I was out of town over the Memorial Day weekend and was not able to salute those who have given their lives for the principles upon which this Republic stands.
My son, however, took part in our local community's Remembrance celebration at our local cemetary. As a first year Webelo, his pack, along with other Cub and Boy Scouts, were asked to stand at attention during the entire ceremony. They stood at attention through the speeches by the mayor and by a couple of the veterans. They stood through the 21-gun salute and other symbolism of the ceremony.
When I asked my son about it, he stated, "We just stood there and did nothing."
My wife and I explained that it might seem like nothing to him but it wasn't nothing to those veterans that were at the ceremony. They had fought in these past wars and probably watched their fellow soldiers and friends die.
We explained that standing at attention is to place honor on that which the attention is paid. These old veterans saw young scouts standing at attention, honoring them and the principles for which they fought and died.
These old veterans watched, as the next generation that will be responsible for defending liberty, honored those who came before; those who have taken up, and laid down their lives for, that cause.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Thursday, May 15, 2008
California's Top Court Legalizes Polygamy
Breaking news out of California as reported by major news outlets, the California Supreme Court declared that multiple people "in the nation's biggest state can marry - a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the polygamy rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of (group) matrimony."
"Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law," declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case.
What you say? The Court didn't legalize multiple partner relationships but rather legalized same-sex marriages. But if, as Robin Tyler states, it all "boils down to love" on what grounds does the Court deny people who want to have multiple spouses? Yet, same-sex marriage advocates adamantly claim that only two individuals are allowed to enter into a marriage relationship.
Chief Justice Ronald George, who wrote the majority opinion, promotes the lie that grounds same-sex marriage:
"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."
Wrong. There was nothing stopping homosexuals from establishing "a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person". In fact, abcnews reports that "Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, via cell phone and asked, 'Pali, will you marry me?' " Was Rizzo and Pali not in a loving and long-term committed relationship for 19 years? And they did so without marriage!
Yet, even that is not the big lie. The big lie is the claim that homosexuals do not have the right to marry. Wrong. Homosexuals have always had the same rights to marriage as every other citizen as long as they adhere to the criteria to which that every other citizen, that is, everyone can marry someone of the opposite gender who they are not too closely related and to which both meet any age requirements.
But homosexuals say this criteria discriminates against them because they cannot marry whomever they wish. But no one has the right to marry whomever they wish. You cannot marry a nine-year old. You cannot marry your sibling.
In fact, same-sex marriage advocates do not want those types of relationships to be recognized as marriage. In other words, they are perfectly fine with promoting marrying whomever one wants as long as it is only applied to a same-sex relationship. Once the argument is applied to other types of relationships, same-sex marriage advocates suddenly have no problem discriminating.
Unrepentant lawbreaker and San Francisco "mayor" Gavin Newsome stated, "It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California". No word yet from Newsome on why he has yet to stand up and break the law for the human dignity and human rights of those who want multiple spouses.
We have rights and dignity because of the type of beings we are, i.e. human (for a more in-depth analysis, see The Foundation for Human Rights). We are made a certain way. But the Gay "Equality" Totalitarian Movement (GET 'M) - of which Newsome and George belong - can't argue that way rationally as evidenced by the "we are born that way" argument.
If one is born with a sexual orientation for the same gender they are also born with the physical sexual organs that are designed for the opposite gender. GET 'M never acknowledges the latter because to make that fundamental observation of nature is to admit that there is an inherent contradiction for the homosexual. It recognizes that homosexuality is NOT the natural design of the human being.
Same-sex marriage advocates say we cannot appeal to nature to determine the purpose of marriage. But then they say we must limit marriage to two people. The concept of two in a marital relationship goes to the very heart of our natures in sexual union - the idea of coupling. If it is discriminatory to appeal to the way our sexual organs are designed to fit together with the opposite gender then on what grounds do we say that those organs have to fit together between only two. Why not a threesome? Why not one man and multiple wives which has been recognized as marriage throughout history?
Same-sex marriage is an arbitrary concept. Advocates want to do away with only that criteria that keeps their relationships from being affirmed. This isn't about human rights and dignity. The is rights language GET 'M uses to create the necessary emotional response to their cause.
It is about elevating same-sex relationships to the same level as opposite-sex relationships. If any relationship was allowed then all relationships would be equal and then same-sex relationships wouldn't be elevated and special. It would be just one of many types of relationships.
Same-sex marriage is, by definition, a bigoted and discriminatory concept.
"Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law," declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case.
What you say? The Court didn't legalize multiple partner relationships but rather legalized same-sex marriages. But if, as Robin Tyler states, it all "boils down to love" on what grounds does the Court deny people who want to have multiple spouses? Yet, same-sex marriage advocates adamantly claim that only two individuals are allowed to enter into a marriage relationship.
Chief Justice Ronald George, who wrote the majority opinion, promotes the lie that grounds same-sex marriage:
"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."
Wrong. There was nothing stopping homosexuals from establishing "a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person". In fact, abcnews reports that "Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, via cell phone and asked, 'Pali, will you marry me?' " Was Rizzo and Pali not in a loving and long-term committed relationship for 19 years? And they did so without marriage!
Yet, even that is not the big lie. The big lie is the claim that homosexuals do not have the right to marry. Wrong. Homosexuals have always had the same rights to marriage as every other citizen as long as they adhere to the criteria to which that every other citizen, that is, everyone can marry someone of the opposite gender who they are not too closely related and to which both meet any age requirements.
But homosexuals say this criteria discriminates against them because they cannot marry whomever they wish. But no one has the right to marry whomever they wish. You cannot marry a nine-year old. You cannot marry your sibling.
In fact, same-sex marriage advocates do not want those types of relationships to be recognized as marriage. In other words, they are perfectly fine with promoting marrying whomever one wants as long as it is only applied to a same-sex relationship. Once the argument is applied to other types of relationships, same-sex marriage advocates suddenly have no problem discriminating.
Unrepentant lawbreaker and San Francisco "mayor" Gavin Newsome stated, "It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California". No word yet from Newsome on why he has yet to stand up and break the law for the human dignity and human rights of those who want multiple spouses.
We have rights and dignity because of the type of beings we are, i.e. human (for a more in-depth analysis, see The Foundation for Human Rights). We are made a certain way. But the Gay "Equality" Totalitarian Movement (GET 'M) - of which Newsome and George belong - can't argue that way rationally as evidenced by the "we are born that way" argument.
If one is born with a sexual orientation for the same gender they are also born with the physical sexual organs that are designed for the opposite gender. GET 'M never acknowledges the latter because to make that fundamental observation of nature is to admit that there is an inherent contradiction for the homosexual. It recognizes that homosexuality is NOT the natural design of the human being.
Same-sex marriage advocates say we cannot appeal to nature to determine the purpose of marriage. But then they say we must limit marriage to two people. The concept of two in a marital relationship goes to the very heart of our natures in sexual union - the idea of coupling. If it is discriminatory to appeal to the way our sexual organs are designed to fit together with the opposite gender then on what grounds do we say that those organs have to fit together between only two. Why not a threesome? Why not one man and multiple wives which has been recognized as marriage throughout history?
Same-sex marriage is an arbitrary concept. Advocates want to do away with only that criteria that keeps their relationships from being affirmed. This isn't about human rights and dignity. The is rights language GET 'M uses to create the necessary emotional response to their cause.
It is about elevating same-sex relationships to the same level as opposite-sex relationships. If any relationship was allowed then all relationships would be equal and then same-sex relationships wouldn't be elevated and special. It would be just one of many types of relationships.
Same-sex marriage is, by definition, a bigoted and discriminatory concept.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Harriet Tubman
On this date in 1913, Araminta Ross died in Auburn, New York.
She was "one of eleven children born to her slave parents on a plantation in Maryland. While she was still a girl, an overseer threw a lead weight at her head, knocking her unconscious. She finally recovered, but the blow left a scar on her head. From that day forward, she was committed to seeking freedom for herself and her fellow slaves." [1]
Upon the death of her master, the twenty-nine-year-old Ross "decided to escape to avoid being sold. She left her family and made her way to Philadelphia, where she became active in the abolitionist movement."[2]
Ross was willing to break the law to free her fellow slaves, and she anointed with the nickname "General" during her service as a "conductor" on the Underground Railroad.[3]
"When the Civil War began, [Ross] volunteered for Union service at Fort Monroe in Virginia and was then transferred to Beaufort, South Carolina, where she helped Yankee commanders liberate slaves on Confederate plantations. She also served as a spy for the Union cause.[4]
In fact, she helped Commander John Montgomery lead the Campaign on the Combahee River that freed an estimated 500 slaves while raiding several plantations and found volunteers for John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry.
Araminta Ross is better known as Harriet Tubman and she was given the nickname "General Tubman" by abolitionist John Brown.
After the war, Tubman was active in the women’s suffrage movement.
[1-4] Excerpted from Scholastic Encyclopedia of the Civil War by Catherine Clinton, p. 34
For further information, see the following links:
Library of Congress Concise Summary of Harriet Tubman’s life
Auburn Citizen newspaper Memorial
Harriet Tubman’s Home
Campaign on the Combahee (June 2, 1863)
African-American Odyssey exhibit at the Library of Congress provides background information on African-Americans from slavery up through the civil rights era.
She was "one of eleven children born to her slave parents on a plantation in Maryland. While she was still a girl, an overseer threw a lead weight at her head, knocking her unconscious. She finally recovered, but the blow left a scar on her head. From that day forward, she was committed to seeking freedom for herself and her fellow slaves." [1]
Upon the death of her master, the twenty-nine-year-old Ross "decided to escape to avoid being sold. She left her family and made her way to Philadelphia, where she became active in the abolitionist movement."[2]
Ross was willing to break the law to free her fellow slaves, and she anointed with the nickname "General" during her service as a "conductor" on the Underground Railroad.[3]
"When the Civil War began, [Ross] volunteered for Union service at Fort Monroe in Virginia and was then transferred to Beaufort, South Carolina, where she helped Yankee commanders liberate slaves on Confederate plantations. She also served as a spy for the Union cause.[4]
In fact, she helped Commander John Montgomery lead the Campaign on the Combahee River that freed an estimated 500 slaves while raiding several plantations and found volunteers for John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry.
Araminta Ross is better known as Harriet Tubman and she was given the nickname "General Tubman" by abolitionist John Brown.
After the war, Tubman was active in the women’s suffrage movement.
[1-4] Excerpted from Scholastic Encyclopedia of the Civil War by Catherine Clinton, p. 34
For further information, see the following links:
Library of Congress Concise Summary of Harriet Tubman’s life
Auburn Citizen newspaper Memorial
Harriet Tubman’s Home
Campaign on the Combahee (June 2, 1863)
African-American Odyssey exhibit at the Library of Congress provides background information on African-Americans from slavery up through the civil rights era.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
NARAL's Deadly Deception
In the Seattle PI article, "Pro-choice group says Plan B unavailable at 10 percent of state pharmacies", Tom Paulson reports:
I have to admit I laughed at Cooper's comment. If Plan B is unavailable at 10% of pharmacies that means that it is available at 90%. But then I continued to read more:
In other words, the 10% figure is over-inflated! In fact later, the article specifies that "3 percent reported having at least one pharmacist on the premises who refuses to dispense the drug."
Of course, NARAL isn't content with over 90% availability. They backed a state of Washington regulation that mandated pharmacists to dispense Plan B even if it violated the pharmacist's conscience. That regulation is currently being challenged in federal court.
The article also quotes Trina Stout who went to a pharmacy for Plan B and was "turned away." She accused the pharmacist of being "unsympathetic and rude." Stout and NARAL, of course, do not have a problem being "unsympathetic and rude" toward pharmacists who wish to practice their livelihood according to their own conscience.
Stout says she was left shaken. So what did the poor, ruthlessly victimized Stout do? Well. she left and obtained "Plan B at another pharmacy."
In other words, the pharmacy had the liberty to refuse business that violated their conscience and Stout had the liberty to go to a pharmacy that would give her what she wanted.
Trudi Inslee, wife of Rep. Jay Inslee D-Wash and a NARAL Pro-Choice Washington board member (geez, I wonder how much federal dollars NARAL receives) says Plan B is not an abortion pill because it prevents the release or fertilization of the egg. Yet, this is deception by ommission. Accordingt to FDA information on Plan B:
NARAL's position amounts to forcing pharmacists to be a partner in the possible killing of a unique, living, vulnerable, defenseless, unborn human being.
But as the article states, "Inslee said it is unacceptable for a minority of pharmacists to block any woman's access to legal medication based upon their personal opinions or beliefs."
Liberty raising its ugly head in the state of Washington? Perish the thought.
"One of the state's leading pro-choice organizations has issued a Web-based, interactive map that shows which pharmacies in Washington either don't stock or refuse to provide customers with an emergency contraceptive drug known as Plan B."
'I was astounded at how many,' said Karen Cooper, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Washington".
I have to admit I laughed at Cooper's comment. If Plan B is unavailable at 10% of pharmacies that means that it is available at 90%. But then I continued to read more:
"one out of 10 pharmacies in the state either do not stock the drug or employ at least one pharmacist who refuses to dispense it."Thus, NARAL counted pharmacies as unavailable if one pharmacist objected even if that pharmacy stocked Plan B and another pharmacist is available to dispense it.
In other words, the 10% figure is over-inflated! In fact later, the article specifies that "3 percent reported having at least one pharmacist on the premises who refuses to dispense the drug."
Of course, NARAL isn't content with over 90% availability. They backed a state of Washington regulation that mandated pharmacists to dispense Plan B even if it violated the pharmacist's conscience. That regulation is currently being challenged in federal court.
The article also quotes Trina Stout who went to a pharmacy for Plan B and was "turned away." She accused the pharmacist of being "unsympathetic and rude." Stout and NARAL, of course, do not have a problem being "unsympathetic and rude" toward pharmacists who wish to practice their livelihood according to their own conscience.
Stout says she was left shaken. So what did the poor, ruthlessly victimized Stout do? Well. she left and obtained "Plan B at another pharmacy."
In other words, the pharmacy had the liberty to refuse business that violated their conscience and Stout had the liberty to go to a pharmacy that would give her what she wanted.
Trudi Inslee, wife of Rep. Jay Inslee D-Wash and a NARAL Pro-Choice Washington board member (geez, I wonder how much federal dollars NARAL receives) says Plan B is not an abortion pill because it prevents the release or fertilization of the egg. Yet, this is deception by ommission. Accordingt to FDA information on Plan B:
"If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation)."In other words, it terminates a pregnancy. A unique, living human being exists (at conception) but is denied the chance to continue its development and thus its existence. An abortion also terminates a pregnancy thereby killing a unique, living human being!
NARAL's position amounts to forcing pharmacists to be a partner in the possible killing of a unique, living, vulnerable, defenseless, unborn human being.
But as the article states, "Inslee said it is unacceptable for a minority of pharmacists to block any woman's access to legal medication based upon their personal opinions or beliefs."
Liberty raising its ugly head in the state of Washington? Perish the thought.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Abraham Lincoln
Today, marks the birthday of Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President under the U.S. Constitution. I find Lincoln to be a immense paradox. The trials of his private life and the trials of his public life.
His brilliance in the Lincoln-Douglas debates and his staunch view that slavery was wrong.
Yet, I'm convinced that his going to war against the seccessionist Southern states "in order to preserve the Union" was unconstitutional.
Had Lincoln not finally placed the war on the higher moral plane of abolishing slavery by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, I suspect he may have gone down in history far less favorably.
I also wonder if he had lived what Reconstruction would have looked like and if the racial history in the United States would have been different. In short, if our wounds would have healed.
The following links provide some insights into Lincoln's life and times.
Biography of Lincoln
Northern Illinois University Lincoln Digitization Project. Contains interesting facts about Lincoln and some of his writings.
Library of Congress' Lincoln Collection
Library of Congress Exhibition on The Gettysburg Address
Lincoln Memorial
Civil War images
Emancipation Proclamation
His brilliance in the Lincoln-Douglas debates and his staunch view that slavery was wrong.
Yet, I'm convinced that his going to war against the seccessionist Southern states "in order to preserve the Union" was unconstitutional.
Had Lincoln not finally placed the war on the higher moral plane of abolishing slavery by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, I suspect he may have gone down in history far less favorably.
I also wonder if he had lived what Reconstruction would have looked like and if the racial history in the United States would have been different. In short, if our wounds would have healed.
The following links provide some insights into Lincoln's life and times.
Biography of Lincoln
Northern Illinois University Lincoln Digitization Project. Contains interesting facts about Lincoln and some of his writings.
Library of Congress' Lincoln Collection
Library of Congress Exhibition on The Gettysburg Address
Lincoln Memorial
Civil War images
Emancipation Proclamation
Monday, December 24, 2007
The Reason for the Season - O Holy Night
Long lay the world in sin and error pining
Till He appeared and the soul felt its worth.
Till He appeared and the soul felt its worth.
This is one of those Christmas carols that helps bring the true reason for the season into focus. The reason there even needed to be a Savior.
Each one of us knows that moral crimes should be punished. We also know that we have committed moral crimes. And therefore, we know we should be punished for the moral crimes we have committed.
We long to sin, to commit these moral crimes. It is in our natures separated from the One who created us.
Yet, in an act of mercy and love, God created a way for us to escape His judgement. He offers us a pardon for the moral crimes we have committed and long to commit. So God became a man himself and took the punishment on himself.
That's why Jesus is important. He offers the way out of the judgement that is rightly ours.
The pardon, however, is only valid for those who accept it. Those who bow their knee and accept Jesus (the babe born of lowly status and laid in a manger) as their Savior.
Christmas is a time of wishing, of excitement, of love, of peace, of cheer, of good tidings, and of hope. Yet we don't really stop to think of why we need these things:
Long lay the world in sin and error pining
But then comes the good news of great joy:
Till He appears and the soul felt its worth.
A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices,
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn.
A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices,
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn.
In response, we should:
Fall on our knees, O hear the angel voices,
O night divine, O night when Christ was born,
O night divine, O night when Christ was born.
O night divine, O night when Christ was born,
O night divine, O night when Christ was born.
May your Christmas be one of falling on your knees and rejoicing in the thrill of hope brought forth by our dear Savior's birth over 2000 years ago.
Merry Christmas to you and your family!
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Saint Nicholas Day 2007
In the Rambousek house, we have never focused on Santa Claus. Instead we celebrate St. Nicholas Day (December 6th each year) in honor of the man from which spang the legend. We make gingerbread cookies and share them with our neigbors, have a special dinner, and each member of the family receives a stocking with something good to eat, something mad of paper or wood, something warm, and some money (see the story below for why these particular items).
The rest of the Christmas season, for our family, is focused on Christ. Our family hopes you have many blessings to be grateful for this year.
The following was taken and condensed from Martha Zimmerman' s book, Celebrating the Christian Year, copyright 1993.
THE REAL Santa Claus
There are very few known facts about this person, but we DO KNOW this about him. The man behind the legend was born in AD 280 to a wealthy couple who had been childless for some 30 years. He was named Nicholas. He was born in what is now Turkey. Both his parents died in a plague when he was about 9 years old and an uncle, who was a very devout Christian man, raised him.
In very early manhood, Nicholas became the Bishop of the city of Myra, a small seaport. It is known that he used the wealth of his inheritance to secretly care for the poor and destitute of the city. He served as Bishop for about 50 years and died on December 6, in approximately AD 343.
Two hundred years after his death, the church he served became known as the Church of Saint Nicholas - as the people had elevated him to sainthood long before the formal procedures of canonization were established. Nicholas was officially sainted in the 11th century.
Now for the legend - One of the best-recalled stories of Nicholas explains our current use of Christmas stockings. Nicholas knew a wealthy shipping merchant who lost all his ships and their cargo in a violent storm. The loss meant no dowry was available to ensure a proper marriage for each of his three daughters who were of marriageable age. The oldest daughter offered to sell herself as a prostitute to pay the dowries of her younger sisters. The family was appalled at her proposal.
Nicholas wanted to help. He had the resources, but he knew his friend would be hesitant and embarrassed to take "charity" and would feel obligated to him for life. He would probably never be able to repay him. After dark one night, Nicolas tossed a bag of gold coins through an open window into the daughter's room. Some of the coins fell into a stocking that had been hung to dry; some landed in the girls' shoes and some others on the floor. Nicholas quickly and silently returned to his home to avoid discovery.
Throughout his life, Nicholas consistently cared for the poor. He employed a weaver, a wood carver and a merchant to make clothing, toys and distribute food for the needy. Legend says Nicholas paid each handsomely on the condition that his identity as the benefactor remained hidden. Upon his death the townspeople discovered the Bishop had lived out the words of Jesus in Matthew 25:35-36: "I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink…I needed clothes and you clothed me…"
The Bishop was also notorious for baking bread mixed with sugar and exotic spices. Having no family of his own, Nicholas was a special friend to the children of Myra. He delighted in passing out these "gingerbreads" to the town's children. The children dubbed him, "The Gingerbread Man".
December 6 is still celebrated in many European countries as St. Nicholas Day. Children awake to discover holiday stockings filled with small toys and good things to eat. Families make and decorate gingerbread houses, people and other cookie shapes. In the United States, the holiday has been combined with Christmas as Nicholas' life exemplifies kind deeds and generosity.
In the early 1930's, Santa Claus as we know him was illustrated to be used in a Coca-Cola advertisement that coincided with the Christmas holiday. (If Pepsi had thought of it first, perhaps the Jolly Old Elf would also be sporting some blue in his holiday attire.)
The rest of the Christmas season, for our family, is focused on Christ. Our family hopes you have many blessings to be grateful for this year.
The following was taken and condensed from Martha Zimmerman' s book, Celebrating the Christian Year, copyright 1993.
THE REAL Santa Claus
There are very few known facts about this person, but we DO KNOW this about him. The man behind the legend was born in AD 280 to a wealthy couple who had been childless for some 30 years. He was named Nicholas. He was born in what is now Turkey. Both his parents died in a plague when he was about 9 years old and an uncle, who was a very devout Christian man, raised him.
In very early manhood, Nicholas became the Bishop of the city of Myra, a small seaport. It is known that he used the wealth of his inheritance to secretly care for the poor and destitute of the city. He served as Bishop for about 50 years and died on December 6, in approximately AD 343.
Two hundred years after his death, the church he served became known as the Church of Saint Nicholas - as the people had elevated him to sainthood long before the formal procedures of canonization were established. Nicholas was officially sainted in the 11th century.
Now for the legend - One of the best-recalled stories of Nicholas explains our current use of Christmas stockings. Nicholas knew a wealthy shipping merchant who lost all his ships and their cargo in a violent storm. The loss meant no dowry was available to ensure a proper marriage for each of his three daughters who were of marriageable age. The oldest daughter offered to sell herself as a prostitute to pay the dowries of her younger sisters. The family was appalled at her proposal.
Nicholas wanted to help. He had the resources, but he knew his friend would be hesitant and embarrassed to take "charity" and would feel obligated to him for life. He would probably never be able to repay him. After dark one night, Nicolas tossed a bag of gold coins through an open window into the daughter's room. Some of the coins fell into a stocking that had been hung to dry; some landed in the girls' shoes and some others on the floor. Nicholas quickly and silently returned to his home to avoid discovery.
Throughout his life, Nicholas consistently cared for the poor. He employed a weaver, a wood carver and a merchant to make clothing, toys and distribute food for the needy. Legend says Nicholas paid each handsomely on the condition that his identity as the benefactor remained hidden. Upon his death the townspeople discovered the Bishop had lived out the words of Jesus in Matthew 25:35-36: "I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink…I needed clothes and you clothed me…"
The Bishop was also notorious for baking bread mixed with sugar and exotic spices. Having no family of his own, Nicholas was a special friend to the children of Myra. He delighted in passing out these "gingerbreads" to the town's children. The children dubbed him, "The Gingerbread Man".
December 6 is still celebrated in many European countries as St. Nicholas Day. Children awake to discover holiday stockings filled with small toys and good things to eat. Families make and decorate gingerbread houses, people and other cookie shapes. In the United States, the holiday has been combined with Christmas as Nicholas' life exemplifies kind deeds and generosity.
In the early 1930's, Santa Claus as we know him was illustrated to be used in a Coca-Cola advertisement that coincided with the Christmas holiday. (If Pepsi had thought of it first, perhaps the Jolly Old Elf would also be sporting some blue in his holiday attire.)
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Barry Manilow's Oppressive Rationality
This past week, Barry Manilow decided he would not appear on the show, The View. Manilow posted on his web site (emphasis mine):
Interestingly, Manilow doesn't specify what views Hasselbeck holds that are "dangerous and offensive." He simply asserts that she - that is, not her views but Hasselbeck, herself - is "dangerous and offensive" while providing absolutely no evidence.
Second, every statement surrounding the purpose of Manilow's appearance was to promote his new album not to debate any issues with the co-hosts. Had he just appeared, no one would have compared his beliefs to anyone else on the show.
Third, even if Manilow had been on the show to debate issues, that is the format of the show. It is called The View after all. So why wouldn't Manilow want the opportunity to give solid, rational arguments in support of his positions and why Hasselbeck's positions are faulty.
I suspect it's because Mainlow doesn't hold his positions based on rational arguments. He holds them becuase they make him feel good. If someone opposes his positions, well, that doesn't make him feel good so he engages in name-calling, trying to paint Hasselbeck as evil. That makes him feel better. Rather than think carefully on this matter, he emotes.
I also suspect that Manilow believes he is an open-minded tolerant person. Thus, Manilow's labeling of Hasselbeck as "dangerous and oppressive" raises a question:
The entertainment reporting site, TMZ.com quoted Manilow as saying, "I strongly disagree with her views. I think she's dangerous and offensive. I will not be on the same stage as her."Monday, September 17, 2007
A message from Barry...
Hey guys,I wanted to let you know that I will no longer be on The View tomorrow as scheduled. I had made a request that I be interviewed by Joy, Barbara or Whoopi, but not Elisabeth Hasselback. Unfortunately, the show was not willing to accommodate this simple request so I bowed out.It’s really too bad because I've always been a big supporter of the show, but I cannot compromise my beliefs. The good news is that I will be on a whole slew of other shows promoting the new album so I hope you can catch me on those.
Love,
Barry
Interestingly, Manilow doesn't specify what views Hasselbeck holds that are "dangerous and offensive." He simply asserts that she - that is, not her views but Hasselbeck, herself - is "dangerous and offensive" while providing absolutely no evidence.
Second, every statement surrounding the purpose of Manilow's appearance was to promote his new album not to debate any issues with the co-hosts. Had he just appeared, no one would have compared his beliefs to anyone else on the show.
Third, even if Manilow had been on the show to debate issues, that is the format of the show. It is called The View after all. So why wouldn't Manilow want the opportunity to give solid, rational arguments in support of his positions and why Hasselbeck's positions are faulty.
I suspect it's because Mainlow doesn't hold his positions based on rational arguments. He holds them becuase they make him feel good. If someone opposes his positions, well, that doesn't make him feel good so he engages in name-calling, trying to paint Hasselbeck as evil. That makes him feel better. Rather than think carefully on this matter, he emotes.
I also suspect that Manilow believes he is an open-minded tolerant person. Thus, Manilow's labeling of Hasselbeck as "dangerous and oppressive" raises a question:
What would Manilow have called Hasselbeck if he was intolerant!
Friday, August 24, 2007
An Argument That Proves Too Much
Today, a Florida Circuit court judge sentenced John Evander Couey to death for kidnapping and raping 9 year old Jessica Lunsford then putting her into a trash bag and burying her alive. What struck me, however, was an argument made by Couey's attorney. From an AP story, "Lunsford Killer to Die for His Crime": "
The attorney's argument proves too much. Intellectually consistentency demands that Couey shouldn't be held at all because, after all, he is mentally retarded. But even his attorney wouldn't argue that. Why? Because Couey is guilty and freeing him denies justice.
Couey took an innocent child from the safety of her own bedroom, used her for his own pleasure, then buried her as if this innocent, defenseless human being were trash. His life should be forfeit.
To allow him to live - albeit denying him freedom - trivalizes the dignity and worth of another human being ... in this case, Jessica Lunsford.
It's time to take out the true trash.
I'm not going to argue whether Couey had a reduced mental capacity because I don't see how it matters. Even if true, why should that reduce Couey's sentence from death to life? If he is really mentally retarded then why not ten years. But wait, he's mentally retarded so why not, five years. Again, Couey is mentally retarded.The public defender representing Couey had asked for a life sentence instead of capital punishment, arguing that Couey is mildly retarded. A 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling prohibits the execution of mentally retarded people.
A judge, however, ruled earlier this month that Couey was not mentally retarded and was eligible for the death penalty. At today's hearing, Howard again batted away the arguments that Couey's mental aptitude had prompted his uncontrollable behavior."
The attorney's argument proves too much. Intellectually consistentency demands that Couey shouldn't be held at all because, after all, he is mentally retarded. But even his attorney wouldn't argue that. Why? Because Couey is guilty and freeing him denies justice.
Couey took an innocent child from the safety of her own bedroom, used her for his own pleasure, then buried her as if this innocent, defenseless human being were trash. His life should be forfeit.
To allow him to live - albeit denying him freedom - trivalizes the dignity and worth of another human being ... in this case, Jessica Lunsford.
It's time to take out the true trash.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Disrespect in a Sexually Saturated Culture
Several weeks ago, Faith Hill verbally reprimanded a female fan who grabbed her husband Tim McGraw in the crotch at the Louisiana stop of their Soul2Soul tour. According to E! Online, Hill admonished the fan from the stage,
But both McGraw and Hill wear outfits that accentuate their physical handsomeness and beauty. Sex sells. McGraw wears pants that emphasis his backside and his "privates". Or his shirt unbuttoned to show his chest hair.
Hill's photo layout for her album "Breathe" shows her reclining against a wall, with a seductive glance, one part of her sweater falling off her shoulder exposing her bra strap while the sweater front is strategically opened in the front to show the top of her laced-bra covered breast. The black sweater fails to cover most of her legs.
Does Hill not care about "grabbin' somebody else's husband's mind"? Now, there is a huge chasm between what Hill does to sell albums and what the female concertgoer did to McGraw. In fact, I think the fan should be charged. After all, what would have been the result had a male fan let his fingers do the walking on Hill?
In our sex-saturated culture, what Hill does is pretty tame. But, to say it doesn't have any affect on men, putting images into their heads - images of one man's wife into the heads of other women's husband - is foolish. That is, after all, what it is designed to do.
Hill is not physically accousting men but she is mentally accousting them. I have to wonder why that, on some level, isn't also considered "disrespectful".
Good for Hill for saying something. I would add that you don't grab anyone's private area unless - perhaps - you are married to them and they are willing to have that type of attention."Somebody needs to teach you some class, my friend," a finger-wagging Hill told
the woman. "You don't go grabbin' somebody else's, somebody's husband's
[privates], you understand me? That's very disrespectful!"
But both McGraw and Hill wear outfits that accentuate their physical handsomeness and beauty. Sex sells. McGraw wears pants that emphasis his backside and his "privates". Or his shirt unbuttoned to show his chest hair.
Hill's photo layout for her album "Breathe" shows her reclining against a wall, with a seductive glance, one part of her sweater falling off her shoulder exposing her bra strap while the sweater front is strategically opened in the front to show the top of her laced-bra covered breast. The black sweater fails to cover most of her legs.
Does Hill not care about "grabbin' somebody else's husband's mind"? Now, there is a huge chasm between what Hill does to sell albums and what the female concertgoer did to McGraw. In fact, I think the fan should be charged. After all, what would have been the result had a male fan let his fingers do the walking on Hill?
In our sex-saturated culture, what Hill does is pretty tame. But, to say it doesn't have any affect on men, putting images into their heads - images of one man's wife into the heads of other women's husband - is foolish. That is, after all, what it is designed to do.
Hill is not physically accousting men but she is mentally accousting them. I have to wonder why that, on some level, isn't also considered "disrespectful".
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Celebrating Independence
Today is the 231st anniversary of the creation of the united States of America. I have written in the past about the significance of this day, even quoting some of the Founders (see Independence Day). I've also commented on, what I believe to be, one of the most inspirational songs about this country, America the Beautiful.
So this year, I would like to make a few observations about Independence Day that occurred to me as I attended the annual Ridgefield, Washington Fourth of July Celebration Parade.
So this year, I would like to make a few observations about Independence Day that occurred to me as I attended the annual Ridgefield, Washington Fourth of July Celebration Parade.
- First, I really dislike calling this the Fourth of July. It has about as much meaning as the Third of July. It is Independence Day. That title reveals much more about the meaning of the celebration.
- Traditionally, the parade kicks off with a couple of F-15 fighter jets doing a fly over of the parade route. Very inspiring. I'm amazed at how you don't really hear the jets until they are right over you. But the raw power and grace of these machines is magnificent and a great way to start off the parade.
- When the color guard passed by at the beginning of the parade very few people actually stood. When I was growing up, I don't remember people sitting on their fat, gluteous maxumus' while the symbol of freedom and liberty passed by. That is really disrespectful although I don't think most of those who sat as the flag passed by intended to be disrespectful. I think it is a lack of education on the part of their parents and our nation.
- A young military man was riding in a Mustang. As it passed, several people applauded. To my knowledge, I was the only one who stood and applauded. That was disappointing.
- However, the next group of military came by and this time several people stood, more applause was louder, and a woman from behind me yelled, "Thanks for your service!"
- The last group of military was Marines. There were dressed in very nice looking uniforms. Most of the people stood and applauded and the woman behind me again yelled her affirmation. I think these men were very touched even as they tried to remain stoic. It was a touching moment for me.
I hope each of you have had a safe Independence Day. I hope that we all remember what happened on that day 231 years ago which birthed a new experiment in liberty such as the world has never experienced before.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Consequences of Putting Science Before Ideology
Yesterday, president Bush vetoes a bill allowing the federal government to fund embryonic stem cell research. In an AP report, "Bush vetoes embryonic stem cell bill", Deb Riechmann writes:
That is what the Nazi's did; doing medical experiments on prisoners and the less desirables of society (as defined by the Nazi's) in order to better the needs of their families (i.e. the Aryan race). For an understanding of the horrors of letting science be the arbitrator of ethics, see "The Nazi Doctors" by Robert Lifton. The issue isn't about putting ideology before science but rather is the ideology a legitimate grounds for scientific ethics.
Second, Clinton's response is to Bush's statement:
Either way, her stated position leaves her no way to argue against the actions of the Nazi's. She unknowingly echoes the Nazi concept of lebensunwertnes Leben:
"Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said if she is elected president, she will lift restrictions on stem cell research. "This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families," she said.Does Senator Clinton really want to put science before ideology?
That is what the Nazi's did; doing medical experiments on prisoners and the less desirables of society (as defined by the Nazi's) in order to better the needs of their families (i.e. the Aryan race). For an understanding of the horrors of letting science be the arbitrator of ethics, see "The Nazi Doctors" by Robert Lifton. The issue isn't about putting ideology before science but rather is the ideology a legitimate grounds for scientific ethics.
Second, Clinton's response is to Bush's statement:
"If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. I made it clear to Congress and to the American people that I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line." (emphasis added)It is a scientific fact that a human being exists from the moment of conception. So Senator Clinton's position is either that these tiny humans can be destroyed in order to benefit others or she is saying these are not really human beings and thereby denying science.
Either way, her stated position leaves her no way to argue against the actions of the Nazi's. She unknowingly echoes the Nazi concept of lebensunwertnes Leben:
Some Life is Unworthy of Life
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Becoming Children of God - part II
Yesterday, I discussed how self-described Christians were misinterpreting the concept of being a child of God. See "Becoming Children of God" for a review. The bottom line is that those who claim that individuals engaged in homosexual behavior are children of God because God created them and loves them destroy the very need for Jesus Christ and redemption.
But there is a second part that needs to be addressed: How then do we treat the sinner in our midst in a biblical and Christ-like manner?
The first point we need to remember is that we are the sinner in our midst. Activists have assaulted us with their homosexual agenda. In standing against that assault Christians need to remember that homosexual behavior is a symptom of our sinful nature just as heterosexual acts outside the confines of marriage. The same for things like adultery, murder, gossip, etc.
We are all created by God. This is where the "open and accepting" churches have it right. They Open their congregations to those engaging in homosexual behavior.
Unfortunately, these churches turn from dealing with the sin thereby implicitly loving only the physical body while ignoring the soul. Instead, they Accept the sin.
The proper Christian response is to come along side those who are in sin (here I do not speak of merely homosexual sin but any sin in which people are engaged) and help them. Be an accountability partner, pray with them, rejoice with them when they are victorious in their self-discipline, and provide a shoulder on which to cry when they fail.
This is true biblical love. This is allowing God's love shine through us onto the individual in spiritual need.
Unfortunately, the "open and accepting" churches have redefined love to mean "no condemnation". Well, more precisely, love is "no condemnation" toward behaviors that they deem acceptable. They jettison God's justice in favor of God's love seemingly unawares that without the justice of God there cannot be the love of God in any meaningful sense.
So they say to those of us that do have a heart for those in homosexual activity that we are not loving because we won't turn our heads and let them go about how they want to live.
That would actually be fine with me, if it was my creation. But it's not; it's God's creation. He designed it and us. He set forth the rules.
I can't make anyone turn their face toward God. That's between them and God. But for those who truly are seeking to come under the Lordship of Christ there are many Christians who long to show you the love of Christ and help you bear the struggles because they care about your eternal souls.
But there is a second part that needs to be addressed: How then do we treat the sinner in our midst in a biblical and Christ-like manner?
The first point we need to remember is that we are the sinner in our midst. Activists have assaulted us with their homosexual agenda. In standing against that assault Christians need to remember that homosexual behavior is a symptom of our sinful nature just as heterosexual acts outside the confines of marriage. The same for things like adultery, murder, gossip, etc.
We are all created by God. This is where the "open and accepting" churches have it right. They Open their congregations to those engaging in homosexual behavior.
Unfortunately, these churches turn from dealing with the sin thereby implicitly loving only the physical body while ignoring the soul. Instead, they Accept the sin.
The proper Christian response is to come along side those who are in sin (here I do not speak of merely homosexual sin but any sin in which people are engaged) and help them. Be an accountability partner, pray with them, rejoice with them when they are victorious in their self-discipline, and provide a shoulder on which to cry when they fail.
This is true biblical love. This is allowing God's love shine through us onto the individual in spiritual need.
Unfortunately, the "open and accepting" churches have redefined love to mean "no condemnation". Well, more precisely, love is "no condemnation" toward behaviors that they deem acceptable. They jettison God's justice in favor of God's love seemingly unawares that without the justice of God there cannot be the love of God in any meaningful sense.
So they say to those of us that do have a heart for those in homosexual activity that we are not loving because we won't turn our heads and let them go about how they want to live.
That would actually be fine with me, if it was my creation. But it's not; it's God's creation. He designed it and us. He set forth the rules.
I can't make anyone turn their face toward God. That's between them and God. But for those who truly are seeking to come under the Lordship of Christ there are many Christians who long to show you the love of Christ and help you bear the struggles because they care about your eternal souls.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Becoming Children of God
Yesterday was the Gay Pride Parade in Portland, Oregon. I caught the report on one of the local TV news stations. One of the women interviewed belonged to one of the many churches marching in the parade. She made a comment to the effect (this is not an exact quote) "that God created everyone and so we are all children of God." The implication was that therefore God loves the homosexual and does not consider homosexual behavior a sin.
This is an interesting concept, one I have heard many times before from those who say they are disciples of Jesus Christ. The problem is that this is not a biblical concept.
The Bible does not say that because God created us we are children of God. No, as even my nine-year old noted: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, {even} to those who believe in His name" (John 1:12)
In other words, we are not "children of God" merely because God created us. The "children of God" are those that believe in Jesus Christ and are obedient to Him.
Eleven times the phrase "children of God" appears in the New Testament. Each time, it describes those who have turned their face from their sinful nature and toward Jesus Christ. (See context for John 1:12; 11:52; Acts 17:29; Romans 8:16, 21; 9:8; Philippians 2:15; 1 John 3:1, 2, 10; 5:2). That is what it means to believe in Jesus Christ.
So, this woman has a mistaken notion of what being a disciple of Christ actually entails.
Secondly, if we are all children of God simply because God created us and since he loves us He would condone our behavior what actions on our part would be sinful? Adultery? But God loves us; we are children of God because He created us. Murder? Gossip? Gay-bashing? Same problem. Meaning there is no problem.
This bumper sticker theology eliminates the need for God's plan of redemption. It eliminates the need for Jesus Christ because God, in His love, turns a blind eye to justice.
But that is not the message of the Bible. We all know we have committed moral crimes and we all know moral crimes should be punished. That knowledge points to an objective moral standard; that is, a moral rule that is put in place by something outside of ourselves and to which everyone is beholden.
But if we know we have committed moral crimes and we know that moral crimes should be punished then (here's the bad news), we know we should be punished.
Here's the good news: God, in an act of true mercy and true love, provided a way for us to escape His judgement. He became a man himself and took the punishment on himself.
That's why Jesus is important. He did the time for the crimes we commit so we can be pardoned and go free.
This is an interesting concept, one I have heard many times before from those who say they are disciples of Jesus Christ. The problem is that this is not a biblical concept.
The Bible does not say that because God created us we are children of God. No, as even my nine-year old noted: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, {even} to those who believe in His name" (John 1:12)
In other words, we are not "children of God" merely because God created us. The "children of God" are those that believe in Jesus Christ and are obedient to Him.
Eleven times the phrase "children of God" appears in the New Testament. Each time, it describes those who have turned their face from their sinful nature and toward Jesus Christ. (See context for John 1:12; 11:52; Acts 17:29; Romans 8:16, 21; 9:8; Philippians 2:15; 1 John 3:1, 2, 10; 5:2). That is what it means to believe in Jesus Christ.
So, this woman has a mistaken notion of what being a disciple of Christ actually entails.
Secondly, if we are all children of God simply because God created us and since he loves us He would condone our behavior what actions on our part would be sinful? Adultery? But God loves us; we are children of God because He created us. Murder? Gossip? Gay-bashing? Same problem. Meaning there is no problem.
This bumper sticker theology eliminates the need for God's plan of redemption. It eliminates the need for Jesus Christ because God, in His love, turns a blind eye to justice.
But that is not the message of the Bible. We all know we have committed moral crimes and we all know moral crimes should be punished. That knowledge points to an objective moral standard; that is, a moral rule that is put in place by something outside of ourselves and to which everyone is beholden.
But if we know we have committed moral crimes and we know that moral crimes should be punished then (here's the bad news), we know we should be punished.
Here's the good news: God, in an act of true mercy and true love, provided a way for us to escape His judgement. He became a man himself and took the punishment on himself.
That's why Jesus is important. He did the time for the crimes we commit so we can be pardoned and go free.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
D-Day June 6, 2007
Sixty-three years ago today Operation Overlord, the largest invasion in history commenced against Hitler's "Fortress Europe". I am currently reading the book, "D-Day" by Stephen Ambrose, which is a stirring and often sobering account from interviews with many of the actual participants and from military records.
Had the Allied forces been repelled, how would Europe (or the rest of the world) look today? How would that have impacted the Eastern Front? We probably don't often think about these pivot moments of history.
That longest day in 1944 was a pivotal point in history, faced by men and women who grasped a higher cause above their own well-being at significant, and many times ultimate, cost.
For further information:
Had the Allied forces been repelled, how would Europe (or the rest of the world) look today? How would that have impacted the Eastern Front? We probably don't often think about these pivot moments of history.
That longest day in 1944 was a pivotal point in history, faced by men and women who grasped a higher cause above their own well-being at significant, and many times ultimate, cost.
For further information:
- National World War II Memorial
- Encyclopaedia Britannica's Guide to Normandy 1944 (contains maps, veteran's accounts, photos, etc)
- PBS' "American Experience: D-day"
- A friend of mine also recommends the book, "The Victors" by Stephen Ambrose
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
John Laird and The Test for Intellectual Honesty
Columbian Editorial Page Editor John Laird May 27, 2007 editorial contained some miscellaneous thoughts including the following:
Larry: Regarding the your May 27th column, sub-heading “One word, and a piece of paper”, I agree with your view that there is no meaningful difference between civil unions and marriage since civil unions “allow every condition of marriage.” You criticized opponents of same-gender marriage for saying there is a difference. Will you also publicly criticize the Oregon Legislature for passing legislation allowing “every condition of marriage” for same gender relationships thereby violating their state constitution that says marriage is between a man and a woman?
Second, the phrase “gay marriage” is incorrect. Gays already have the same rights to marriage as every other citizen. John Laird cannot marry a male. Neither can a homosexual male marry a male. Both can marry a female. They have exactly the same rights and equal protection under the law. The real issue is whether government
should endorse the marriage relationship as strictly between opposite genders or also allow same gender relationships also.
This is important in regards to your illustration comparing this issue with race. A more apt comparison would be to say that men could now have unlimited access to women’s restrooms (or visa versa) only you can’t say you are using the women’s restroom.
John Laird: Thank you for reading the column and taking the time to respond. I appreciate it. We always get a lot of feedback on both sides of this issue. You make some very good points. Feel free to submit a letter to the editor if you like.
Larry: Thanks for your response. I was inquiring as to whether you would be willing to hold both sides to the same criticism that you voiced in your column since both sides are guilty of the same thing. Or if you only intend to criticize those with whom you disagree.
I can write a letter to the editor pointing out the one-sidedness of that particular part of your column. However, if you write about how both sides are misusing the concept of civil unions, it would show that you are being fair by
applying your critique to both sides of the issue. Just a thought.
+++
As of this writing, I have not received a response from John whether he will publicly apply his criticism to all whom it applies, including his side of the debate. I suspect that he will not since his past style has been to write in such a way that places those with whom he disagrees in the most ridiculous light possible.
But, if his criticism of same-sex marriage opponents is legitimate in regards to their view of civil unions then it speaks volumes of advocates who have pushed civil unions in Oregon in violation of their constitution that says marriage is between a man and a woman.
The Test for Intellectual Honesty now stands before John Laird. Will he pass? Time will tell.
John advocates same-sex marriage. In order to criticize the opposition, he has made a startling admission, that is, the concept of civil unions is no different from the concept of marriage. In response, I sent an email to John. Following is our email discussion:One word, and a piece of paper - You gotta wonder about people who say they oppose gay marriage but support civil unions. In other words, they will allow every condition of marriage except the use of the word and the granting of a certificate.
That's like a country club telling an applicant of a different skin color: "OK, here's our offer. You can park in our parking lot, use our locker room, play on our golf course, win our trophies and eat in our dining room. But you absolutely cannot say you're a member of our country club, and you
cannot have a membership card. Oh, no, 'cause that would erode the sanctity of our institution."
Larry: Regarding the your May 27th column, sub-heading “One word, and a piece of paper”, I agree with your view that there is no meaningful difference between civil unions and marriage since civil unions “allow every condition of marriage.” You criticized opponents of same-gender marriage for saying there is a difference. Will you also publicly criticize the Oregon Legislature for passing legislation allowing “every condition of marriage” for same gender relationships thereby violating their state constitution that says marriage is between a man and a woman?
Second, the phrase “gay marriage” is incorrect. Gays already have the same rights to marriage as every other citizen. John Laird cannot marry a male. Neither can a homosexual male marry a male. Both can marry a female. They have exactly the same rights and equal protection under the law. The real issue is whether government
should endorse the marriage relationship as strictly between opposite genders or also allow same gender relationships also.
This is important in regards to your illustration comparing this issue with race. A more apt comparison would be to say that men could now have unlimited access to women’s restrooms (or visa versa) only you can’t say you are using the women’s restroom.
John Laird: Thank you for reading the column and taking the time to respond. I appreciate it. We always get a lot of feedback on both sides of this issue. You make some very good points. Feel free to submit a letter to the editor if you like.
Larry: Thanks for your response. I was inquiring as to whether you would be willing to hold both sides to the same criticism that you voiced in your column since both sides are guilty of the same thing. Or if you only intend to criticize those with whom you disagree.
I can write a letter to the editor pointing out the one-sidedness of that particular part of your column. However, if you write about how both sides are misusing the concept of civil unions, it would show that you are being fair by
applying your critique to both sides of the issue. Just a thought.
+++
As of this writing, I have not received a response from John whether he will publicly apply his criticism to all whom it applies, including his side of the debate. I suspect that he will not since his past style has been to write in such a way that places those with whom he disagrees in the most ridiculous light possible.
But, if his criticism of same-sex marriage opponents is legitimate in regards to their view of civil unions then it speaks volumes of advocates who have pushed civil unions in Oregon in violation of their constitution that says marriage is between a man and a woman.
The Test for Intellectual Honesty now stands before John Laird. Will he pass? Time will tell.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Silent Voices
This past Saturday (June 2, 2007), was the Walk for Life to raise funds for the local Community Pregnancy Center which helps women and teens facing unplanned pregnancies. A friend of mine co-wrote a song about the child with in the womb.
Both composers performed the song for our community's walk:
Silent Voices
In hidden shrouds new life has begun,
Deep within, a daughter or son!
Knit of God, but torn by a "choice,"
Can no one hear their innocent voice?
Silent voices, silent lives, unseen tears, unheard cries;
Silent voices, silently cry, God's precious gift is tossed a - side.
Never knowing simple delights,
Never having joy in this life,
Never sharing a hug or a kiss,
Silent pleas remain on their lips.
Silent voices, silent lives, unseen tears, unheard cries;
Silent voices, silently cry, God's precious gift is tossed a - side.
Hidden talents, silenced and stilled,
Vacant places - voids never filled;
Guilt leaves us with only the tears,
Till in heaven, their voices we hear.
Hear the voices of grateful lives,
Untold millions, no more cries;
Jubilant voices, no tears can be found,
God's precious gift is safe and sound.
Don't you know, our God always hears?
Each silent plea reaches His ears?
He also hears our cries of despair, even our grief is in His care...
Their precious life...Your precious life...
Each precious life is in God's care.
©1995 Bob Heberling/Pat Richardson
Both composers performed the song for our community's walk:
Silent Voices
In hidden shrouds new life has begun,
Deep within, a daughter or son!
Knit of God, but torn by a "choice,"
Can no one hear their innocent voice?
Silent voices, silent lives, unseen tears, unheard cries;
Silent voices, silently cry, God's precious gift is tossed a - side.
Never knowing simple delights,
Never having joy in this life,
Never sharing a hug or a kiss,
Silent pleas remain on their lips.
Silent voices, silent lives, unseen tears, unheard cries;
Silent voices, silently cry, God's precious gift is tossed a - side.
Hidden talents, silenced and stilled,
Vacant places - voids never filled;
Guilt leaves us with only the tears,
Till in heaven, their voices we hear.
Hear the voices of grateful lives,
Untold millions, no more cries;
Jubilant voices, no tears can be found,
God's precious gift is safe and sound.
Don't you know, our God always hears?
Each silent plea reaches His ears?
He also hears our cries of despair, even our grief is in His care...
Their precious life...Your precious life...
Each precious life is in God's care.
©1995 Bob Heberling/Pat Richardson
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Gay "Equality" Totalitarian Movement (GET 'M)
From Reuters today, comes the report that eHarmony sued in California for excluding gays: "
The answer is because the Gay "Equality" Totalitarian Movement (GET 'M) disallows any and all dissent against homosexual behavior. Instead of Carlson having the freedom to choose a service that offers her the product she wants AND eHarmony having the freedom to choose to offer the services they want, the Totalitarians of GET 'M say if you don't approve of homosexual behavior we will make you pay!
The lawyer, Todd Schneider, claimed the lawsuit is "about changing the landscape and making a statement out there that gay people, just like heterosexuals, have the right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love."
Really Mr. Schneider? How was your client denied the "right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love." The only way that it can be classified as a denial of rights is if Carlson has the "right" to demand what she wants wherever she wants it from whomever she wants. Of course, that isn't a right, tolerance or liberty.
But it does show the true colors of a movement that long ago lost its moral grounding in true equality.
The popular online dating service eHarmony was sued on Thursday for refusing to offer its services to gays, lesbians and bisexuals. A lawsuit alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of Linda Carlson, who was denied access to eHarmony because she is gay. Lawyers bringing the action said they believed it was the first lawsuit of its kind against eHarmony, which has long rankled the gay community with its failure to offer a "men seeking men" or "women seeking women" option."Here's the question for Carlson. Why don't you use one of the many online services that does offer "men seeking men" and "women seeking women" services? Why not choose a dating service that offers the services you want?
The answer is because the Gay "Equality" Totalitarian Movement (GET 'M) disallows any and all dissent against homosexual behavior. Instead of Carlson having the freedom to choose a service that offers her the product she wants AND eHarmony having the freedom to choose to offer the services they want, the Totalitarians of GET 'M say if you don't approve of homosexual behavior we will make you pay!
The lawyer, Todd Schneider, claimed the lawsuit is "about changing the landscape and making a statement out there that gay people, just like heterosexuals, have the right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love."
Really Mr. Schneider? How was your client denied the "right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love." The only way that it can be classified as a denial of rights is if Carlson has the "right" to demand what she wants wherever she wants it from whomever she wants. Of course, that isn't a right, tolerance or liberty.
But it does show the true colors of a movement that long ago lost its moral grounding in true equality.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
The solution for moral crimes
The following letter to the editor from George Thomas of Vancouver, WA appeared in May 25th The Columbian (Vancouver, WA) newsapaper. My response follows:
Thomas implies that there is something bad in these events and that a heavenly plan would not have bad events but good. But where does he find this notion of mayhem? As C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity:
What gives Thomas the animal more moral authority over the animals who pick up holy books? Who is Thomas to say the Virginia Tech killings are an example of mayhem. If there is no objective standard then there is only personal preference, that is, what someone likes or dislikes. A "human animal" has a personal preference of ending the lives of "human animals" on a campus. Thomas dislikes that. Why is that bad or mayhem? Thomas' evolutionary atheology has no answer.
"Murder, suicide, endless mayhem" only make sense if there is an objective standard by which actions are measured. Thomas knows this. That is why he can say those actions are bad. He is denying the very thing his argument requires (an objective standard from a transcendant source) to be rational.
Thomas believes:
But there is good news. In an act of mercy and love, God provided a solution for us to escape His judgement.
He became a man himself and took the punishment on himself. He's the one who took the sentence for the crimes we committed so we can be pardoned, released, and go free.
That's why Jesus is important.
[1] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Collier Books, MacMillian Publishing Company, New York, 1960, p. 45.
Animals act like animals
The Virginia Tech shooting brings it all up again, doesn't it? Murder, suicide, endless mayhem - sounds crazy, doesn't it? No wonder people have unanswerable questions. They're stuck dumb with wonder. They wonder why God allows such things to happen. They wonder why God's tornado strikes down this church and spares that topless bar, or vice versa. They blame themselves or others as sinners.
People have been putting blame or reading godly purposes into the cosmos since forever. They never get a satisfactory answer and the mayhem goes on. It's so simple, really. The only explanation that fits all the facts is that there is no "God," no "godly" purpose in any event and never has been. If their were a heavenly plan, would it look like this?
All mayhem is the result of natural accidents or of human animals, recently evolved from nonhuman animals, with the consciousness of hunter-gatherers who find themselves in a modern society they don't quite fit into yet.
They keep trying to understand the problem with the wrong set of instructions. If they want answers that fit the facts, they need to put down their holy books and read up in the cognitive sciences.
George Thomas
Vancouver
Thomas implies that there is something bad in these events and that a heavenly plan would not have bad events but good. But where does he find this notion of mayhem? As C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity:
"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"[1]Thomas' worldview cannot account for objective right and wrong. He tells us we've evolved from nonhuman animals. We're nothing more than animals ourselves. There is no objective standard outside ourselves. We animals make the rules. Thomas says we should "put down [our] holy books and and read up in the cognitive sciences." My question is why?
What gives Thomas the animal more moral authority over the animals who pick up holy books? Who is Thomas to say the Virginia Tech killings are an example of mayhem. If there is no objective standard then there is only personal preference, that is, what someone likes or dislikes. A "human animal" has a personal preference of ending the lives of "human animals" on a campus. Thomas dislikes that. Why is that bad or mayhem? Thomas' evolutionary atheology has no answer.
"Murder, suicide, endless mayhem" only make sense if there is an objective standard by which actions are measured. Thomas knows this. That is why he can say those actions are bad. He is denying the very thing his argument requires (an objective standard from a transcendant source) to be rational.
Thomas believes:
"The only explanation that fits all the facts is that there is no 'God,' no 'godly' purpose in any event and never has been. If their were a heavenly plan, would it look like this?"In reality, the only explanation that fits all the facts is that there is a 'God,' with a 'godly' purpose in any event and always has been. And the Creator's heavenly plan, rejected by the creation, would have consequences that look exactly like this! The endless mayhem doesn't just include murder but every single moral crime that we have ever committed, no matter how small. I'm guilty. Thomas is guilty. Everyone reading this blog is guilty.
But there is good news. In an act of mercy and love, God provided a solution for us to escape His judgement.
He became a man himself and took the punishment on himself. He's the one who took the sentence for the crimes we committed so we can be pardoned, released, and go free.
That's why Jesus is important.
[1] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Collier Books, MacMillian Publishing Company, New York, 1960, p. 45.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Life is a Wisp
My youngest son turned 9 years old yesterday. We had a great day. I took him and his brother to see Spider-man 3, we went to lunch at Red Robin, went to a park, came home and had dinner and watched the Fantastic Four movie, had cake and ice cream and opened presents. It was a fun day.
Today, at work, I learned that a woman I work with lost her 22 year old son in a car accident. He was with a friend and their car crossed the median into oncoming traffic and hit another car killing themselves and the two people in the other car ( a father and his 12 year old son returning home from the boy's baseball game).
Life is a wisp. We never know when it might end. I don't know what caused the accident. I don't know if it could have been avoided. I do know that there are three families who are in a great amount of pain right now. I hope they remember the good times they had with their loved ones.
It reminds me to cherish times like our family had yesterday. We don't know what the morrow will bring.
Today, at work, I learned that a woman I work with lost her 22 year old son in a car accident. He was with a friend and their car crossed the median into oncoming traffic and hit another car killing themselves and the two people in the other car ( a father and his 12 year old son returning home from the boy's baseball game).
Life is a wisp. We never know when it might end. I don't know what caused the accident. I don't know if it could have been avoided. I do know that there are three families who are in a great amount of pain right now. I hope they remember the good times they had with their loved ones.
It reminds me to cherish times like our family had yesterday. We don't know what the morrow will bring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
