Equal Footing: Not A Leg To Stand On

This is the sixth post in a series on marriage.

Let’s leave God, the Bible, and all religion out of the marriage debate for a minute. Let’s assume marriage is only a legal contract, subject solely to civil laws. Does anyone who still opposes “gay marriage” (or any other sort of non-traditional marriage) have any leg to stand on? Ultimately, the answer is no, because without God, there is no source of absolute morality. But then again, the proponents of “gay marriage” have nothing solid on which to base their argument, either. Any logic they try to apply will always be reduced to a subjective opinion, which has no more validity than the opposing opinion.

Let’s look at some things a “gay rights” advocate may say to a supporter of traditional marriage and how they break apart under scrutiny.

“We just want marriage equality.”
“Gay rights” activists are making great progress under the banner of “equality.” But as I’ve already discussed in a previous post, equality is relative, and many would argue that since traditional marriage laws apply to everyone, equality is a moot point. On the flip-side, there is no limit to how far you can take the concept of equality, to the point where marriage itself, in any form, actually produces inequality. If you really think about it, marriage grants married couples additional protections that singles do not have.

“Two people who love each other should be able to marry.”
I keep hearing how “gay marriage” is about allowing all loving couples the same benefits. But the fact is that, legally speaking, marriage has absolutely nothing to do with love, or any real motive for wanting to get married. Is there a law that says that falling in love has to result in marriage? There are many in this world who get married by arrangement or for financial or political reasons. And conversely, there is an ever-growing number of couples that decide to live together, without getting married at all.

“You Christians need to be more tolerant of gays.”
On the surface, “tolerance” implies that we should all try to get along and respect each other’s differing opinions. However, when it comes to people’s rights, tolerance hits a brick wall. Our nation must tread a fine line, to ensure that everyone’s rights are protected, even if their values are diametrically opposed. As I’ve mentioned in earlier posts, many states have now made it illegal to discriminate against homosexuals, but that trounces upon the rights of devout Christians whose consciences prevent them from conducting certain kinds of business with gays. It is now very evident that “gay rights” groups are quite intolerant of those who dare to oppose them. So who gets to decide which group has to be tolerant of the other?

“Don’t fight progress.”
For the first time in our nation’s history, polls indicate that more than half of Americans now support “gay marriage”. So the argument now becomes that we hard-headed Christians should get with the program and fall in line. But this is a stupid argument, because just a few years ago, the pro-gay activists were in the minority. And long before that, sodomy was illegal in many states. Why didn’t the gays get with the program and fall in line, way back then, even though they were the ones in the minority?

So what’s my point? The liberal media, advertisers, corporations, and Hollywood are doing their best to convince us Christians that we are on the wrong side of the debate. But even if there was no God, they would, at best, be on equal footing with us. But there is a God! And there is an absolute standard for right and wrong, well-established in the Bible, God’s inspired Word. So do not be afraid to speak out against the acceptance of the “gay lifestyle”, and to teach your children God’s opinion on the matter.

Sodomy: The Abominable Sin

This is the second post in a series on marriage.

I am going to have to be very blunt and very politically incorrect here. At the center of "same-sex marriage" (or any similar union) is sexual intercourse between two individuals of the same gender. This is traditionally referred to as "sodomy," a word derived from the well-known Genesis account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, two exceedingly wicked cities, infamous for this practice.

While I do not expect this fact to carry any weight with atheists or those who subscribe to religions that do not view the Bible as God's inspired word, I am dumbfounded that there are any persons who claim to be Christian, and yet believe sodomy to be compatible with Christianity. I now wish to address that section of the population, in hopes that I may give them cause to rethink their theology.

Here are some scriptural proof-texts that indicate that, beyond the shadow of a doubt, God abhors sodomy, counting it on the same level as (if not worse than) murder.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Lev. 18:22).

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Lev. 20:13).

"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" (Deut. 23:17).

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" (Rom. 1:26-32).

The Bible unequivocably states that God does not change, so He still views all manner of sexual deviancy as sin. God requires us to repent of all sin; we cannot pick and choose. So how can any Christian practice or condone sodomy and still claim to be a child of God???

As a Christian, I must speak out against civil laws that legitimize sinful practices, particularly those that are actively promoted as "normal" and "acceptable".

The painting at the top of this post depicts Lot's family fleeing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and his wife expressing horror as she looks back, moments before being turned into a pillar of salt. It was painted by Benjamin West, in 1810.

Runaway Government, Part III

The Congressional game of Chicken is over, and the Republicans blinked.  I'm not blaming them for standing against the folly that is ObamaCare (aka The Affordable Care Act), but I am saddened that no one has learned anything from the experience.  Disaster has been averted, but only until February 7 of next year, at which time ObamaCare will have kicked in, and nothing short of an act of God will be able to stop it.  Well, OK, good old-fashioned common sense could work too, but that left Washington, DC long before I was born.

So how do I propose solving the country's financial issues?  As with everything else in life, Jesus is the answer.  If you go back to the Book of Acts in the Bible, you will read how the early Christians formed a close-knit community, sharing what they had with each other.  No one had more than they needed, and no one lacked anything.  People took care of each other willingly, because that's what Jesus taught and also because they could not rely on the government for help.  (Truth is that for the first three centuries, the Roman Empire was trying to destroy them.)

There was also accountability.  The Apostle Paul stressed to the nascent churches that while they were to help each other, layabouts should not be given handouts.  Lazyness is against Bibllical teachings, so it should not be sanctioned or encouraged.

There was also no Social Security or Medicare for the elderly.  Instead, if there was no family to help, the church would take on the responsibility to care for the widows, orphans, and others who had no means of self-support.

So how did we get where we are today?  Wasn't this country founded mainly by Christians who likewise had little support from their respective governments and had to learn to rely on each other?  True enough, but as our society became more and more secular, people abandoned their support systems right along with their Creator and Savior.  Who else could fill the gap, but a government prone to overstepping its Constitutional purpose?

Do you think the kind of system found in Acts cannot work in today's society?  Without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, any attempt would be doomed to failure (look at the fall of socialism).  However, there is one shining example that's been growing strong for nearly 20 years, one that, coincidentally, is a wonderful alternative to ObamaCare: Samaritan Ministries.  This is a Christian ministry that enables its 25,000 members to provide for one another's medical needs, and encourages them to actively pray for those they financially assist.  In turn, each family knows that when there are medical bills, no matter the amount, the other members will step in and pay them.  According to their website, an individual family's cost never exceeeds $350 a month, and the money is sent directly from one family to another; it is never centrally collected, thereby reducing the risk of misuse.  Samaritan Ministries emphasizes Biblical accountability and regularly submits to external audits.  Here is what they have to say about the church:

Believers in Jesus Christ are responsible to first use the resources He has given us to meet the needs of ourselves and our families. When a need occurs that exceeds what He has provided, other members of the Body of Christ should show His love by using the resources God has given them to help in the same way they would want to be helped.

The local church should be the next “line of defense” to provide for the needs of its own members. SMI is intended to support and supplement this work of the local body, not replace it. We seek to avoid undermining what should be done locally. We also depend on the leaders of the local church to provide accountability for the SMI members under their care.

Supporting those who are in need is a deeply-rooted Christian principle, but so is accountability.  The Lord knows people's hearts, and only when His Holy Spirit is welcome inside, can we achieve a society that uses its God-given resources responsibly and that takes care of its truly needy members.

Runaway Government, Part II

As I write this, the Congressional debates, political posturing, and media coverage over the shutdown and upcoming debt default continue.  To try to understand where our money is coming from and where it is going, I referred to our 2012 1040 tax instructions, which contain the pie charts below.

Look at the Federal government's 2011 income, on the left. 36% is borrowed!!! How long could any of us manage to live by borrowing more than a third of our income??? Most of that is in the form of IOU's to domestic entities and savings bonds (probably), and some is borrowed from foreign nations. We owe China more than $1.25 TRILLION!!!

On the right side, of course, is the spending. Of that entire pie, 68% consists of various kinds of benefits programs, which a large percent of our population has come to expect from the government. The Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) will make the problem even worse, adding to that percentage, while increasing our taxes, in a foolhardy attempt at making up for its costs. The rest of our annual spending consists of 24% alotted to the military and related expenses, 6% for interest on the $16 trillion national debt, and 2% for law enforcement and general government.

We all know there is a significant amount of waste, much of it a direct result of twisted politics, such as the practice of attaching money for pet projects to bills, in order to attract more votes. But there is also very little oversight in determining who should receive money, via the various benefit programs. While there are many who genuinely need the help, there are probably as many who take advantage. For example, people I know have told me they choose not to work, because their unemployment benefits pay as well as any job they can get. Others learn to work the system, continuing to receive money long after they're no longer eligible. There simply isn't enough oversight, but it's probably cheaper to suffer the abuse than to spend additional resources to stop it.

I'm not advocating leaving people in need out in the cold (what kind of Christian would I be???), but I do not believe it is the government's role to take care of them. My solution? You may have already guessed, but come on back for Part III....

Runaway Government, Part I

Photo courtesy Architect of the Capitol

As I type this, the U.S. is preparing to enter Day 8 of the government shutdown that has furloughed hundreds of thousands of government workers, shutttered offices and parks, and delayed or stopped benefits to millions.  Some folks are even being (temporarily) evicted from their vacation homes that are on Federal land.  What's worse, we're less than two weeks away from defaulting on debts, unless Congress passes a bill to extend the debt ceiling so we can pay those bills using money we don't have!  How did we ever get into this mess?  Is this what the Founding Fathers intended?

The reason we're running such an astronomical debt is that our government is spending way more than it is raking in. And then it pays its "credit card" debts with another "credit card." If the U.S. was a person, such fiscal practices would not be sustainable! Yet, we outspend our income an average of $30 billion a month! A previous generation of legislators had the sense to require a debt limit, presumably to reign in national borrowing, but that's just a paper ceiling, since all Congress does now is increase it whenever we need to borrow more. That's like me calling our bank every few months to ask for a credit line increase, even though I'm unable to keep up with payments.

This is a complex issue, with a very rich history.  While I do know some of the events that brought about the political practice of threatening to shut down government, as a tool for wrestling over bills and measures, this is not what I want to talk about.

What really irks me is how involved every level of our government has gotten into our lives.  One of the reasons this shutdown is making such big news is that so many people and services are affected.  When the Founding Fathers put the Constitution together, their intent was that the Federal goverment mainly provide for a national defense and represent our interests abroad.  Most of the day-to-day operation was left to the individual states, which were intended to be far more independent than they are now.  Congress met only a few weeks out of the year, leaving the states to handle their own affairs.

But over time, the Federal government took on more and more responsibility and collected more and more funds from the states, in exchange for additional services.  I have a theory on why this happened and what we can about it, so stay tuned for Part II....

By the way, the picture above has a very interesting connection to the current situation.  In preparation for this post, I decided to Google pictures of the Capitol Building in Washington DC.  When I saw this photo of the dome under construction, it surprised me, because I did not think photography was available that long ago.  But then I read the story behind it.  Turns out the original dome was made of wood.  In 1855, it was decided it was too much of a fire hazard, so it was torn down, and a new iron dome was commissioned.  When the Civil War broke out in 1860, the U.S. government warned the builders that they would not be able to pay them until after the war.  Surprisingly, the builders decided to continue construction anyway.  President Lincoln saw this as an encouraging sign that the nation would endure, due to the hard-working spirit of its citizens.  Ironically, Federal employees are now forbidden from working without pay.  Go figure!

The Abortion Debate (Part 5)

We wrap up this series with some common arguments you’ll hear in abortion debates and how to totally discredit them.

“If you force women to have their babies, their children will be unloved and abused.”

There are abused and unloved children all over the world; ending abortions would not contribute much to that number. Besides, the decisions to abort are usually emotion-based (whatever the reason, the woman doesn’t WANT the baby), and emotions can greatly change over time. Again, we can trot out the toddler and ask, “If you decide you no longer love your 2-year-old (I can’t imagine why!), is that justification to kill it?”

“If you don’t want me to have an abortion, then adopt my child!”

This is like saying, “If you want me to lose weight, you have to eat my food.” Or, “If you don’t want me to kill my no-good husband, you have to marry him.” This is another tactic to change the venue and shut down the pro-lifers, but it’s only a red herring. The morality of a given action does not depend on outside conditions.

“Of course YOU are against abortion; you’re a MAN and will never have to make that choice!”

This is similar to the “adopt my child” ruse. Even if you’ve never been robbed, you still have the authority to say theft is immoral. There are many insensitive things a man can say to a woman, just because he doesn’t have her feminine insights, but this is not one of them.

“It would be unfair or discrimination for women to not be allowed to have a medical procedure, when men are allowed to have ANY medical procedure!”

I’ve actually read Senator Barbara Boxer say something very close to this, recently. She is reducing the ending of a life to a simple medical procedure. Again, that’s just another attempt to change the venue of the debate, maybe by rolling it into the floundering healthcare reform negotiations. Pregnancy, by its very nature, is a very unique physical process, by which a new life is preparing to enter this world. This puts it in a class by itself, in the medical field. It’s “unfortunate” for Senator “Don’t call me Ma’am” Boxer that (as of yet) only women can suffer from this particular medical condition, but that’s life. No pun intended.

“I’m personally against abortion, but I think it should be legal.”

President Obama and other politicians have used this phrase more times that anybody can count, especially if you count their positions on other ethical issue of the day (same-sex marriage, marihuana, euthanasia, etc…). These kinds of statements confuse a moral dilemma with a personal preference. “I’m personally against going 100 MPH on the interstate, but I think it should be legal.” In fact, the implication to the listener (whether it’s true or not) is that you believe the issue to be objectively morally acceptable. This is what concerned us about most of 2008’s presidential candidates.

“If you outlaw abortion again, there will be an increase in back-alley abortions, which will greatly endanger the health of countless women.”

Now that abortion is legal, there are FAR more fetuses being killed and mothers suffering from the physical and psychological repercussions. For most, the simple illegality of an act will prevent it from being committed, and will encourage alternatives (such as adoption). Besides, there are consequences to every action; we cannot legalize something, just because there are those who refuse to consider the potential effects. If we repeal speed limits, and no longer require motorists to wear seat belts or helmets, would traffic fatalities increase or decrease?

“Abortions should be allowed, in the case where the mother’s life is in danger.”

Mr. Klunsendorf points out that the only case where a mother’s life is truly endangered by a pregnancy is when the fetus implants itself in the fallopian tube. This is called an ectopic pregnancy and, if allowed to continue, results in the death of both mother and baby. In this one case, the only way to prevent two persons from dying is to remove the fetus. Either way, the fetus is doomed (at least with current medical science), and it makes sense to at least save the mother. Most, if not all, other medical complications occur late enough in the pregnancy, that a C-section will give both mother and child terrific chances of survival.

I’m not necessarily promoting open protest, but I hope this series has opened some eyes and/or equipped you to defend your pro-life position. Thank you for reading!