him but it wasn't nothing to those veterans that were at the ceremony. They had fought in these past wars and probably watched their fellow soldiers and friends die.

We explained that standing at attention is to place honor on that which the attention is paid. These old veterans saw young scouts standing at attention, honoring them and the principles for which they fought and died.

These old veterans watched, as the next generation that will be responsible for defending liberty, honored those who came before; those who have taken up, and laid down their lives for, that cause.

California's Top Court Legalizes Polygamy

Breaking news out of California as reported by major news outlets, the California Supreme Court declared that multiple people "in the nation's biggest state can marry - a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the polygamy rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of (group) matrimony."

"Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law," declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case.

What you say? The Court didn't legalize multiple partner relationships but rather legalized same-sex marriages. But if, as Robin Tyler states, it all "boils down to love" on what grounds does the Court deny people who want to have multiple spouses? Yet, same-sex marriage advocates adamantly claim that only two individuals are allowed to enter into a marriage relationship.

Chief Justice Ronald George, who wrote the majority opinion, promotes the lie that grounds same-sex marriage:

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."

Wrong. There was nothing stopping homosexuals from establishing "a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person". In fact, abcnews reports that "Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, via cell phone and asked, 'Pali, will you marry me?' " Was Rizzo and Pali not in a loving and long-term committed relationship for 19 years? And they did so without marriage!

Yet, even that is not the big lie. The big lie is the claim that homosexuals do not have the right to marry. Wrong. Homosexuals have always had the same rights to marriage as every other citizen as long as they adhere to the criteria to which that every other citizen, that is, everyone can marry someone of the opposite gender who they are not too closely related and to which both meet any age requirements.

But homosexuals say this criteria discriminates against them because they cannot marry whomever they wish. But no one has the right to marry whomever they wish. You cannot marry a nine-year old. You cannot marry your sibling.

In fact, same-sex marriage advocates do not want those types of relationships to be recognized as marriage. In other words, they are perfectly fine with promoting marrying whomever one wants as long as it is only applied to a same-sex relationship. Once the argument is applied to other types of relationships, same-sex marriage advocates suddenly have no problem discriminating.

Unrepentant lawbreaker and San Francisco "mayor" Gavin Newsome stated, "It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California". No word yet from Newsome on why he has yet to stand up and break the law for the human dignity and human rights of those who want multiple spouses.

We have rights and dignity because of the type of beings we are, i.e. human (for a more in-depth analysis, see The Foundation for Human Rights). We are made a certain way. But the Gay "Equality" Totalitarian Movement (GET 'M) - of which Newsome and George belong - can't argue that way rationally as evidenced by the "we are born that way" argument.

If one is born with a sexual orientation for the same gender they are also born with the physical sexual organs that are designed for the opposite gender. GET 'M never acknowledges the latter because to make that fundamental observation of nature is to admit that there is an inherent contradiction for the homosexual. It recognizes that homosexuality is NOT the natural design of the human being.

Same-sex marriage advocates say we cannot appeal to nature to determine the purpose of marriage. But then they say we must limit marriage to two people. The concept of two in a marital relationship goes to the very heart of our natures in sexual union - the idea of coupling. If it is discriminatory to appeal to the way our sexual organs are designed to fit together with the opposite gender then on what grounds do we say that those organs have to fit together between only two. Why not a threesome? Why not one man and multiple wives which has been recognized as marriage throughout history?

Same-sex marriage is an arbitrary concept. Advocates want to do away with only that criteria that keeps their relationships from being affirmed. This isn't about human rights and dignity. The is rights language GET 'M uses to create the necessary emotional response to their cause.

It is about elevating same-sex relationships to the same level as opposite-sex relationships. If any relationship was allowed then all relationships would be equal and then same-sex relationships wouldn't be elevated and special. It would be just one of many types of relationships.

Same-sex marriage is, by definition, a bigoted and discriminatory concept.

Harriet Tubman

On this date in 1913, Araminta Ross died in Auburn, New York.

She was "one of eleven children born to her slave parents on a plantation in Maryland. While she was still a girl, an overseer threw a lead weight at her head, knocking her unconscious. She finally recovered, but the blow left a scar on her head. From that day forward, she was committed to seeking freedom for herself and her fellow slaves." [1]

Upon the death of her master, the twenty-nine-year-old Ross "decided to escape to avoid being sold. She left her family and made her way to Philadelphia, where she became active in the abolitionist movement."[2]

Ross was willing to break the law to free her fellow slaves, and she anointed with the nickname "General" during her service as a "conductor" on the Underground Railroad.[3]

"When the Civil War began, [Ross] volunteered for Union service at Fort Monroe in Virginia and was then transferred to Beaufort, South Carolina, where she helped Yankee commanders liberate slaves on Confederate plantations. She also served as a spy for the Union cause.[4]

In fact, she helped Commander John Montgomery lead the Campaign on the Combahee River that freed an estimated 500 slaves while raiding several plantations and found volunteers for John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry.

Araminta Ross is better known as Harriet Tubman and she was given the nickname "General Tubman" by abolitionist John Brown.

After the war, Tubman was active in the women’s suffrage movement.

[1-4] Excerpted from Scholastic Encyclopedia of the Civil War by Catherine Clinton, p. 34

For further information, see the following links:
Library of Congress Concise Summary of Harriet Tubman’s life

Auburn Citizen newspaper Memorial

Harriet Tubman’s Home

Campaign on the Combahee (June 2, 1863)

African-American Odyssey exhibit at the Library of Congress provides background information on African-Americans from slavery up through the civil rights era.

NARAL's Deadly Deception

In the Seattle PI article, "Pro-choice group says Plan B unavailable at 10 percent of state pharmacies", Tom Paulson reports:

"One of the state's leading pro-choice organizations has issued a Web-based, interactive map that shows which pharmacies in Washington either don't stock or refuse to provide customers with an emergency contraceptive drug known as Plan B."

'I was astounded at how many,' said Karen Cooper, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Washington".

I have to admit I laughed at Cooper's comment. If Plan B is unavailable at 10% of pharmacies that means that it is available at 90%. But then I continued to read more:

"one out of 10 pharmacies in the state either do not stock the drug or employ at least one pharmacist who refuses to dispense it."

Thus, NARAL counted pharmacies as unavailable if one pharmacist objected even if that pharmacy stocked Plan B and another pharmacist is available to dispense it.

In other words, the 10% figure is over-inflated! In fact later, the article specifies that "3 percent reported having at least one pharmacist on the premises who refuses to dispense the drug."

Of course, NARAL isn't content with over 90% availability. They backed a state of Washington regulation that mandated pharmacists to dispense Plan B even if it violated the pharmacist's conscience. That regulation is currently being challenged in federal court.

The article also quotes Trina Stout who went to a pharmacy for Plan B and was "turned away." She accused the pharmacist of being "unsympathetic and rude." Stout and NARAL, of course, do not have a problem being "unsympathetic and rude" toward pharmacists who wish to practice their livelihood according to their own conscience.

Stout says she was left shaken. So what did the poor, ruthlessly victimized Stout do? Well. she left and obtained "Plan B at another pharmacy."

In other words, the pharmacy had the liberty to refuse business that violated their conscience and Stout had the liberty to go to a pharmacy that would give her what she wanted.

Trudi Inslee, wife of Rep. Jay Inslee D-Wash and a NARAL Pro-Choice Washington board member (geez, I wonder how much federal dollars NARAL receives) says Plan B is not an abortion pill because it prevents the release or fertilization of the egg. Yet, this is deception by ommission. Accordingt to FDA information on Plan B:

"If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation)."

In other words, it terminates a pregnancy. A unique, living human being exists (at conception) but is denied the chance to continue its development and thus its existence. An abortion also terminates a pregnancy thereby killing a unique, living human being!

NARAL's position amounts to forcing pharmacists to be a partner in the possible killing of a unique, living, vulnerable, defenseless, unborn human being.

But as the article states, "Inslee said it is unacceptable for a minority of pharmacists to block any woman's access to legal medication based upon their personal opinions or beliefs."

Liberty raising its ugly head in the state of Washington? Perish the thought.

Abraham Lincoln

Today, marks the birthday of Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President under the U.S. Constitution. I find Lincoln to be a immense paradox. The trials of his private life and the trials of his public life.

His brilliance in the Lincoln-Douglas debates and his staunch view that slavery was wrong.

Yet, I'm convinced that his going to war against the seccessionist Southern states "in order to preserve the Union" was unconstitutional.

Had Lincoln not finally placed the war on the higher moral plane of abolishing slavery by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, I suspect he may have gone down in history far less favorably.

I also wonder if he had lived what Reconstruction would have looked like and if the racial history in the United States would have been different. In short, if our wounds would have healed.

The following links provide some insights into Lincoln's life and times.

Biography of Lincoln

Northern Illinois University Lincoln Digitization Project. Contains interesting facts about Lincoln and some of his writings.

Library of Congress' Lincoln Collection
Library of Congress Exhibition on The Gettysburg Address
Lincoln Memorial
Civil War images
Emancipation Proclamation

The Reason for the Season - O Holy Night

Long lay the world in sin and error pining
Till He appeared and the soul felt its worth.

This is one of those Christmas carols that helps bring the true reason for the season into focus. The reason there even needed to be a Savior.

Each one of us knows that moral crimes should be punished. We also know that we have committed moral crimes. And therefore, we know we should be punished for the moral crimes we have committed.

We long to sin, to commit these moral crimes. It is in our natures separated from the One who created us.

Yet, in an act of mercy and love, God created a way for us to escape His judgement. He offers us a pardon for the moral crimes we have committed and long to commit. So God became a man himself and took the punishment on himself.

That's why Jesus is important. He offers the way out of the judgement that is rightly ours.

The pardon, however, is only valid for those who accept it. Those who bow their knee and accept Jesus (the babe born of lowly status and laid in a manger) as their Savior.

Christmas is a time of wishing, of excitement, of love, of peace, of cheer, of good tidings, and of hope. Yet we don't really stop to think of why we need these things:

Long lay the world in sin and error pining

But then comes the good news of great joy:

Till He appears and the soul felt its worth.
A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices,
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn.

In response, we should:

Fall on our knees, O hear the angel voices,
O night divine, O night when Christ was born,
O night divine, O night when Christ was born.

May your Christmas be one of falling on your knees and rejoicing in the thrill of hope brought forth by our dear Savior's birth over 2000 years ago.

Merry Christmas to you and your family!

Saint Nicholas Day 2007

In the Rambousek house, we have never focused on Santa Claus. Instead we celebrate St. Nicholas Day (December 6th each year) in honor of the man from which spang the legend. We make gingerbread cookies and share them with our neigbors, have a special dinner, and each member of the family receives a stocking with something good to eat, something mad of paper or wood, something warm, and some money (see the story below for why these particular items).

The rest of the Christmas season, for our family, is focused on Christ. Our family hopes you have many blessings to be grateful for this year.

The following was taken and condensed from Martha Zimmerman' s book, Celebrating the Christian Year, copyright 1993.

THE REAL Santa Claus

There are very few known facts about this person, but we DO KNOW this about him. The man behind the legend was born in AD 280 to a wealthy couple who had been childless for some 30 years. He was named Nicholas. He was born in what is now Turkey. Both his parents died in a plague when he was about 9 years old and an uncle, who was a very devout Christian man, raised him.

In very early manhood, Nicholas became the Bishop of the city of Myra, a small seaport. It is known that he used the wealth of his inheritance to secretly care for the poor and destitute of the city. He served as Bishop for about 50 years and died on December 6, in approximately AD 343.

Two hundred years after his death, the church he served became known as the Church of Saint Nicholas - as the people had elevated him to sainthood long before the formal procedures of canonization were established. Nicholas was officially sainted in the 11th century.

Now for the legend - One of the best-recalled stories of Nicholas explains our current use of Christmas stockings. Nicholas knew a wealthy shipping merchant who lost all his ships and their cargo in a violent storm. The loss meant no dowry was available to ensure a proper marriage for each of his three daughters who were of marriageable age. The oldest daughter offered to sell herself as a prostitute to pay the dowries of her younger sisters. The family was appalled at her proposal.

Nicholas wanted to help. He had the resources, but he knew his friend would be hesitant and embarrassed to take "charity" and would feel obligated to him for life. He would probably never be able to repay him. After dark one night, Nicolas tossed a bag of gold coins through an open window into the daughter's room. Some of the coins fell into a stocking that had been hung to dry; some landed in the girls' shoes and some others on the floor. Nicholas quickly and silently returned to his home to avoid discovery.

Throughout his life, Nicholas consistently cared for the poor. He employed a weaver, a wood carver and a merchant to make clothing, toys and distribute food for the needy. Legend says Nicholas paid each handsomely on the condition that his identity as the benefactor remained hidden. Upon his death the townspeople discovered the Bishop had lived out the words of Jesus in Matthew 25:35-36: "I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink…I needed clothes and you clothed me…"

The Bishop was also notorious for baking bread mixed with sugar and exotic spices. Having no family of his own, Nicholas was a special friend to the children of Myra. He delighted in passing out these "gingerbreads" to the town's children. The children dubbed him, "The Gingerbread Man".

December 6 is still celebrated in many European countries as St. Nicholas Day. Children awake to discover holiday stockings filled with small toys and good things to eat. Families make and decorate gingerbread houses, people and other cookie shapes. In the United States, the holiday has been combined with Christmas as Nicholas' life exemplifies kind deeds and generosity.

In the early 1930's, Santa Claus as we know him was illustrated to be used in a Coca-Cola advertisement that coincided with the Christmas holiday. (If Pepsi had thought of it first, perhaps the Jolly Old Elf would also be sporting some blue in his holiday attire.)