The Columbian Endorses Obama

The Columbian's (Vancouver, WA) editorial board endorsed Obama last week with the caveat - I kid you not - "Our opinion is only that, refuted by many, carrying no distinguishable impact. Our opinion is offered more to stimulate conversation than to change minds".[1] (emphasis mine)

According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, one meaning of endorse is:

"2 a: to approve openly <endorse an idea> ; especially : to express
support or approval of publicly and definitely <endorse a mayoral
candidate> b: to recommend (as a product or service) usually for financial compensation endorsed by a pro basketball player>"[2]

The editorial board of this newspaper doesn't think they will influence anyone within their large circulation audience. If that's the case, why didn't the board say they are not endorsing anyone, list the major advantages and disadvantages of each candidate, and then leave it for discussion.

That's called good, professional, journalistic practice where one just reports the facts. Wait, that's what news articles are supposed to be. Opinion pieces, on the other hand, are where you take those facts and draw a conclusion! After all according to Merriam-Webster, the word opinion "implies a conclusion thought out yet open to dispute ."[3]

An editorial is done precisely to give one's reasons for their conclusion (in this case the Obama endorsement) that is then available to be disputed. The Columbian editorial board wants to be able to give their opinion without being held accountable for it.

That way, they influence people while brushing aside any criticism by saying "we were just trying to stimulate conversation".

That's intellectually dishonest.


[1] "In Our View: Obama for President", The Columbian, Oct. 16,2008.
http://www.columbian.com/article/20081016/OPINION02/710169982/-1/opinion
[2] Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/endorse
[3] Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion

Spreading the Wealth

Karl Marx[1]:

"From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need."

Barak Obama[2]:

"I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too." (to each, according to his need)

I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
(from each, according to his ability)

[1] From QuoteWorld.org, http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/12674

[2] For Obama's entire statement, nContx, see the October 16, 2008 online article at the NY Post (nypost.com) http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152008/news/politics/obama_fires_a_robin_hood_warning_shot_133685.htm

Brad Pitt Donates to Support Polygamy

E! Online reports that "Brad Pitt Shells Out in Support of Gay Marriage". Pitt states:

"Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn't harm another and because discrimination has no place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8".

I'm curious as to Pitt's view on polygamy or polyamory. If he supports those then he would be consistent with his stated view. He would also be in the minority since very, very few same-sex marriage supporters advocate other types of relationships as marriage.

If Pitt rejects those relationships as being marriage, then why? After all, if "everyone has the right to live the life they so desire" and "discrimination has no place in America" then on what grounds, Brad - on what grounds - do you deny any type of relationship that human beings want to define as marriage?

What is this notion of equality for which you will cast your vote? Homosexuals already have the same rights to marriage as every other citizen. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. We all have equality.

Same-sex marriage advocates counter that homosexuals cannot marry whomever they want. If being able to marry whomever one wants is the criteria for marriage then same-sex marriage advocates should be supporting polygamy, sibling marriages, and plural marriages also.

Yet they do not!

With these relationships, same-sex marriage advocates suddenly become - well - quite traditional in their views on marriage.

Same-sex marriage isn't about equality. It is about legitimizing homosexual relationships by making them special in the same way as heterosexual relationships. Saying all relationships are special (i.e. equal) is - to paraphrase Dash in "The Incredibles":

"Another way of saying no [relationship] is."

I encourage everyone to vote for equality and in favor of Proposition 8. Vote to keep true marriage equality in the state of California.

ProtectMarriage.com
Scan of the Marriage Initiative

Signing of the U.S. Constitution - Sept 17, 1787

Today, September 17th, 2008, is the 221st anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution.

All 12 state delegations (Rhode Island was not represented) approved the Constitution. Thirty-nine (39) of the forty-two (42) delegates signed it at the Pennsylvania State House (now called Independence Hall) in Philadelphia. Following the signing the Constitutional Convention formally adjourned.

On June 21, 1788, (fully nine months later) the Constitution became effective for the ratifying states when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify it.

The complete text of the United States Constitution - including background information on the different Articles and Sections - can be found at USConstitution.net.

Ellen Goodman: "Keep the killing of innocent human beings private"

In her September 3, 2008 column, Ellen Goodman not only critcizes Sarah Palin but she also attacks those who who oppose abortion:

"it's the right wing that made social issues into a political issue. The right wing decided that pregnancy was not a matter of private decision-making but a harsh and unrelenting political battle." (emphasis mine)

Perhaps, Goodman needs a history lesson. Prior to Roe v. Wade, the states - via their legislatures - (aka the political arena) were allowed to decide their own abortion policies. Most did not allow abortions but some, in the years preceding Roe, moved to liberalize their abortion statutes.

So abortion (or as Goodman refers to it, pregnancy as a "matter of private decision-making") was already a "political issue."

My question is this: Prior to the Roe decision was there "a harsh and unrelenting political battle" over abortion?

No, because the majority of Americans did not favor abortion. Roe (pushed by Goodman's side) federalized and took the issue from the people, and forced it down their collective throats. This coalesced the very group she now accuses of creating a "harsh and unrelenting political battle." Of course, one might also say Goodman's side created the "harsh and unrelenting political battle" by federalizing the issue in the first place.

Goodman also writes:

"the [Republican] party meeting in St. Paul, Minn., would put decisions about pregnancy in the hands of the government and replace sex information with disinformation. No, you don't have to pass judgment on a 17-year-old to pass judgment on these unrelenting policymakers." (emphasis mine)

Of course, this is a suprising moral judgement passed by Goodman, who earlier in her column criticized, "the 'family value' folks who have fashioned a political wedge out of moral judgements". Nope, no political wedge from Goodman. Not at all.

And to what disinformation does Goodman refer? She provides no evidence to backup her assertion. Time for a biology lesson. It is a scientific fact that the uniting of the human father's sperm with the human mother's egg results in a unique, living, human being. The scientific terminology for this union is conception. For anyone who doubts, see the slideshow at WebMd, "Conception: From egg to embryo".

When was the last time Ellen Goodman referred to that which resides in human mother's womb as a human being? If one refuses to discuss the basic, foundational, scientific fact of this whole issue, isn't that disinformation?

In fact, Goodman hides behind sterile words and phrases. Only twice in her 700 words does she use the word abortion, once calling John McCain, "an unrelenting opponent of abortion" and the other in reference to the Republican platform being opposed to "every abortion." The rest of the time Goodman talks about the right-wing being against pregnancy or against "private decision-making." Very sterile language she very clearly relates to an abortion.

But what is an abortion? It terminates a pregnancy. What does it mean to be pregnant? From Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, to be pregnant means "containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body." In terminating a pregnancy, an abortion terminates the "unborn offspring within the body." What kind of offspring? In the case of the union of a human male's sperm and a human female's egg, the offspring is a human being.

But what of the part of the definition that says it is an embryo or fetus. Again from Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary:

embryo - "especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception"
fetus - "specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth"

So "embryo" and "fetus" are medical terms that define stages of development not the type of being one is. So let's repeat Goodman's own words ripping the veil of her Orwellian language away to reveal the true meaning of her words:

"the party meeting in St. Paul, Minn., would put decisions about terminating the pregnancy (i.e. life of an innocent, defenseless, unborn human being) in the hands of the government and replace sex information with disinformation. No, you don't have to pass judgment on a 17-year-old to pass judgment on these unrelenting policymakers."

In other words, Ellen Goodman "pass(es) judgement on these unrelenting policymakers" who would dare try to save the life of an innocent human being!

But is it wrong for government to do so. One of this country's founding principles is

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"
(Declaration of Independence)

Governments are instituted to secure certain unalienable rights, one of which is Life!

Not only does Ellen Goodman attack those who would destroy innocent human life but she attacks those who would use government to do the very thing it is instituted to do: Protect the unalienable right to Life!

Of course, Ellen Goodman wants to keep this as a private decision. To hide the fact that she defends the killing of innocent, defenseless, unborn human beings.

Abortion vs Blood Transfusions

The following letter to the editor from Jackie Lane of Battle Ground (WA) appeared in the Aug 11 Columbian:

Horrified by right to decline
I am horrified to see that the Bush administration is attempting to expand the definition of the word “abortion” to include some forms of birth control.

I am horrified that the administration supports “right to decline,” allowing medical staff to refuse to inform women of their legitimate medical options based on the caregiver’s religious beliefs. By this logic, we can have physicians who do not believe in blood transfusions allowing people to die in emergency rooms because of their own religious objections.

I want the people who provide my medical care to have my best interests first and foremost, and I want them to communicate with me clearly and completely about my options.

The phrase "legitimate medical options" is a reference to abortion. What is an abortion? It is the termination of the being residing in the woman's womb. In other words, Lane is horrified that caregivers may refuse to inform women that they can kill their innocent, vulnerable, unborn child because it violates the caregivers' conscience.

So Lane is comparing a physician who refuses to provide a patient with a transfusion (albeit because of conscience) to a provider who refuses to inform a patient about abortion.

The problem is Lane's comparisons are not equivalent. Blood transfusions are given to save a patient's life. The overwhelmingly, vast majority (it's not even close) of abortions are done for convenience NOT to save a woman's life.

To deny the blood transfusion would be to deny life. To deny an abortion does not deny the woman her life. It also continues the life of the innocent, vulnerable, unborn child within her womb.

Founding of the U.S. Coast Guard - August 4, 1790

On this day in 1790, the U.S. Coast Guard was created by Congress, which authorized Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton to build a small fleet of ten cutters to protect the coast.

From the "Daily Chronology of Coast Guard History":

4 August

"1790-Congress authorized the Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton's proposal to build ten cutters to protect the new nation's revenue (Stat. L. 145, 175). Alternately known as the system of cutters, Revenue Service, and Revenue-Marine this service would officially be named the Revenue Cutter Service (12 Stat. L., 639) in 1863. The cutters were placed under the control of the Treasury Department. This date marks the officially recognized birthday of the Coast Guard."

For more information, visit the United States Coast Guard website.

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.