"Born That Way" Allow ALL Sexual Attractions

KPTV Channel 12 in Portland, Oregon reported man sexually assaults calf at dairy farm. My comments below were originally posted to Facebook on 11/26/2018:

If we are "born that way" and therefore our sexual desires are immutable then one can be born with a sexual desire toward the opposite sex, same sex, animals, children, inanimate objects and so on.

The moment one says any particular sexual desire is wrong they have made the "born that way" argument mute; that is, whatever the sexual desire one may be born with, it is viewed through the prism of a moral standard.

We are human beings with physical bodies made for sexual relationship with the opposite sex. As human beings we also have a will and thus autonomy to determine our actions and thus must consent.

- Opposite-sex sexual relationships can fulfill both these standards.
- Same-sex sexual relationships can only, by definition, fulfill the consent clause. But human bodies are not made to engage in a same-sex sexual act. Since it fulfills the consent clause it shouldn't be made illegal as it once was but neither should moral condemnation against it be illegal.
- Sexual relationships with children, even an opposite-sex child who willingly participates, has violated the consent clause because we recognize the child until some age cannot fully understand the dynamics of sexuality.
- Sexual relationships with animals (or inanimate objects) violate consent also because animals do not have the autonomy to give consent. But it also violates the first principle: an animal is not a human and our bodies are not made for sex with animals. Thus, a "disturbing" story about "inappropriate contact with a calf".

If we our "born that way" and thus cannot bring moral judgement then ALL sexual attractions are allowed.

The "Wokes" of our society hide this TRUTH under the mantra of equality. But it is only "equality" for their anointed sexual desire.

And to display intellectual honesty would reveal that the "Wokes" were lying to us all along.

Believing the Alleged Sexual Assault Victim Unconditionally

This notion that a woman's accusation of rape must be believed because of the trauma and difficulty of coming forward and that therefore they couldn't be wrong is deeply unjust.
Tell me what government agency the Duke Lacrosse Team can go to have their names and lives restored! Their trauma reversed. [1]
A woman who reports a sexual assault should be respected and have the evidence gathered. But that evidence must be objectively evaluated to see if it meets the burden of proof. To say we must believe whatever the woman says even in the face of unsubstantiated allegations is to say justice does not matter.  It's not enough to say I believe her or I believe him.  Your belief must be grounded in and supported by the evidence. Anything less is evil. =======
[1] Mary Katherine Ham, "Fantastic Lies: 10 Appalling Moments from the Duke Lacrosse Case", The Federalist; March 16, 2016; Last accessed 9/28/2018. 

The Not So Fine Stain of Senator Feinstein

Reluctant admission is a concept of logic where in the process of denying one fact in an area, one reluctantly admits to important facts that eventually undermine his support of that area.

For example, take a suspect who denies committing a murder yet his DNA is found at the crime scene. To explain the DNA, the suspect claims that the victim asked him to help move some furniture that day but still insists he didn't commit the murder.  As J. Warner Wallace writes in Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates The Claims of the Gospels,

"The suspect now admitted to the fact that he had been in the room where the murder occurred and on the vary day when the victim was killed.  While he still denied the fact that he committed the crime, he reluctantly admitted important facts that would eventually be assembled with other pieces of circumstantial evidence to form the case against him."[1]

Since the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh first broke, the Left has demanded an FBI investigation.  But the Left isn't interested in an investigation.  They don't care about Dr. Ford.  They want Kavanaugh's confirmation delayed or scuttled. And Diane Feinstein reluctantly admitted it.

1. Senator Diane Feinstein received an allegation of sexual assault. 
2. She didn't turn over the information to the FBI which could have investigated it and kept Ford's identity confidential; confidentiality which Feinstein says she was trying to honor.
3. Nor did Feinstein turn the information of an alleged crime over to the authorities who had actual jurisdiction to investigate.
4. She kept it hidden from the Senate Judiciary Committee for at least 6 weeks.
5. She kept it hidden during the entire confirmation process; a process designed to vet that very kind of information.
6. In her public comments during the hearing, she said nothing of the allegation.
7. During her private interviews with Kavanaugh, she said nothing of the allegation.
8. During the September 27th hearing, Feinstein claimed that her staff didn't leak the allegation and Ford's name; that it must have been Ford and her friends:

"Let me be clear: I did not hide Dr. Ford's allegations. I did not leak her story. She asked me to hold it confidential and I kept it confidential as she asked."

That last point is Feinstein's reluctant admission.  If Feinstein truly didn't leak the allegation then she intended to keep it confidential. In other words, according to Feinstein herself, she wasn't going to call for an investigation.

Yet, Feinstein prodded Kavanaugh during the hearing that if he was innocent, why isn't he calling for an FBI investigation.

My question to Feinstein is if the allegation against Kavanaugh was so meritorious, why didn't you turn it over to the authorities? Instead you hid it!

That is, of course, if you really didn't leak the allegation.  If you did leak it then that is even more damning that you used Dr. Ford as a tool for your political agenda.

Either way, Feinstein's and the Democrats calls for an FBI investigation had nothing to do with Truth, with Dr. Ford, or in defending an alleged abuse victim.  

The priority was political expediency.

Anyone who does not condemn Feinstein is condoning the use of Dr. Ford as a tool.

Feinstein and the Democrats are engaged in a vile, despicable act.  

They have left a not-so-Fine Stain on America's soul.

======

[1] J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates The Claims of the Gospels, (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2013), p. 195.

[2] Grace Panetta, Sen. Diane Feinstein denies withholding Christine Blasey Ford's allegations against Brett Kavanaugh for political reasons, Business Insider, Sept 28, 2018.

Media's Use of Euphemisms Creates Fake News

Last week, I countered two editorials in the Camas Post-Record corresponding to the coordinated journalistic response across the nation to President Trump’s charges of fake news.

As I noted, an illegal alien, wanted for murder in Mexico, was arrested as he drove his wife to the hospital to deliver their baby.  My post addresses the specific examples of this misreporting by the media.[1]  In addition, I highlighted another method in which the media engages in fake news – the use of euphemisms:

“How many times does the media employ euphemisms? An ‘undocumented immigrant’ doesn’t sound as bad as ‘illegal alien’.”[2]

On August 22, the following report appeared on Good Morning America’s website:[3] 

Why is the phrase “Undocumented immigrant” inappropriate?  Because the phrase manipulates language to sanitize and misrepresent reality.  Let’s analyze the two phrases.

The term “alien” simply means foreign, i.e. from another place.[4]  The term tells us nothing except the person is from another country.  The adjective “illegal” describes an act that circumvents an enacted law. [5]   So, an “illegal alien” is someone from another country who is in this country without proper legal authorization.

An “immigrant” is someone or something that comes from elsewhere to take up permanent residence in a new place.[6]  The adjective “undocumented” describes something or someone that doesn’t have the supporting evidence to support their claim.[7]  So, an “undocumented immigrant” is someone from another country that doesn’t have the paperwork to affirm their presence within the United States.

See, the “undocumented immigrant” isn’t a bad person.  He’s no different from all the immigrants that make up this country’s population.  After all we are a nation of Immigrants.  He just doesn’t have some paperwork. That’s all.

But why doesn’t he have his paperwork?  Because he circumvented the very legal process that would provide him with the proper documentation!  Thus, the euphemism “undocumented immigrant” sanitizes the truth.

As I stated in my previous post:

“The media are professional journalists.  They make their living in the use of language. And they know when they manipulate that language.”[8]

If there was no difference between “undocumented immigrant” and “illegal alien”, then the media would have continued using the latter.  The fact that they changed shows the media understands very well that there is a significant difference.

Every media outlet that uses the term “undocumented immigrant” is not reporting, at least on this subject, in a manner that corresponds to the Truth.  They have manipulated language to further an agenda.

---

[1] Larry Rambousek, “US Newspapers Coordinate Response to Trump's Charge of Fake News and Provide Evidence of Fake News”, https://ncontx.blogspot.com/2018/08/us-newspapers-coordinate-response-to.html

[2] Ibid.

[3] Good Morning America, ABC, “Undocumented migrant charged with murder of missing Iowa woman”,https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/news/video/undocumented-immigrant-charged-murder-missing-iowa-woman-57328557.

[4] Merrian-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alien.

[5] Merrian-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegal.

[6] Merrian-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immigrant.

[7] Merrian-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/undocumented.

[8] Rambousek, ibid.

US Newspapers Coordinate Response to Trump's Charge of Fake News and Provide Evidence of Fake News

Recently newspapers around the country joined together criticizing President Trump’s “relentless ‘fake news’ attacks on our constitutionally protected free press”.[1]

The Post-Record joined their “brothers and sisters in journalism”[2] with an editorial [3] by Post-Record managing editor, Kelly Moyer and a guest column [4] by Fred Obee, the Executive Director of the Washington Newspaper Publishers Association (WNPA).

These columns actually provide examples of “fake news”.

Obee leads off with six reports from papers around the state including: "a grieving orca … carrying her dead calf", an attempt to “exempt [state] lawmakers from portions of the Public Records Act”, and how to support a Port Townsend firefighter “following his heart surgery.”[5]

Obee then asks “Is this fake news?”  But Obee’s examples are not the type of news stories in which Trump criticizes as fake news.

Similarly, Moyer’s defense references stories with emotional content: a stepmother who learns her son died on 9/11, a USS Indianapolis survivor who watched shipmates be “picked off by sharks”, and Paralympic athletes.

She claims “these stories happened”.  But the real question is did the story happen in the way it was reported?  For example,

On August 18, an illegal alien wanted for murder in Mexico was arrested driving his wife to the hospital to deliver their baby.  Media outlet headlines proclaimed:

·         “ICE arrested a man driving his pregnant wife to give birth. She drove herself to the hospital” (Washington Post)[6]

·         "ICE detains man driving pregnant wife to hospital to deliver baby" (CBS News)[7]

·         "Ice Agents, Part Of Trump Crackdown, Detain Husband Driving Pregnant Wife To Deliver Baby” (Newsweek)[8]

Neither did the actual reports mention the man was wanted for murder.  That absence of these facts mislead on what actually happened?  That false narrative then fuels outrage for those already protesting the Trump administration’s separating children from their families at the border and calls to abolish ICE. 

To their credit, NBC News did report the man was wanted on an outstanding murder warrant in both the headline and in the report: “ICE arrests murder suspect as he takes pregnant wife to the hospital”.[9] Few followed suit.

In addition, how often does the media employ euphemisms? An “undocumented immigrant” doesn’t sound as bad as “illegal alien”.  Opposition to illegal immigration is labeled as hostility to immigration implying disapproval of the legal form also.  This manipulates language creating a reality that doesn’t exist. The media are professional journalists.  They make their living in the use of language. And they know when they manipulate that language.

The same day the editorials appeared, the Post-Record printed a News Brief about a Resolution co-sponsored by Sen. Patty Murray condemning the White House’s attempts to restrict media access and affirming the importance of a free and unfettered press”[10] because the White House banned “CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins from a press event after she questioned President Trump on his relationship with his former attorney Michael Cohen.”

The brief ignores the fact that Collins shouted six questions AFTER the Oval Office event ended.  When asked to leave she refused.  She was barred from only one event, an event at which other CNN reporters were invited.  

Does barring one reporter from one event “violate the spirit of the First Amendment” as claimed in the Resolution?  The reader isn’t given the facts that lead to that question.

Did the media coordinate a defense against the Obama Administration for seizing the private emails of Fox News reporter James Rosen or wiretapping the Associated Press thereby treating the media as an actual “enemy of the people”?  Or is coordination only warranted when a President utters that phrase?

Moyer provides another example: “When they hear scientists saying climate change is destroying us and we must make changes right now if our children are to have a future on this planet, they don’t believe it.”[11]

Except that a vigorous scientific debate does exist on the impact of climate change. Two, the climate is extremely complex with many variables. Any computer model is only as good as its underlying algorithms and the data being processed.  We cannot correctly predict a 10-day forecast let alone accurately forecast 5, 10, 70 years out.  Third, “climate change” is a euphemism that hides the real issue: Is man’s use of fossil fuels causing global warming?

Yet, Moyer uses emotionally-charged language: 

• “climate change is destroying us”, 
• need to “make changes right now” for our children “to have a future on this planet”. 
• “The dangers of not believing factual information is going to bring us all down”.  

Can Moyer be trusted to accurately report opposing factual information that she believes will destroy us? 

Several years ago, the LA Times said they wouldn’t publish claims of climate skeptics.  Clearly the LA Times doesn’t share Obee’s view that “Our free press supports the rights of people expressing every imaginable political viewpoint”?

A “constitutionally protected free press” has no constitutional protection from criticism when they abuse the power of the pen.

Misleading headlines, euphemisms, factual omissions, equivocation are routinely employed by and undermine today's media.

The national media bears the brunt of the fake news blame. But their culpability is also “settling even on small newspapers”.  A free people needs a free and honest press.  To truly serve “as watchdogs to protect the public interest”, the media needs to police themselves and eradicate misleading information. This will also “protect the public interest” and, as Moyer writes, “create a richer, more sustainable community.”

---

[1] Kelly Moyer, “Will you believe the propaganda or fight ‘fake news’ attacks?”, Camas-Washougal Post-Record, August 16, 2018. https://www.camaspostrecord.com/news/2018/aug/16/will-you-believe-the-propaganda-or-fight-fake-news-attacks/

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Fred Obee, “No excuse for fake news rhetoric”, Camas-Washougal Post-Record, August 16, 2018. https://www.camaspostrecord.com/news/2018/aug/16/no-excuse-for-fake-news-rhetoric/

[5] Ibid.

[6] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/08/18/ice-arrested-man-driving-his-pregnant-wife-give-birth-she-drove-herself-hospital/

[7] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ice-detains-joel-arrona-lara-driving-pregnant-wife-hospital-deliver-baby-san-bernardino-california-2018-08-18/

[8] https://www.newsweek.com/ice-arrest-husband-driving-preganant-wife-hospital-birth-1079380

[9] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/ice-arrests-murder-suspect-he-takes-pregnant-wife-hospital-n901926

[10] “Sen. Murray condemns Trump’s escalating attacks on the media”, News Brief, Camas Post-Record, p. A5

[11] Moyer ibid.

The Washington Post's False Claim Of The Charlottesville Counter-protesters' Permit

The August 17 Washington Post headline broadcasts: President Trump's false claim that counter-demonstrators lacked a permit. 

The first observation is that the headline and article specify either counter-demonstrators or counter-protestors.  Not once does the reporter mention that these counter-protesters consisted of the group, AntiFa, whose Marxist/Anarchist members have used threats and violence across the country to intimidate and disrupt those with whom they disagree.  For a better understanding of AntiFa, see here and here.

This omission leaves the impression that the counter-protesters were innocent people simply standing against the evil of white supremacy.  The truth is that one hate group (AntiFa) opposed another hate group (Nazis).

This brings us to the question of the validity of Trump's claim that AntiFa did not have a permit.  The Post's analysis concludes:

"President Trump twice claimed that counterprotesters lacked a permit to demonstrate in Charlottesville. But they did have permits for rallies — and they did not need one to go into or gather near Emancipation Park, where white nationalists planned their rally. The president earns Four Pinocchios."

The article produces the permit obtained by AntiFa to refute the President's claim that they "came charging in without a permit":

"Walt Heinecke, a professor at the University of Virginia, told [Washington Post colleague Justin] Moyer that he received a 'special events certificate of approval' for events at McGuffey Park and Justice Park — sites blocks from Emancipation Park, where white nationalists had a permit for a Saturday rally. . . 

Charlottesville spokeswoman Miriam I. Dickler told Moyer that only one permit was issued for Emancipation Park — the one received by white nationalists staging the 'Unite the Right' rally. However, counter-protesters did not need permits to protest that rally, she said. 

'Please bear in mind that people do not need a permit to enter a public park, even when another event is scheduled to take place there, nor are they required to have one to be on streets or sidewalks adjacent to or outside the park,' Dickler said in an email." (emphasis mine)

From this we know that:

1. The Nazis had the only permit for Emancipation Park.
2. AntiFa did have permits for McGuffey and Justice Parks. 
3. McGuffey and Justice Parks are each blocks away from Emancipation Park.
4. The city spokeswoman says a permit is not needed to enter a public park.

This last point raises a question: If a permit is not needed to enter a public park then why did the city issue permits to both the Nazis and AntiFa?

The answer is because both groups were not just entering public parks but engaging in a rally, protest, or demonstration. And for these types of special events, the city requires a permit (see City code Sec 28-29) for, among other reasons, "the preservation of public order and safety".

In fact, that same Standard Operating Procedure defines:

3.1.3 "Demonstration" shall  refer to non-commercial expression protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (such as picketing, political marches, speechmaking, vigils, walks, etc.) conducted on public property, the conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers.  This term does not include casual activity by persons which does not have an intent or propensity to attract a crowd or onlookers . . ." (emphasis mine)

That is, the only way AntiFa did not need a permit to enter Emancipation Park was if they were engaged in "casual activity" and did not have "intent or propensity to attract a crowd or onlookers".  Neither case was true for AntiFa or the Nazis, which is why the city issued each group permits in the first place. 

In fact, Dickler even referred to AntiFa as "counter-protesters" thereby showing they did not fall under the "casual activity" interpretation. Dickler equivocated on who required a permit.

So both groups required permits which the city issued; one to the Nazis for Emancipation Park and one to AntiFa for McGuffey and Justice Parks.  AnftFa did not have a permit for Emancipation Park which they entered and where violence ensued.

Compare this with the Post's report of Trump's statement:

You had a group on the other side that came charging in without a permit, and they were very, very violent. . . . You had a lot of people in that [white nationalist] group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest, because you know — I don’t know if you know — they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit.” (emphasis mine)

AntiFa did not have a permit for Emancipation Park which they entered for the purpose of counter-protesting.  That is, they had a permit just not for the park in which they gathered!

Nit-picking that the permits for other parks satisfied the requirement or that they didn't even need a permit paints a false narrative.

The President may deserve Pinocchios for saying things like that the neo-Nazis "were there to innocently protest" or there are "good people on both sides".  The Post gets it wrong. And while they rightfully hold up the evil of the Nazis for condemnation, their manipulative analysis white washes the evils of AntiFa.

The Post earns Four Pinocchios.

AntiFa is the Antithesis of the Greatest Generation

This meme seems very popular right now in the aftermath of the Charlottesville violence and President Trump's Monday press conference.

The posters' rightly stand against the great evil of white supremacy and Nazism.  But in using this meme they have, whether by ignorance or malice, compared those who stood for freedom with a group, AntiFa, that uses fascist tactics to intimidate and crush those with whom they disagree under the guise that they are against fascism.

AntiFa is grounded in Marxism and anarchy and they use threats and violence as their tools to squash dissent.  They represent a great evil that killed and enslaved millions under communist regimes.  It is a great evil to white-wash this group.

It's possible for two things to be true at the same time: White Supremacy/neo-Nazism and Marxism/Anarchists are both evil.  Don't chest-thump against one evil while ignoring the other.

And don't dishonor the memories of those who sacrificed their lives and their bodies to save the world directly and indirectly from both evils.


Updated on 8/17/2017 with the following:
For more information on AntiFa, see these articles:

CNN - What is AntiFa

Daily Wire - Antifa

The 2016 Referendum On Our Souls

A friend on Facebook directed the following at me. My response to her follows.

Ladies and gentleman, Thomas Fleming: 

"I did not watch Trump’s 76 minute stem-winder, but if he does anything practical about the problems he denounced—unlimited immigration, insurgent Islam, criminal anarchy, and the deteriorating infrastructure that puts the experience of air travel in these United States somewhere between Moscow and Mogadishu airport--he will have justified the hope and trust so many people have put in his campaign. Even if the thieves in the bipartisan kleptocracy known as Congress frustrate his every attempt to restore sanity, some Americans, at least, will take heart from the effort.  

There is very little that I like about Mr. Trump. Indeed, he is almost everything I most detest in the modern American character: He is a blowhard and boaster, a bit of a bully, a gambler and a buffoon, a greed-crazed plutocrat, and a serial adulterer. On the other hand, he has at least two redeeming qualities. He is not a Leftist, which means he does not hate this country, its people, its religion, or its traditions; and he is not a "conservative," which means he is not smarmy hypocrite who talks all day long about values but sells out his constituents to the highest bidder and the American people to global interests... 

No one in my lifetime—certainly no “conservative Republican”—has done a thing to stop the revolutionary juggernaut that is riding down and crushing to death every wholesome tradition and vital institution. Perhaps the most pathetic people in America are those who wish to preserve the “legacy” of Ronald Reagan. Reagan’s only legacy is failure and betrayal on every major front. Oh, yes, he won the Cold War. That is a bit like saying Ronald Reagan won the GOP nomination in 1980 by defeating Harold Stassen.. 

If Ted Cruz, loyal Republican and decent Christian that he claims to be, wanted to snub Donald Trump, he could have done it very simply in Texas by turning off the television and having a good time. Instead he chose to betray his sacred party and to break his word. He has always behaved like the classic bully-- "He can dish it out but he can't take it"--but his smarmy attempt to work the tip for his own advantage showed he was not only a poor sport but a rotten showman.... 

On other hand, who cares? Let Cruz spend the rest of his life flirting with the anti-Christian NeverTrump crowd at National Review and The Weekly Standard. All of them are milk-and-water leftists, dishing out the same state-capitalist swill they stole from FDR and LBJ. “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party,” the senior neocons were forever whining, “the Democratic Party left me.” There is no more pathetic specimen in the political universe than the flotsam and jetsam left behind by the advancing revolutionary tide. 

Trump may be a braggart and a buffoon, but, thank goodness, he is not a conservative." 

H/T Darrell Dow 

Larry Rambousek

My thoughts:

If we don't like Cruz. Fine.

If we want President Trump. Fine. I may even vote Trump myself. 

The U.S. allied with Stalin to stop a greater evil at that particular moment. But let's not corrupt our character by pretending Trump is something other than a man of deeply flawed character flaws. Let us stay on message that defeats Hillary. 

And now I have Christian friends (not just Facebook acquaintances) blocking me. Trump, Cruz, Reagan are NOT our Saviours. 

Our Sovereign will judge our character. So while we may ally with a deeply flawed candidate, we must be honest about it. If we don't, the cost isn't a temporal country, it is a corrupted soul. As your brother in Christ, please be careful. 

There may be more at stake here then an election.


Originally posted on Facebook July 22, 2016

Jim Moeller's Demand to Slaughter Innocent Human Beings

NOTE: Abridged versions were submitted to the Columbian (Vancouver, WA), Camas-Washougal Post Record, and The Reflector (Battle Ground, WA).  

UPDATE: Published by the Columbian on 8/28/2015.

On August 10, 2015, posting on Washington state Republican Rep. Liz Pike's Facebook, Democrat State Rep. Jim Moeller attacked “all Republicans who insist on banning abortions because it 'kills innocent humans'” as arrogant, ignorant hypocrites for "smugly oppos[ing] ... safety regulations, gun control, raising the minimum wage, and the ACA." Moeller's meme claimed opposition to these policies also "kills innocent humans".

Moeller claimed he didn't agree with the meme yet, on August 2, he posted a similar attack in an the comments of an article on the Columbian website: "Yep. Let's talk about abortion and Planned Parenthood while we cut the poor off." He gave TANF (welfare), SNAP (food) funding, and attempts to repeal Obamacare (ACA) as examples of Republicans’ "bait and switch" tactics.

Further, Moeller fails his own standard because while he supports policies that he claims helps the innocent, he supports abortion, which kills an innocent, defenseless human being.

Under what circumstance is it ever justified to kill an innocent human being?

If Moeller really believes his claim that opposition to programs for the poor is a greater evil than abortion then I challenge him to post an aborted fetus image to his Facebook and Twitter profiles and to his website for 30 consecutive days.

That would meet his July 10 Facebook status that “accountability and transparency are … needed in government at all levels”.

He won’t because that type of transparency would reveal to everyone the truly barbaric view that Moeller actually holds.

Boy Scouts & Fundamental Transformation

I submitted the following to the Camas Washougal Post Record. I think I missed the deadline for the Aug 4 edition and they did not print it this week, so the odds are they won't:

On July 27, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) Executive Board lifted its ban on “openly” gay adult leaders.[1]   This resolution allows the local “chartered organizations to select adult leaders without regard to sexual orientation.”[2]

Gay rights activists applauded the decision. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) stated this is a “welcome step toward erasing a stain on this important organization.” [3]

False.  The Boy Scouts have always allowed homosexual scouts and leaders.  This became clear in 2013 when the BSA allowed “openly” gay scouts.[4]  In their resolution, the BSA stated their current policy:

“While the BSA does not proactively inquire about sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.”[5]

That same day, reports appeared regarding Pascal Tessier, a 16-year old openly gay Life scout, working on his Eagle project.[6]   To obtain Eagle rank, one must be an active scout for a minimum of 12 months although other requirements can expand this timeframe greatly.

How can an OPENLY GAY scout be on track to earn his eagle if the scouts didn’t already allow gay scouts?

In fact, his older gay brother had already earned his Eagle.[7]

The issue here is “open or avowed homosexuals”.  Scouting has never emphasized sexuality.  “Openly” gay means to emphasize one’s sexual desires.  Thus, Tessier can obtain his Life rank without concern for one’s sexuality in an organization that does not emphasize sexuality. BSA builds boys into true men focused on self-sacrifice, self-discipline, and doing what is right.

The same applied to adults.  One’s sexual desires were private.  With “openly” gay leaders men, who expressly emphasize their sexuality, guide the youth.  Thus, an organization that does not emphasize sexuality MUST emphasize sexuality.

Further, claiming that a sexual desire for the same sex is normative violates the first point of the Scout Law: A Scout is trustworthy; i.e. honest and truthful.

The truth is that our bodies are made sexually for the opposite sex.  Sexual desires for the opposite sex align with our biological bodies. Same sex desires are at odds with one’s biological body.  The “openly” gay leader must deny the biological body to distract from the contradiction between his desires and his body thereby being dishonest with the way the world actually is.

Will the “openly” gay leader, tell the truth about the disease-ridden nature surrounding male homosexual sexual behavior?  For example, gay men accounted for 75% of syphilis cases in 2012.  According to the Centers for Disease Control gay men are “17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men"[8]  and are “at increased risk for STD’s like Hepatitis A, B, and C”.[9]   Expressing a sexuality as normative while ignoring its harm violates the sixth point of the Scout law: A scout is kind.

What of the Scout Law’s twelfth point – A scout is reverent? Reverence teaches that there is something greater than oneself; that it is not just about the scout; and to respect the beliefs of others.  It focuses outward, not inward.

“Openly” sexual emphasis models, for the youth, an inward focus to “who I am” rather than outward to others.

HRC expressed dismay that “an exemption for troops sponsored by religious organizations undermines and diminishes the historic nature of today's decision. Discrimination should have no place in the Boy Scouts, period.”[10]   This hardly respects others’ beliefs.

These violations of the Scout Law cannot be fixed, even in principle.  They are tied intrinsically to the notion of “openly gay” thus fundamentally transforming “this important organization”.

For years, the Boy Scouts stood up to these bullies.  In short order, the BSA will require religious charter organizations to allow “openly” gay leaders.

HRC will applaud.  Discrimination in the Boy Scouts is fine as long as HRC approves.

Developing virtue and character in young men is no longer the goal.  The scouts are being groomed for something else.


=============================
ENDNOTES
[1] Todd Leopold, “Boy Scouts change policy on gay leaders”, CNN, July 28, 2015, http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/27/us/boy-scouts-gay-leaders-feat/
[2] Ibid.
[3] Liz Halloran, “As Boy Scouts of America Takes Historic Step, Local Exemptions Will Allow Discrimination To Continue”, Human Rights Campaign, July 27, 2015, http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/as-boy-scouts-of-america-takes-historic-step-local-exemptions-will-allow-di
[4] Boy Scouts of America Statement, May 23, 2013. http://www.scouting.org/MembershipStandards/Resolution/results.aspx
  Membership Resolution, Boy Scouts of America, Jan. 1, 2014, http://www.scouting.org/MembershipStandards/Resolution/Resolution.aspx
[5] AP News, “Boy Scouts approve plan to accept openly gay boys”, Townhall.com, May 23, 2013, http://townhall.com/news/us/2013/05/23/vote-on-gay-scouts-comes-at-emotional-moment-n1604255
Staff Wire Reports, “Leaders out, members in: LDS still plan to celebrate 100 years, Idaho State Journal, May 24, 2013, A1.
[7] Robbie Brown, “Gay and Aiming for Eagle, New York Times, May 24, 2013, A16.
[8] Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Gay and Bisexual Men’s Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm
[9]  Viral Hepatitis, Gay and Bisexual Men’s Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/viral-hepatitis.htm
[10] Todd Leopold, “Boy Scouts change policy on gay leaders”, CNN, July 28, 2015, http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/27/us/boy-scouts-gay-leaders-feat/

Being On The Right Side Of Eternity

Per Mike S. Adams on Facebook:

"This is a great time to be an American. The enemy is dismantling marriage and dismembering babies. Along with the rise of evil comes great opportunity. It is time to rise and fight knowing that although the battle will be bloody, the outcome is predetermined. We are not on the wrong side of history. We are on the right side of eternity."

Originally posted on Facebook, July 22, 2015. 

Can't Govern By Biblical Principles?

My response to Sharon Martin's "Open Letter To Sen.-Elect Lankford" published in The Oklahoma Observer on Nov. 11, 2014:

Everyone governs by a set of principles whether Biblical or not. Ms. Martin's principle is that one has "every right to live your life according to those principals, so long as you don’t hurt anyone."  By what objective standard does Martin's principle get to govern but Lankford's does not? 

Further, Martin claims that Lankford's various positions violate his Biblical principles (e.g opposition to the Affordable Care Act and minimum wage) arguing that her position is actually more Biblical. Martin advocates governing by her more Biblical principles but criticizes others trying to "govern according to [their] Biblical principals".  Her argument commits suicide.

Religion vs. Disease - A Comparison

Due to space limitations, the my Letter to the Editor "Many levels can define morality" appeared in the August 26, 2014 Columbian newspaper without citations.  Below is the letter along with the citations.  For the full analysis with citations, see the unabridged version.


Larry Little asserts, “Religion has caused more suffering and harm than all the world's diseases combined” (July 25, “Religion has caused suffering, harm” [1]). He provides four examples of purported religious-instituted harm but no diseases for comparison.

Historian Harold Lamb, author of “The Crusades: The Flame of Islam”, estimates “in the Crusades a waste of hundreds of thousands of lives”. [2] Fox’s Book of Martyrs estimates the Inquisition cost around 32,000 lives. [3] [4]

Little sets the “deaths in the thousands” in an Iraq conflict that NBC News reported originated with the battle for Mohammed’s rightful successor: “the fighting now boils down to a struggle for power, not theological doctrines”. [5]

Opposition to Israel isn’t strictly theological but is rooted in anti-Semitic calls for its annihilation, causing 65,000 deaths since 1948. [6] [7]

In contrast, PBS reports influenza (1918) killed 21 million.[8] BBC estimates the 14th century saw bubonic plague kill 200 million. [9] In fact, a Discovery Channel program states: “infectious diseases have … claimed higher casualties than wars”. [10]

And Little ignores whether those who committed evils in religion’s name were actually following that religion’s teaching.

Human beings define morality in Little’s worldview. Yet he hypocritically reaches across time and cultures imposing his man-made morality upon others, condemning the moral standard they had defined for themselves.


ENDNOTES:
[1] Little, Larry, “Religion has caused suffering, harm”, The Columbian, July 25, 2014, http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/jul/25/letter-religion-has-caused-suffering-harm/. Last accessed 7/28/2014.
[2] Lamb, Harold, “The Crusades: The Flame of Islam”, Garden City Publishing Co., Inc., Garden City, NY, 1931, p. 465.
[3] Foxe, John, “Fox’s Book of Martyrs, The Project Gutenberg EBook, 2007, p.88-109.
[4] Lemieux, Simon. “The Spanish Inquisition”. History Review [serial online] December 2002;(44):44. Available from: History Reference Center, Ipswich, MA. Last Accessed: 8/18/2014.
[5] Elizabeth Chuck, “Conflict in Iraq Follows Centuries of Shiite-Sunni Mistrust, NBC News, http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/conflict-iraq-follows-centuries-shiite-sunni-mistrust-n130461. Last accessed 7/28/2014.
[6] Mr. Little lists the opposition as: “Israel vs. Palestinian/Hamas/Iran/Syria/Boko Haram”.
Author’s Note: While these opponents of Israel all hold to various interpretations of Islam, Article 28 of the Hamas charter explicitly states: “Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims”. http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html?chocaid=397. Last accessed 8/17/2014.
[7] Twentieth Century Atlas – Death Tolls." RCN D.C. Metro. December 2005. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat4.htm. Last accessed: 8/19/2014.
[8] “Worldwide flu pandemic strikes 1918 - 1919”. A Science Odyssey: People and Discoveries. “The influenza commonly called ‘Spanish flu’ killed more people than the guns of World War I. Estimates put the worldwide death toll at 21,642,274. Some one billion people were affected by the disease -- half of the total human population. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dm18fl.html . Last accessed: 8/17/2018.
[9] “Decoding the Black Death”. BBC News. Oct 3, 2001. Reporting from research published in the journal Nature. “The plague, otherwise known as the Black Death, ravaged Europe and Asia between the 14th and 17th Centuries. In the 14th Century alone it is estimated to have killed 200 million people.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1576875.stm. Last Accessed: 8/17/2014.
[10] Lamb, Robert. “10 Worst Epidemics”. Discovery. Culture and History. “infectious diseases have inflicted a great deal of damage throughout the centuries. They've decimated whole populations, ended blood lines, claimed higher casualties than wars and played pivotal roles in charting the course of history.”
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/10-worst-epidemics.htm. Last accessed: 8/17/2014.

Has Religion Caused More Harm Than Disease?

NOTE: This is Part Two in a series dealing with a July 25 letter to The Columbian, “Religion has caused suffering, harm”.  See Part One for the first half analysis of the letter. 

In his letter, Larry Little asserts, “Religion has caused more suffering and harm than all the world's diseases combined”[i]. While he provides four examples of purported religious-instituted harm, only one has any statistics and he provides no disease examples for comparison. 

In doing so, he leaves his claim orphaned from any supporting evidence.  So let me supply the facts to see how well the Larry Little Hypothesis holds merit. 

Religious-instituted Harm

Mr. Little lists the “Crusades “, “Iraq”, “Israel vs. Palestinian/Hamas/Iran/Syria/Boko Haram” and the “Catholic Inquisition” as his four religious-instituted harms. 

Historian Harold Lamb, author of “The Crusades: The Flame”, estimates “in the Crusades a waste of hundreds of thousands of lives.[ii]   

Fox’s Book of Martyrs estimates the “Catholic Inquisition” cost around 32,000 lives.[iii] In the book, “The Spanish inquisition”, Simon Lemieux writes, “It is false to make a distinction between the political and religious roles of the Inquisition; for Spanish monarchs, as indeed for most other rulers, political and religious unity went in tandem.”[iv]  While this unity does not absolve the fact that evil occurred in religion’s name, it also means that was not the only factor as Mr. Little implies. 

Mr. Little, himself, sets the number of “violent deaths in the thousands” in an Iraq conflict that NBC News says originated with Mohammed’s death and the struggle for his rightful successor.[v] NBC states the “fighting now boils down to a struggle for power, not theological doctrines”.[vi]  

Gareth Stansfield, former United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq senior political adviser concurred.  Stanfield stated: “The struggle was over the successor to the prophet Muhammad, whether succession would go through the line of the family of the prophet, through the sons of Ali—he was Muhammad's son-in-law who was married to Fatima, his daughter—or whether it would rest with the political successors to Muhammad, the caliphs.”[vii] 

Opposition to Israel is, not strictly theological but is, rooted in anti-Semitic calls for its annihilation.  While these opponents of Israel all hold to various interpretations of Islam, Article 28 of the Hamas charter explicitly states, “Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims”.[viii]  The estimated death toll from conflicts with Israel is 65,000 since 1948.[ix]

Disease-instituted Harm

In contrast, PBS reports Influenza (1918) killed 21 million.[x]  BBC estimates the 14^th century saw Bubonic Plague kill 200 million.[xi] ABC Science reports the death toll of “75 million” in just four years.[xii]  

Mr. Little’s examples amount to hundreds of thousands of deaths compared to221 million from just two diseases.  Clearly, even if his examples were purely religious-instituted evil, the claim that religion causes more harm than disease is clearly false!  In fact, Discovery states: “infectious diseases have … claimed higher casualties than wars”.[xiii]

 

In the Name of

Moreover, Mr. Little ignores whether those who committed evils in religion’s name were following the religion’s teaching.  Greg Koukl provides this analogy: 

‘Imagine yourself a builder who sent out crews with detailed, written instructions for their work.  Instead of building, though they destroyed.  Would you be responsible?  That would depend on one thing: the written instructions.”[xiv]

 

Religious Good

Nor does Mr. Little acknowledge the good done in the name of religion. For example, Christianity originated modern education as a way to place the Bible into the hands of the common man.  All the Ivy League schools had Christian origins.  Missionaries in China, Africa, and throughout the world taught people how to read and created written language where none before existed.   

Mother Teresa and others dedicate their lives to helping the poorest.  David Livingston exposed the Arab slave trade.  William Wilberforce worked tireless to end the British slave trade.  Abolitionists worked to end slavery in America.  The Red Cross and The Salvation Army are a few organizations started upon a Christian foundation.  The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., leader of the 1960s civil rights movement, said: 

“"There must be a recognition of the sacredness of human personality.  Deeply rooted in our political and religious heritage is the conviction that every man is an heir to a legacy of dignity and worth.  Our Hebraic-Christian tradition refers to this inherent dignity of man in the Biblical term the image of God.” 

“"This idea of the dignity and worth of human personality is expressed eloquently and unequivocally in the Declaration of Independence.  “All men,” it says, “are created equal.”  They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  Never has a sociopolitical document proclaimed more profoundly and eloquently the sacredness of human personality.”[xv]

 
Arbitrary vs. Non-Arbitrary Moral Standards

Beyond the factual errors and omission of evidence that compromises his narrative, Mr. Little makes a fundamental error in clear thinking. Human beings, not a supreme being, define morality in Mr. Little’s worldview. As such, no standards can exist that apply to ALL men, at ALL times, in ALL places regardless of whether they choose to follow the standard or even acknowledge it.  That would require a non-arbitrary standard outside of man. That requires a Moral Lawgiver that is outside man. 

If that Moral Lawgiver does not exist then Mr. Little correctly recognizes that men or cultures (aka groups of men) decide.  However, if men or cultures decide, then on what basis does one man or culture say their standard is more morally righteous than the standard of another man or culture? 

Yet, Mr. Little does exactly that.  He hypocritically reaches across time and cultures to impose his man-made standard upon others, condemning the moral standard those cultures had defined for themselves. 

In the end, Mr. Little betrays his own view.  He knows that men have done egregious evils but he denies the very Supreme Being that must exist for his condemnation to make sense. 

All he has left is his dislike of another’s actions.

 

That is not morality.  That is personal preference.

---

[i] Little, Larry, “Religion has caused suffering, harm”, The Columbian, July 25, 2014, http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/jul/25/letter-religion-has-caused-suffering-harm/. Last accessed 7/28/2014. Mr. Little writes, “Religion has caused more suffering and harm than all the world's diseases combined. Think Crusades — that is still going on today. Think Iraq and several differing views leading to violent deaths in the thousands. Think Israel vs. Palestinian/Hamas/Iran/Syria/Boko Haram and their victims. The Catholic Inquisition led to burning witches at the stake, led to the birth of Protestantism, led to the United States, which led to "In God We Trust" on our money, which led to Hobby Lobby, which now uses less of it.”

[ii] Lamb, Harold, “The Crusades: The Flame of Islam”, Garden City Publishing Co., Inc., Garden City, NY, 1931, p. 465.

[iii] Foxe, John, “Fox’s Book of Martyrs, The Project Gutenberg EBook, 2007, p.88-109.

[iv] Lemieux, Simon. “The Spanish Inquisition”. History Review [serial online] December 2002;(44):44. Available from: History Reference Center, Ipswich, MA. Last Accessed: 8/18/2014.

[v] Elizabeth Chuck, “Conflict in Iraq Follows Centuries of Shiite-Sunni Mistrust, NBC News,   http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/conflict-iraq-follows-centuries-shiite-sunni-mistrust-n130461. Last accessed 7/28/2014.
According to Robin Wright, a joint fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Woodrow Wilson Center, “The original schism between Islam's two largest sect was not over religious doctrine. It was over political leadership.”

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Conant, Eve, “Iraq Crisis: "Ancient Hatreds Turning Into Modern Realities”, National Geographic, June 18, 2014. In addition to being and a former senior political adviser for the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), Gareth Stansfield is also professor of Middle East politics at the U.K.'s University of Exeter.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140618-iraq-shiite-sunni-isis-militants-maliki-borders/

Last Accessed: 8/17/2014.

[viii]  Israel vs. Palestinian/Hamas/Iran/Syria/Boko Haram.

http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html?chocaid=397.  Last accessed 8/17/2014.

[ix] Twentieth Century Atlas – Death Tolls." RCN D.C. Metro. December 2005. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat4.htm. Last accessed: 8/19/2014.

[x] “Worldwide flu pandemic strikes 1918 - 1919”. A Science Odyssey: People and Discoveries. “The influenza commonly called ‘Spanish flu’ killed more people than the guns of World War I. Estimates put the worldwide death toll at 21,642,274. Some one billion people were affected by the disease -- half of the total human population. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dm18fl.html . Last accessed: 8/17/2018.

[xi] “Decoding the Black Death”. BBC News. Oct 3, 2001. Reporting from research published in the journal Nature. “The plague, otherwise known as the Black Death, ravaged Europe and Asia between the 14th and 17th Centuries. In the 14th Century alone it is estimated to have killed 200 million people.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1576875.stm. Last Accessed: 8/17/2014.

[xii] Dunham, Will. “Black death 'discriminated' between victims”. ABC/Reuters. Jan 29, 2008. “The plague of 1347 to 1351 was one of the deadliest epidemics in human history, killing about 75 million people, according to some estimates, including up to 50% of the European populations affected.”

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/01/29/2149185.htm

Last Accessed: 8/17/2014.

[xiii] Lamb, Robert. “10 Worst Epidemics”. Discovery. Culture and History. “infectious diseases have inflicted a great deal of damage throughout the centuries. They've decimated whole populations, ended blood lines, claimed higher casualties than wars and played pivotal roles in charting the course of history.”

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/10-worst-epidemics.htm . Last accessed: 8/17/2014.

[xiv] Koukl, Greg. “Christianity’s Real Record”. Clear Thinking Journal. Vol. 4 No.3. Winter 1999. p. 9

[xv] King, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The Ethical Demands of Integration. Dec 27, 1962.