Part 1 is here.
------------------
CL says:
"Mikelman, You said "We are not talking about the legalization of homosexual
behavior...As for gay rights in general ... I don't think ...those
are being affected either. ... We aren't talking about gay behavior or
marriage within the church..... If one pauses to digest what we are not
talking about it may be easier to talk about in a rational way."
Monday, May 6, 2013
Like Rams Butting Heads (Part 1)
Commenting on internet blogposts can be a good thing, and they can also be a big time-waster. They can be good because I have learned a lot from other people, and they can sometimes be a big time-waster when people that you are commenting with don't read your responses and end up replying back to you with points that don't even address your main points or arguments at all. And it feels like rams butting their heads.
But, for the audience involved, I think that reading the exchanges can help, nonetheless.
I linked recently about the historical development of (R)2K (link), and about 100 something comments ensued. I had an exchange with "mikelmann", and it started off promising, but in the end, it was very disappointing.
---------------------------------
(Mikelmann is talking about DTM's post about (R)2K).
mikelmann says: "I have previously reviewed your inability to discuss these things in a principled manner. http://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/?s=pushing+all+those. This post is a new low."
(DTM provided an exchange in which Michael Horton said that he could possibly affirm civil arrangements for homosexual couples.)
CL says: "Mikelmann, No doubt people have very vigorous feelings on both sides. I am always open for discussion and exchanging of ideas. In terms of DTM's arguments, it would benefit everyone involved if you could put forth an argument as to why you feel that he is wrong. I am always very interested in engaging and I feel that this would benefit all.
But, for the audience involved, I think that reading the exchanges can help, nonetheless.
I linked recently about the historical development of (R)2K (link), and about 100 something comments ensued. I had an exchange with "mikelmann", and it started off promising, but in the end, it was very disappointing.
---------------------------------
(Mikelmann is talking about DTM's post about (R)2K).
mikelmann says: "I have previously reviewed your inability to discuss these things in a principled manner. http://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/?s=pushing+all+those. This post is a new low."
(DTM provided an exchange in which Michael Horton said that he could possibly affirm civil arrangements for homosexual couples.)
CL says: "Mikelmann, No doubt people have very vigorous feelings on both sides. I am always open for discussion and exchanging of ideas. In terms of DTM's arguments, it would benefit everyone involved if you could put forth an argument as to why you feel that he is wrong. I am always very interested in engaging and I feel that this would benefit all.
In terms of Dr Horton's response, let's give him maximum benefit of
the doubt when he says that he opposes homosexual unions, marriages
etc... I have read his original article and to me, it is clear that he
does oppose them. So, in that, if DTM did imply that Dr Horton does not
oppose these acts, then DTM did err.
The meat of Dr Horton's response is in the second to last paragraph. Dr Horton says: "Being open to affirming a civil arrangement that allows partners inheritance, insurance, and other economic benefits, is NOT being open to same-sex relationships."
I can understand why Dr. Horton attempts to make this point. I could easily see of instances in which say, best (non-homosexual) male friends could fit into this "civil arrangement" for economic purposes. Part of the difficulty with this situation is that, for instance, economic benefits are specially tied to married couples and not to others. This suggests a temporal reflection of how people have originally recognized that marriage is indeed a special relationship, unlike other relationships. If these economic benefits did not exist, does this denigrate marriage? No, of course not.
So, from a moral standpoint, MUST you be married in order to receive these benefits? No. I should be able to receive economic benefits from my best friend, sister, cousin, whomever, if that person should choose to give it to me.
I can see how Dr Horton is trying to make a case for "civil arrangement" and trying to do it on the fact that the partners know each other, without having to affirm their homosexuality involvement.
Even from a theoretical standpoint however, they are involved with each other not simply because they are friends, but because they are in a homosexual relationship. Their involvement is of an homosexual intent. So, the distinction that Dr Horton is trying to make is forced and artificial. He is trying to make a distinction between them knowing each other well and being in a homosexual relationship. Again, they know each other well **because** they are in that relationship together. There is no distinction to make. Those two people would never have been involved with each other if they were not in that homosexual relationship.
Because Dr Horton does not recognize that a distinction cannot be made, he can of course conclude that his position on civil arrangements does not promote same-sex relationships. When you approve of a civil arrangement, you are by definition affirming the relationship that is brought about the civil arrangement. By affirming the relationship, you are affirming the basis that brought about the relationship.
So, while I can understand Dr Horton's attempt, logically speaking, you cannot recognize the distinction that he is trying to make. And while he is saying that he is against homosexual unions, he is not taking the logic train far enough in understanding that civil arrangements by its very nature affirms the relationship between two lesbians and the homosexual basis behind it.
I do believe that he is against homosexual marriages and unions. However, he doesn't realize that his position on civil arrangements does logically lead him to affirm homosexual unions and activities.
Now, from a practical standpoint: Even if we could logically make that distinction for civil arrangement purposes (which we can't for the reasons I stated above), the other problem is that the general homosexual community sees this as an opportunity in to "normalizing" the homosexual agenda.
Dr Horton is correct that through the issue of homosexual unions, and now homosexual marriages, the lobby is not interested in equal rights. However, he then contradicts himself by saying that the issue is really about equal "affirmation" of both "types" of marriages. Those two concepts of "rights" and "affirmation" are really the same thing.
Additionally, there is a broader issue at stake here, and that is that the homosexual agenda is really gunning for the silencing of any voice that is opposed to their agenda.
It isn't an issue of equal "affirmation".. It is an issue of using the state to force their agenda on everyone.
Take a look at the GLAAD website and read their article about Jim Duggar's son joining some conservative ethics group. GLAAD was very adamant in seeing what they could do to bring a lawsuit against the TV station that airs their reality show. How is this a demonstration of being "tolerant" of other viewpoints if you are trying to sue someone?
The homosexual agenda is not interested in equal "affirmation". They are interested in actively silencing any opposition. Just look at the news.. You will see reports of a bakery in Oregon being sued (and homosexual marriage isnt even legal in Oregon, yet......) because the Christian baker denied a lesbian couple a wedding cake.. Of course, the news doesnt tell you that that couple has been a client of the baker's for years before, and he knew that they were homosexual. He provided them their cakes for whatever other social (non-marriage) events that they were holding."
mikelmann says: "Christopher, I appreciate that you have put thought into this. The commenters tend to come off as fawners or crowds with pitchforks, so you are a bit of a surprise. I think it's helpful to first delimit what we are talking about. We are not talking about the legalization of homosexual behavior, which has been legal for quite some time. We aren't talking about legalizing the cohabitation of gays either. As for gay rights in general - outside of what traditionally attaches to marriage relationship - I don't think (though I'm not certain) those are being affected either; my state already had gender alongside race, etc., as a protected civil rights status. We aren't talking about gay behavior or marriage within the church. If one pauses to digest what we are not talking about it may be easier to talk about in a rational way.
What we are talking about is a bundle of rights and obligations that the magistrate attaches to marriages. As far as mere civil unions are concerned, we're talkiing about things like inheritance, tax status, and the necessity of divorcing to terminate the bundle of rights and obligations. The current case before the SCOTUS on the Defense of Marriage Act, for example, boils down to whether a lesbian will be heavily taxed on what she will inherit from her gay spouse.
I oppose gay marriage in the church obviously and also oppose gay marriage by the magistrate. I believe "marriage" tends to give tacit approval of the relationship, and that giving that approval may make it more of a stigma than it currently to morally opposed homosexual behavior. But I could be wrong. It may well be the case that public opinion is moving fully in the direction of fuller acceptance and that label would do little or nothing that won't happen anyway.
But even given my opinions against gay marriage, I don't think it should be a test of orthodoxy. Consider the WLC on the 7th commandment:
"The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections;all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life, undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce, or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others."
The moral law of God says a lot about what is forbidden in the broadly sexual realm. Is it a matter of orthodoxy that a man must be in favor of the magistrate sanctioning all of them? If not, why is one being selected? Probably because "we" are taking our marching orders from the culture warriors and have become so politicized that we have lost the ability to consider things biblically.
As far as responded to Darrell - with whom I have had many conversations (some profitable) I am reminded of petitions that prisoners draft and send to judges. They raise, in rambling form, all kinds of legal issues some of which are outlandish and some of which are kinda sorta plausible. The judge has to address all of them. Well, DTM gets his pixels from a big barrel, and I just don't have the time to address all of what he says. Suffice to say I think his perspective is highly politicized and more intended to stir people up than to inform."
-------------------------
Part 2 next....
The meat of Dr Horton's response is in the second to last paragraph. Dr Horton says: "Being open to affirming a civil arrangement that allows partners inheritance, insurance, and other economic benefits, is NOT being open to same-sex relationships."
I can understand why Dr. Horton attempts to make this point. I could easily see of instances in which say, best (non-homosexual) male friends could fit into this "civil arrangement" for economic purposes. Part of the difficulty with this situation is that, for instance, economic benefits are specially tied to married couples and not to others. This suggests a temporal reflection of how people have originally recognized that marriage is indeed a special relationship, unlike other relationships. If these economic benefits did not exist, does this denigrate marriage? No, of course not.
So, from a moral standpoint, MUST you be married in order to receive these benefits? No. I should be able to receive economic benefits from my best friend, sister, cousin, whomever, if that person should choose to give it to me.
I can see how Dr Horton is trying to make a case for "civil arrangement" and trying to do it on the fact that the partners know each other, without having to affirm their homosexuality involvement.
Even from a theoretical standpoint however, they are involved with each other not simply because they are friends, but because they are in a homosexual relationship. Their involvement is of an homosexual intent. So, the distinction that Dr Horton is trying to make is forced and artificial. He is trying to make a distinction between them knowing each other well and being in a homosexual relationship. Again, they know each other well **because** they are in that relationship together. There is no distinction to make. Those two people would never have been involved with each other if they were not in that homosexual relationship.
Because Dr Horton does not recognize that a distinction cannot be made, he can of course conclude that his position on civil arrangements does not promote same-sex relationships. When you approve of a civil arrangement, you are by definition affirming the relationship that is brought about the civil arrangement. By affirming the relationship, you are affirming the basis that brought about the relationship.
So, while I can understand Dr Horton's attempt, logically speaking, you cannot recognize the distinction that he is trying to make. And while he is saying that he is against homosexual unions, he is not taking the logic train far enough in understanding that civil arrangements by its very nature affirms the relationship between two lesbians and the homosexual basis behind it.
I do believe that he is against homosexual marriages and unions. However, he doesn't realize that his position on civil arrangements does logically lead him to affirm homosexual unions and activities.
Now, from a practical standpoint: Even if we could logically make that distinction for civil arrangement purposes (which we can't for the reasons I stated above), the other problem is that the general homosexual community sees this as an opportunity in to "normalizing" the homosexual agenda.
Dr Horton is correct that through the issue of homosexual unions, and now homosexual marriages, the lobby is not interested in equal rights. However, he then contradicts himself by saying that the issue is really about equal "affirmation" of both "types" of marriages. Those two concepts of "rights" and "affirmation" are really the same thing.
Additionally, there is a broader issue at stake here, and that is that the homosexual agenda is really gunning for the silencing of any voice that is opposed to their agenda.
It isn't an issue of equal "affirmation".. It is an issue of using the state to force their agenda on everyone.
Take a look at the GLAAD website and read their article about Jim Duggar's son joining some conservative ethics group. GLAAD was very adamant in seeing what they could do to bring a lawsuit against the TV station that airs their reality show. How is this a demonstration of being "tolerant" of other viewpoints if you are trying to sue someone?
The homosexual agenda is not interested in equal "affirmation". They are interested in actively silencing any opposition. Just look at the news.. You will see reports of a bakery in Oregon being sued (and homosexual marriage isnt even legal in Oregon, yet......) because the Christian baker denied a lesbian couple a wedding cake.. Of course, the news doesnt tell you that that couple has been a client of the baker's for years before, and he knew that they were homosexual. He provided them their cakes for whatever other social (non-marriage) events that they were holding."
mikelmann says: "Christopher, I appreciate that you have put thought into this. The commenters tend to come off as fawners or crowds with pitchforks, so you are a bit of a surprise. I think it's helpful to first delimit what we are talking about. We are not talking about the legalization of homosexual behavior, which has been legal for quite some time. We aren't talking about legalizing the cohabitation of gays either. As for gay rights in general - outside of what traditionally attaches to marriage relationship - I don't think (though I'm not certain) those are being affected either; my state already had gender alongside race, etc., as a protected civil rights status. We aren't talking about gay behavior or marriage within the church. If one pauses to digest what we are not talking about it may be easier to talk about in a rational way.
What we are talking about is a bundle of rights and obligations that the magistrate attaches to marriages. As far as mere civil unions are concerned, we're talkiing about things like inheritance, tax status, and the necessity of divorcing to terminate the bundle of rights and obligations. The current case before the SCOTUS on the Defense of Marriage Act, for example, boils down to whether a lesbian will be heavily taxed on what she will inherit from her gay spouse.
I oppose gay marriage in the church obviously and also oppose gay marriage by the magistrate. I believe "marriage" tends to give tacit approval of the relationship, and that giving that approval may make it more of a stigma than it currently to morally opposed homosexual behavior. But I could be wrong. It may well be the case that public opinion is moving fully in the direction of fuller acceptance and that label would do little or nothing that won't happen anyway.
But even given my opinions against gay marriage, I don't think it should be a test of orthodoxy. Consider the WLC on the 7th commandment:
"The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections;all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life, undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce, or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others."
The moral law of God says a lot about what is forbidden in the broadly sexual realm. Is it a matter of orthodoxy that a man must be in favor of the magistrate sanctioning all of them? If not, why is one being selected? Probably because "we" are taking our marching orders from the culture warriors and have become so politicized that we have lost the ability to consider things biblically.
As far as responded to Darrell - with whom I have had many conversations (some profitable) I am reminded of petitions that prisoners draft and send to judges. They raise, in rambling form, all kinds of legal issues some of which are outlandish and some of which are kinda sorta plausible. The judge has to address all of them. Well, DTM gets his pixels from a big barrel, and I just don't have the time to address all of what he says. Suffice to say I think his perspective is highly politicized and more intended to stir people up than to inform."
-------------------------
Part 2 next....
Friday, May 3, 2013
Like Sheep Being Led to the Slaughter, Willingly and Unknowingly
I just saw this. It amazes me how the journalists whose duty it is to give us our news is (1) either so grossly uneducated about what the communist flag is or what it even represents, or (2) she is so intellectually dishonest in trying to cover the May Day event.
Either way, this is the type of journalism that is happening around the country, and is extremely detrimental to our society.
And if that is not bad enough, she is absolutely unwilling to engage and attempt to understand what the guy recording is trying to say. Please stop thinking that the mainstream media has any real resemblance to properly informing you. You must do your homework and go to reputable news sources. I have some links on my blog. There are many others.
Of course, the larger issue is about conflicting worldviews. We need more people to stand for the utmost of moral truth, and this can only be done by Christians.
Recently, a certain seminary professor said that if we end up becoming a totalitarian state, then so be it... I was amazed at that response and how willing he was in practice to so easily concede to being a sheep being led to the slaughter.
When did it ever become acceptable to simply allow those to abuse the authority that God gave them (Rom 13), and simply give up and roll over without attempting to push back or fight for truth?
When did it ever become acceptable for us as Christians, who have the revealed law of God, to simply allow others to continue to sin, murder and abuse others created in God's image and not shine the light of the Gospel and the wonderful standard of the law of Christ to those around us?
The video is here.
Open Letter to Supreme Court of the United States of America (Part 3, final)
Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here. Part 3 is below and separately linked here.
------------------
Claim 8) Homosexual marriage is readily embraced by all other countries.
Response 8) Sexually progressive France held protests (November 17, 2012) concerning homosexual marriage. Imagine the shock to the international community when French citizens came out by the hundreds of thousands to protest against homosexual marriage. The French were protesting to fight against a parliamentary bill redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships and legalizing same-sex adoption.
------------------
Claim 8) Homosexual marriage is readily embraced by all other countries.
Response 8) Sexually progressive France held protests (November 17, 2012) concerning homosexual marriage. Imagine the shock to the international community when French citizens came out by the hundreds of thousands to protest against homosexual marriage. The French were protesting to fight against a parliamentary bill redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships and legalizing same-sex adoption.
-----------------------------------------------
Reuters reports:
Opponents
of homosexual marriage and adoption, including most faith leaders in France,
have argued that the reform would create psychological and social problems for
children, which they believe should trump the desire for equal rights for gay
adults.
Support for gay marriage in France has
slipped by about 10 percentage points to under 55 percent since opponents began
speaking out and fewer than half of those polled recently wanted gays to win
adoption rights. Organizers insist they
are not against gays and lesbians but for the rights of children to have a
father and mother.
-------------------------------------------------
The basic point is this: without the
intervention of government, there is no a
priori understanding that can help us to understand certain types of homosexual
relationships as being marriage. Homosexual marriage was not even considered until
recently. Unlike heterosexual marriage, which exists in nature since man’s
existence and is then recognized by
the state, homosexual marriage is an abstract legal entity with no natural or prior
existential existence. Indeed, once the term marriage is divorced from nature
like this, then logically there’s no limit to the relationship types that can
have ‘marriage’ or ‘family’ status conferred on it by the state.
All this has enormous implications for
how we understand the relationship between the family and the state. But have we really considered the
implications of saying that marriage and family should be defined by the state?
There is no escaping from this problem. If homosexuals and heterosexuals are
really “equal” before the law, then logically heterosexual (and even homosexual
) marriage must collapse into being little more than a legal construct as well.
Canadian theologian Douglas Farrow showed
that after Canada legalized same-sex marriage, even traditional marriage were
viewed as little more than a legal construct. In his book, Nation of Bastards, he
warned that by claiming power to re-invent marriage, Canada “has drawn marriage
and the family into a captive orbit. It (reversed) the gravitational field
between the family and the state… It has effectively made every man, woman, and
child a chattel of the state, by turning
their most fundamental human connections into mere legal constructs at the
state’s disposal. It has transformed (them) from divine gifts to gifts from
the state.”
Once
homosexual marriage is introduced, it will undermine the integrity of every
family and every marriage in it. The
state which legalizes gay marriage has assumed the god-like power to declare what
constitutes a ‘family.’ By this assumption, government declares that both
marriage and family are little more than legal constructs at best, and gifts
from the state at worst. In the former case, marriage and family lose their
objective fixity; in the latter case, we become the wards of the state.
(http://salvomag.com/blog/2013/03/five-gay-marriage-myths/)
Sincerely,
Christopher Lee
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Major change on Christians in military
This is a follow up post to the issue of court-martialling Christians for sharing their faith. Thank God for groups like Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) and American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).
The original link to the news article is here.
----------------------------
The Pentagon announced today that military members who want to talk about their faith with other members have every right to do so, backtracking on a previous warning against “proselytizing,” which it said could be subject to court-martial.
The statement from Lt. Cmdr. Nathan Christensen said the Department of Defense “never and will never single out a particular religious group for persecution or prosecution.”
The Pentagon walked back its statement earlier this week after the
Alliance Defending Freedom filed a Freedom of Information Act request
for records relating to Pentagon statements on the issue.
“Members of our military should not be denied the very freedoms they fight to defend. Freedom of religion and speech are paramount among those freedoms,” said ADF Legal Counsel Joseph La Rue. “We appreciate the Pentagon’s clarification, but little or no evidence exists of coercive proselytization in the military, so we are still troubled over what motivated the original comments.
The Pentagon’s Christensen said the statement today that the Department of Defense department “makes reasonable accommodations for all religions and celebrates the religious diversity of our service members.”
“Service members can share their faith (evangelize), but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one’s beliefs (proselytization),” he said.
Christensen said that if a service member “harasses another member on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability, then the commander takes action based on the gravity of the occurrence.”
“Likewise, when religious harassment complaints are reported, commanders take action based on the gravity of the occurrence on a case by case basis,” he said.
The Department of Defense, Christensen said, places “a high value on the rights of members of the military services to observe the tenets of their respective religions and respects (and supports by its policy) the rights of others to their own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no beliefs.”
He said members are free to exercise their constitutional right to practice their religion “in a manner that is respectful of other individuals’ rights to follow their own belief systems; and in ways that are conducive to good order and discipline; and that do not detract from accomplishing the military mission.”
The issue surfaced after activist Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religion Freedom organization met with department officials and then wrote that Christians in the military are “monsters” who must be stopped from talking about their faith.
Weinstein had declared: “We face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces.”
In an interview with Fox News, Weinstein said the military needs to begin prosecuting Christians who share their faith.
“Someone needs to be punished for this,” he said. “Until the Air Force or Army or Navy or Marine Corps punishes a member of the military for unconstitutional religious proselytizing and oppression, we will never have the ability to stop this horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing behavior.”
It seemed the military was listening.
After a private meeting between Weinstein and Pentagon officials April 23, a Pentagon spokesman declared, “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense.”
Christensen said at the time that “courts martial and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis, and it would be inappropriate to speculate on the outcome in specific cases.”
ADF’s LaRue said his organization is serious about “investigating this gross error,” because it wants “to ensure that the Pentagon does not deny members of the armed services the basic freedoms that the Constitution guarantees all Americans.”
Weinstein, according to Fox News’ Todd Starnes, told officials at the meeting that U.S. troops who evangelize are guilty of sedition and treason and should be punished, by the hundreds if necessary.
But leaders of the Washington-based Family Research Council, which recently faced a violent attack by a leftist who said his goal was to kill as many people as he could, said the Pentagon’s apparent intent to punish evangelism makes no sense.
“Why would military leadership be meeting with one of the most rabid atheists in America to discuss religious freedom in the military,” asked FRC President Tony Perkins in a Fox News interview. “That’s like consulting with China on how to improve human rights.”
Retired Lt. Gen. William Boykin, a vice president at FRC, said such a policy would allow Christians within the military who speak of their faith to be “prosecuted as enemies of the state.”
“This has the potential to destroy military recruiting across the services as Americans realize that their faith will be suppressed by joining the military,” Boykin said.
“Our brave troops deserve better. If chaplains and other personnel are censored from offering the full solace of the Gospel, there is no religious freedom in the military.”
FRC launched a petition urging the Pentagon to scrub plans to censor religious beliefs.
The FRC petition states: “Our brave troops deserve better. Subverting the religious freedom of our troops both hurts the morale of our troops and puts our nation at risk by labeling courageous military personnel as enemies.
“I urge you to resist the demands of anti-Christian activists who are calling for a court-martial order upon chaplains and service members who share their faith,” the petition says.
Tens of thousands of Americans joined the effort, which was brought about, according to FRC, because of claims that “religion is one of the chief problems plaguing our troops.”
Some have said, FRC points out, that “religious proselytizing” is “at the top of the list of problems in the armed forces – even on par with sexual assault.”
The FRC noted the Washington Post reported that the Air Force had created a document “with the directive that leaders of all levels (including chaplains) may not ‘promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.’”
Ron Crews of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty told Starnes: “Saying that a service member cannot speak of his faith is like telling a service member he cannot talk about his spouse or children. I do not think the Air Force wants to ban personnel from protected religious speech.”
However, Weinstein told the Washington Post that such conversation is a national security threat and “sedition and treason.” Ken Klukowski, a senior fellow for religious liberty at FRC, noted that Weinstein cites Focus on the Family founder James Dobson as “illustrating the extremist, militant nature of these virulently homophobic organizations’ rhetorically charged propaganda.”
Weinstein concludes: “Let’s call these ignoble actions what they are: the senseless and cowardly squallings of human monsters.”
Kulkowski pointed out that Weinstein endorses the Southern Poverty Law Center, which publishes a list of “hate groups” that lump together Christian organizations such as FRC with the Ku Klux Klan.
As WND reported, the man who shot a security guard at FRC headquarters, Floyd Lee Corkins II, confessed that he targeted FRC because of information provided by SPLC.
Asked by the FBI why he picked FRC to attack, Corkins stated, “It was a, uh, Southern Poverty Law, lists, uh, anti-gay groups. I found them online. I did a little bit of research, went to the website, stuff like that.”
FRC said that when Corkins later pleaded guilty to a charge of domestic terrorism, the SPLC “was connected in federal court in this first domestic terrorism conviction in Washington, D.C., under the post 9/11 law.” SPLC has refused FRC’s demand to remove the Christian organization from the hate list. See “Jihad in America: The Grand Deception,” which reveals the threat that is hidden in plain sight. In an FBI interview, Corkins confessed he wanted to “kill as many people as I could.”
The U.S. government utilization of opinions endorsed by the SPLC is demonstrated in a number of ways, including the fact that the U.S. Army Reserve recently was found to be using a training brief that slams Catholics and evangelical Christians.
Members of Congress were outraged.
“Our nation needs to have an honest conversation about religious extremism and what we can do to avoid religious violence. However, labeling these major world religions as extremists is wrong and hurtful,” said a letter by Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., that was signed by dozens of other members.
The letter was addressed to Army Secretary John. M . McHugh at the Pentagon.
“We call on you to rescind this briefing and set the record straight on the Army’s view on these faith groups by providing a balanced briefing on religious extremism,” the lawmakers said.
The original link to the news article is here.
----------------------------
The Pentagon announced today that military members who want to talk about their faith with other members have every right to do so, backtracking on a previous warning against “proselytizing,” which it said could be subject to court-martial.
The statement from Lt. Cmdr. Nathan Christensen said the Department of Defense “never and will never single out a particular religious group for persecution or prosecution.”
“Members of our military should not be denied the very freedoms they fight to defend. Freedom of religion and speech are paramount among those freedoms,” said ADF Legal Counsel Joseph La Rue. “We appreciate the Pentagon’s clarification, but little or no evidence exists of coercive proselytization in the military, so we are still troubled over what motivated the original comments.
The Pentagon’s Christensen said the statement today that the Department of Defense department “makes reasonable accommodations for all religions and celebrates the religious diversity of our service members.”
“Service members can share their faith (evangelize), but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one’s beliefs (proselytization),” he said.
Christensen said that if a service member “harasses another member on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability, then the commander takes action based on the gravity of the occurrence.”
“Likewise, when religious harassment complaints are reported, commanders take action based on the gravity of the occurrence on a case by case basis,” he said.
The Department of Defense, Christensen said, places “a high value on the rights of members of the military services to observe the tenets of their respective religions and respects (and supports by its policy) the rights of others to their own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no beliefs.”
He said members are free to exercise their constitutional right to practice their religion “in a manner that is respectful of other individuals’ rights to follow their own belief systems; and in ways that are conducive to good order and discipline; and that do not detract from accomplishing the military mission.”
The issue surfaced after activist Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religion Freedom organization met with department officials and then wrote that Christians in the military are “monsters” who must be stopped from talking about their faith.
Weinstein had declared: “We face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces.”
In an interview with Fox News, Weinstein said the military needs to begin prosecuting Christians who share their faith.
“Someone needs to be punished for this,” he said. “Until the Air Force or Army or Navy or Marine Corps punishes a member of the military for unconstitutional religious proselytizing and oppression, we will never have the ability to stop this horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing behavior.”
It seemed the military was listening.
After a private meeting between Weinstein and Pentagon officials April 23, a Pentagon spokesman declared, “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense.”
Christensen said at the time that “courts martial and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis, and it would be inappropriate to speculate on the outcome in specific cases.”
ADF’s LaRue said his organization is serious about “investigating this gross error,” because it wants “to ensure that the Pentagon does not deny members of the armed services the basic freedoms that the Constitution guarantees all Americans.”
Weinstein, according to Fox News’ Todd Starnes, told officials at the meeting that U.S. troops who evangelize are guilty of sedition and treason and should be punished, by the hundreds if necessary.
But leaders of the Washington-based Family Research Council, which recently faced a violent attack by a leftist who said his goal was to kill as many people as he could, said the Pentagon’s apparent intent to punish evangelism makes no sense.
“Why would military leadership be meeting with one of the most rabid atheists in America to discuss religious freedom in the military,” asked FRC President Tony Perkins in a Fox News interview. “That’s like consulting with China on how to improve human rights.”
Retired Lt. Gen. William Boykin, a vice president at FRC, said such a policy would allow Christians within the military who speak of their faith to be “prosecuted as enemies of the state.”
“This has the potential to destroy military recruiting across the services as Americans realize that their faith will be suppressed by joining the military,” Boykin said.
“Our brave troops deserve better. If chaplains and other personnel are censored from offering the full solace of the Gospel, there is no religious freedom in the military.”
FRC launched a petition urging the Pentagon to scrub plans to censor religious beliefs.
The FRC petition states: “Our brave troops deserve better. Subverting the religious freedom of our troops both hurts the morale of our troops and puts our nation at risk by labeling courageous military personnel as enemies.
“I urge you to resist the demands of anti-Christian activists who are calling for a court-martial order upon chaplains and service members who share their faith,” the petition says.
Tens of thousands of Americans joined the effort, which was brought about, according to FRC, because of claims that “religion is one of the chief problems plaguing our troops.”
Some have said, FRC points out, that “religious proselytizing” is “at the top of the list of problems in the armed forces – even on par with sexual assault.”
The FRC noted the Washington Post reported that the Air Force had created a document “with the directive that leaders of all levels (including chaplains) may not ‘promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.’”
Ron Crews of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty told Starnes: “Saying that a service member cannot speak of his faith is like telling a service member he cannot talk about his spouse or children. I do not think the Air Force wants to ban personnel from protected religious speech.”
However, Weinstein told the Washington Post that such conversation is a national security threat and “sedition and treason.” Ken Klukowski, a senior fellow for religious liberty at FRC, noted that Weinstein cites Focus on the Family founder James Dobson as “illustrating the extremist, militant nature of these virulently homophobic organizations’ rhetorically charged propaganda.”
Weinstein concludes: “Let’s call these ignoble actions what they are: the senseless and cowardly squallings of human monsters.”
Kulkowski pointed out that Weinstein endorses the Southern Poverty Law Center, which publishes a list of “hate groups” that lump together Christian organizations such as FRC with the Ku Klux Klan.
As WND reported, the man who shot a security guard at FRC headquarters, Floyd Lee Corkins II, confessed that he targeted FRC because of information provided by SPLC.
Asked by the FBI why he picked FRC to attack, Corkins stated, “It was a, uh, Southern Poverty Law, lists, uh, anti-gay groups. I found them online. I did a little bit of research, went to the website, stuff like that.”
FRC said that when Corkins later pleaded guilty to a charge of domestic terrorism, the SPLC “was connected in federal court in this first domestic terrorism conviction in Washington, D.C., under the post 9/11 law.” SPLC has refused FRC’s demand to remove the Christian organization from the hate list. See “Jihad in America: The Grand Deception,” which reveals the threat that is hidden in plain sight. In an FBI interview, Corkins confessed he wanted to “kill as many people as I could.”
The U.S. government utilization of opinions endorsed by the SPLC is demonstrated in a number of ways, including the fact that the U.S. Army Reserve recently was found to be using a training brief that slams Catholics and evangelical Christians.
Members of Congress were outraged.
“Our nation needs to have an honest conversation about religious extremism and what we can do to avoid religious violence. However, labeling these major world religions as extremists is wrong and hurtful,” said a letter by Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., that was signed by dozens of other members.
The letter was addressed to Army Secretary John. M . McHugh at the Pentagon.
“We call on you to rescind this briefing and set the record straight on the Army’s view on these faith groups by providing a balanced briefing on religious extremism,” the lawmakers said.
Petition: Urge Pentagon to Scrub Plan to Court-Martial Christians
From the Family Research Council:
The very troops who defend our religious freedom are at
risk of having their own taken away.
Last week,
anti-Christian and left-wing activists met at
the Pentagon with military
officials to discuss pressing
issues in the military. What issues would
be of such
importance to gain such a high-level hearing?
According to these far-left consultants, religion is one of the chief problems plaguing our troops. As the Washington Post reported,
some are saying that "religious proselytizing" is at the top of the
list of problems in the armed forces -- even on par with sexual assault.
As a result of such complaints from the left, the Air Force has -- according to the Post --published,
but not yet distributed a new document with the directive that leaders
of all levels (including chaplains) may not "promote their personal
religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential
treatment for any religion." The penalty these secularists are seeking
for those who don't comply with their view of religious speech is
court-martial.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Open Letter to Supreme Court of the United States of America (Part 2)
Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here. Part 3 is here.
------------------------------
Part 3 next time.
--------------------
Claim 3) Homosexual
marriage is the most tolerant option.
Response 3) The
problem is that this is the exact opposite of the truth. It is those who oppose
same-sex marriage who are the true champions of liberty. Indeed, if homosexual marriage
is legalized, it is likely to result in unprecedented restrictions on freedom
of speech and even thought.
It’s important to remember that the
issue’s not whether society will allow homosexuals to marry. Many churches are willing
to do so: the Episcopal Church USA, the Alliance of Baptists, the Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, etc… Such institutions
either explicitly allow the consecration or blessing of same-sex marriages or
look the other way when individual congregations perform such ceremonies.
No laws prevent these churches from
conducting marriage ceremonies—and
nearly all Americans would agree that it is right for the government to stay
out of a church’s decision on the issue. What the law in most states currently does not do, however, is force
third parties—individuals, businesses, and institutions to recognize these
marriages and treat them as if they were exactly the same as traditional
marriages. Nor does it forbid anyone to do so.
Individuals,
organizations, and institutions in most states are currently free to treat
same-sex unions as marriages, or not. This, of course, is the truly liberal and
tolerant position.
It means letting the people concerned make up their own minds about how to
treat these relationships. But this
freedom is precisely what the advocates of same-sex marriage want to destroy;
they want to use the government’s power to force everyone to recognize same-sex
unions as marriages whether they want to or not.
The effects of such coercion have already
been felt in some places such as adoption agencies or even local wedding cake
bakeries. The real issue is whether the
government should force everyone to recognize such marriages. Far from being a
liberating thing, the forced recognition of same-sex marriage is a governmental
intrusion of monumental proportions.
Claim 4) Homosexual
marriage will bring greater equality.
Response 4) People say that homosexual marriage will
make homosexuals and heterosexuals equal in terms of having equal access to
marriage.
The problem with this position is that
it again assumes that homosexuals are not allowed to marry (see Response 3). The reality is that no one is stopping
homosexuals from getting married. Just as it would be absurd to change the definition
of marriage to include celibacy so that the Pope can have “equal access” to the
institution, so it is absurd to change the definition of marriage so that
homosexuals can begin to want access to it.
Claim 5) Homosexuals
are being denied a constitutional right.
Response 5) First, laws already establish marital conditions.
There’s already a “discriminatory” factor built in. If you don’t meet XYZ, you
aren’t legally allowed to have ABC. In marriage, you must be an adult, can’t
already be married to someone else, can’t be closely related to the other person,
and must marry another human. Restrictions
have always existed.
While there have been valid
discriminatory issues (ie: interracial), the mere existence of a discriminatory factor doesn’t necessarily imply
that a particular group’s being denied a civil right. Also, homosexuals
already have access to marriage. See response #3.
Claim 6) Making
a moral judgment on homosexual marriage and saying that it is wrong is to be hateful
to homosexuals.
Response 6) Making a moral judgment of an act in and of
itself is not an act of hate..
It is not hateful for me to tell my
toddler that disrespecting me is wrong.
In the same way, my declaring that
homosexual marriage is wrong is not hating homosexuals. It is my duty and act
of love to explain to them the inconsistency of their position.
Claim 7) There
will be harm done to their children if we don’t say that their homosexual
parents are married. It will be a net societal benefit.
Response 7) Paul
Nathanson, a sociology professor at McGill University in Canada and a practicing homosexual, recognizes
this as an untested social experiment:
“advocates of gay marriage have made
no serious attempt to consider the possible harms, and object to those who want
more time to assess the evidence from other periods or other cultures.”
Thirty years ago, “no-fault divorce” redefined
marriage, though more subtly than what is being demanded today. NFD said that marriage
should only last as long as one partner wants it. This implied that marriage
was almost exclusively about adult happiness, not taking child well-being into
account at all.
If a
subtle shift from NFD produces this much devastation, how can a fundamental shift such as homosexual
marriage be justified as a net gain for society? Like NFD, we’re being told that parental gender doesn’t matter. We
don’t have to wonder about the impacts of a one-gender family (e.g. “intentionally
fatherless families”). Analogously, the same-sex family is problematic because
same-sex families intentionally deprive a child of either a mother or a father
just because adults want it that way.
Dr. Nathanson also identified at least five functions in marriage, things that every culture must do to
survive and thrive: (1) Foster the bonding between men and women, (2) Foster
the birth and rearing of children, (3) Foster the bonding between men and
children, (4) Foster some form of healthy masculine identity, (5) Foster the
transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults.
Dr.
Nathanson considers these five points critical to the continued survival of any
culture.
He continues, "Because heterosexuality is directly related to both
reproduction and survival, ... every human societ(y) has had to promote it
actively . ... Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm" that
limits marriage to unions of men and women.
He adds that people "are wrong in assuming that any society can do without
it.” Homosexual marriage inherently cannot fulfill all five of these items.
------------------------------
Part 3 next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
MM: "The current case before the SCOTUS on the Defense of Marriage Act, for example, boils down to whether a lesbian will be heavily taxed on what she will inherit from her gay spouse."
CL: I have found it helpful to be very careful here. That may be the immediate issue in certain respects, but the larger issue is forcing the agenda down people's throats, and normalizing this behavior in society. We shouldnt forget how the lobby groups are using these SCOTUS cases.
Anyway, the particular topic that we are talking about concerning Dr Horton is his statement about possibly seeing justification for affirming some sort of civil arrangement.
This actually is a very significant issue, and shouldn't be ignored. (Not saying that you are ignoring it, but just making a general statement).
The intent of civil arrangement (for economic purposes) seems like it is a construct that does not address behavior. But, in an implicit (and explicit) way, it actually does. A civil arrangement in and of itself can be used for "good" purposes and "immoral" immoral purposes. So, by itself, it isnt *necessarily* a sin.
When two people are in a "civil arrangement" (whatever that means), the government is acknowledging that this relationship as a valid relationship to meet the govt criteria for that arrangement. We can argue that in one sense it is an implicit acknowledgement, but with cases like this, there would most likely be statutes which define the relationship. So, there could be strong justification for saying that the govt **explicitly** acknowledges a homosexual relationship as being acceptable from a legal standpoint. Anyway, it doesnt really matter whether it is implicit or explicit.
If the govt does recognize homosexual relationships as acceptable from a legal standpoint, there are making a de facto statement on the moral acceptability of homosexual relationships as well.
I think that perhaps a lot of people will disagree with this next point (maybe not on this blog though), but the purpose of govt is in ***inherently*** moral. Laws that are passed are moral in nature, and executed through circumstantial and legislative means. This in no way affects the inherent nature that "civil" laws is moral.
For WCF purposes, while the tri-fold distinction is useful, I tend to want to emphasize more so that the civil law is in fact part of the moral law for these types of discussions. (This is another whole discussion which we can get into at another time)..
So, with this in mind, it should be re-iterated, following the logic, that if the government is de facto making a legal, and therefore a moral judgement on homosexual relationships through the medium of civil arrangements, the govt is making a moral claim that homosexual relationships are morally acceptable.
Therefore, when Dr Horton is perhaps open to affirming these arrangements for homosexuals, although he ***explicitly*** says that he is against homosexuality and HS marriage etc..., he doesn't realize that his potential support for civil arrangements logically leads to morally accepting homosexual behavior.
We have to understand that the purpose of govt is not to make morality or their own morals. but to ***reflect*** that moral law (natural law) that was given to them by God.
If the govt can take it upon itself to use ***itself*** as the standard for making laws (using the premise that they in fact are defining for themselves what is moral) (and hence the reason for this entire (R)2K / kuyp/theonomy/neo-cal debate), this logically means that the govt recognizes itself as the ultimate authority for morality and not God.
If this is the case, the state is then able to define what is "right" and "wrong" in their own eyes.
That is a lot of power that govt was never meant to have.(among many other powers that the govt today is simply abusing and taking)..
Even in Rom 13, Paul always understood that the power and authority of the civil magistrate is always derivative.. It is never inherent within the magistrate himself. Even Jesus rebuked Pilate in saying that Pilate had no authority except what God gave him.
It is significant to note that Jesus specifically instructs Pilate from whom Pilate gets his authority to remind him that he is not an authority unto himself. Of course, Pilate doesnt get it. (This also delves into other issues of is/ought etc... more hours on the keyboard....)
But, when we capitulate and simply refuse to acknowledge the Bible as the standard of morality, yes, in the public square, this gives the local govt the allowance and understanding that it is in fact the authority to decide what is moral and what is not. And to then make laws based on that self-created morality.
I am hoping that you can see why I feel that it is critical that we ***wisely*** apply the Bible to our actions and thoughts in reference to the civil govt. (among other reasons).
By not doing so means that we are implicitly (or explicitly) acknowledging that the state has authority in and of himself to make laws.. Laws which are reflective of a particular morality.. If we leave the state to itself, that morality will be whatever the state likes to see it as at that particular moment.
Yes, sometimes, because of natural law, the govt get its right, but not always. But even in this case, that point is irrelevant because the fact of the matter is, even in this case, we would still be allowing the state to define its own morality to make statutes.
That they got it "right" is of course a reflection of natural law, but it still is not addressing the significant issue of the state making its own moral standard and also not acknowledging where they get their authority from.. (Rom 13, Pilate, epistemological issues... )
This also deals with issues about the relation between natural law and revealed law. I am currently working through this issue in my personal studies. And I need to refine my arguments more, but my basic position is that natural law is ***identical*** to ***revealed law*** in the sense of moral content and nature, but of course the differences lie in the mode of revelation etc...
All of this to say that, in a humble and honest quest for understanding the truth more clearly, I really believe that Dr Horton is not thinking through the logical implications of what he is saying in regards to civil arrangements.
This has other logical implications for a wide variety of things if you follow the rabbit trail to its cold and hard logical conclusions...
Mikelmann says: "Chris, for now I'm going to respond to one point that has broad signficance.
Here I must depart. And again I will refer to the WLC's explanation of the moral law. If you have read it, you know it is fairly detailed. Well, lets take that as an accurate representation of the moral law. Now, if the purpose of government was inherently moral, it would be regulating all of that moral law except insofar as it applies to the condition of the heart with no outward acts that can be regulated. Given your position, it seems there should be law - normally criminal law - about all that, with a larger police force, more judges, and more government peering into our day to do lives.
Paul's advice to Timothy on how to pray for the magistrate is instructive: "“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” (I Tim. 1-2)
The idea here seems to be that the magistrate should provide a structure in which there is freedom for the individual to go about his business in peace. It's implied that there should be religious freedom for the church to do what it is called to do.
One other point for now is that we live in a certain historical situation. We are living in the USA, with founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Under the former we have agreed that the natural law has a prominent place in how we are to structure our society. The latter guarantees religious freedom and forbids establishment. Both were meant to be inclusive of men like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, neither of which were Christian.
Now certainly have a right to say our country was built on faulty and false principles and a different system should prevail; just be straight-forward about doing so and don't talk of recovering something from our country's past. And then look at all the different attempts to regulate society from a detailed application of the moral law in history and make a case that we should replicate them or that we can somehow do better. But, on this side of cross, to have a magistrate that is certain that he is doing the Will of God in detail is to have a tyrant."
Part 3 upcoming.