Prohibit, permit or promote?

J. Warner Wallace of Stand to Reason made some excellent points about the role of government in same-sex relationships.  These are very useful to help frame the argument against the government recognition of “same-sex marriage.”

Government has three options with respect to a given behavior:

1. Prohibit – Disallow it and punish offenders.

2. Permit – Allow it, but don’t offer incentives for it.

3. Promote – Actively encourage it via recognition and/or incentives.

Even though same-sex activity causes various societal problems (e.g., according to the CDC, gay men have HIV and Syphilis rates greater than 40 times the average), it isn’t practical or desirable to think that government could completely or closely monitor or prevent those relationships.

But should government promote this behavior via recognizing “same-sex marriage” and conferring benefits upon them?  No.

For the government to get involved in relationships there has to be an important reason. They have been involved in real marriages because by nature and design children are created by those units and they are the only relationships that can provide a mother and a father to children. Countless studies show this as the ideal, so the government has good reasons to encourage their stability. Nearly all the men I’ve met doing prison ministry had absent or poor fathers.

Please note that I didn’t say that they must produce children, only that children are always produced by one man and one woman. It is sad how many times Liberals trot out that straw man.  And again, only those relationships can provide a mother and a father to a child.  Deliberately denying this to a child is cruel.

While it may be logical at this point to permit but not prohibit these relationships, there are no good reasons to promote them. None.  And there are many good reasons not to promote SSM: The erosion of free speech and religious freedom and the damage done to children.  Despite what the fools presenting to the Supreme Court on Prop 8 claim, children do deserve to have a mother and a father.

Roundup

Thoughts on the new Pope: The Reformation happened for a reason.  Actually, 95 of them, and they are still valid reasons to avoid the Catholic church.  I deeply respect their positions on abortion, real marriage and various other topics, and I think that many Catholics are indeed saved — but in spite of what Rome teaches on sanctification, Mary and other topics, not because of what they teach on them.

Having said that, I like the conservative stances of the new Pope, and his humility in how he lives.  It is always good to see the Leftists in full pants-wetting mode over the fact that the head of the Catholic religion actually believes what the Catholic religion teaches.  How dare the Catholic leaders ignore the desires of those who oppose everything the leaders stand for?

More from the Nanny State: Lots of unintended consequences from the “ban” on large sodas (because people will never find a way around that, right?!  Everyone knows that Prohibition was a great success with no negative side effects.) — Nanny Bloomberg’s Big Sugary Drinks To Cause Problems With Coffee Shops.  It is a good thing that New York has solved all its other problems, such as how Eighty Percent of NYC High School Grads Lack Basic Reading Skills or how more than have of its black babies are killed in the womb.

Dunkin’ Donuts and McDonald’s will no longer add sugar at all. Dunkin’ is handing out fliers explaining what’s going on and have trained their workers to explain it all to customers. Some independent coffee shops have simply eliminated drinks above 16 ounces. There’s lots of confusion and angst. Starbucks is waiting for the result of the lawsuit filed against the city.

Canadian Supreme Court Ruling Has Implications for Christian Witness – coming soon to a country near you.  As always, the truth sounds like hate to those that hate the truth.

The ruling also states that suppression of “hate speech”—such as claiming that homosexual behavior is immoral—is so important that it justifies infringing on religious freedom and provides a basis for a “reasonable limit on freedom of religion and is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” The court also explained that truth was no defense since “Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction.”

This standard is then used to justify a draconian standard of censorship: If, despite the context of the entire publication, even one phrase or sentence is found to bring the publication, as a whole, in contravention of the Code, this precludes its publication in its current form.

. . . If criticism of homosexual behavior is construed as criticism of homosexuals then a “simple reading” of the Lev. 18 and context clearly shows that the passage “could objectively be viewed as hate speech.” While Canada’s Supreme Court justices may not understand what is in the “holy text” used by Christians, homosexual rights activists certainly do—and they will expect the legal system to consistently apply the logic of the Court’s ruling.

Equally troubling is that Christian ministers who condemn homosexual behavior can be subject to hate crime prosecution. Canada’s Supreme Court has determined that speaking out against destructive homosexual behaviors could be construed as vilification of homosexuals and therefore is prohibited in most circumstances. This is a radical standard that could severely hamper Christian witness.

Although Jesus said “the truth will set you free,” in Canada speaking the same truths proclaimed in God’s Word could potentially land Christians in jail.

What should we do when we visit the sick?  Click the link for more.

In summary, then, Calvin encourages all Christians, and especially ministers, to keep several things in mind as they visit the sick.

  1. People need the gospel more than ever when they are ill.
  2. Remind the sick from the word of God that God is sovereign over their illness and has sent it for their good.
  3. If the illness is severe, comfort the sick with the sure knowledge that those who die in the Lord have nothing to fear.
  4. If the sick consider their sins to be light and trivial, teach them of the justice of God and call them to embrace the mercy of Christ.
  5. If the sick are afflicted in their consciences, help them find rest in Christ.
  6. Don’t be afraid to bring some small token of physical relief—books, flowers, balloons, games, movies, a homemade card.

The Democrats’ war on women continues: Dem: No Need For Guns, Just Tell Men Not To Rape.  When Republican’s say things a fraction as inflammatory as that it swings major elections.  When Democrats say it, the media yawns.

The Christian Alert had a write-up of how Richard Dawkins plays the “You only believe that because of where you are born” and the “evidence for God = evidence for unicorns” cards.   Ugh.  Typical poor reasoning from Dawkins.  Using that logic, he’s only an atheist because of where he was born.

And the unicorns / flying tea pot / flying spaghetti monster / etc. argument demonstrates the childishness and lack of seriousness of atheists like him.  To claim that the cosmological, teleological, historical, moral, etc. arguments are akin to those is a concession speech to their Romans 1 poster boy rebellion.

Good news: Arkansas legislature overrides veto, restores “heartbeat” abortion restrictions

I think I’ve posted this before, but someone passed it along and it is worth re-posting: 10 Questions a Pro-Choice Candidate Is Never Asked by the Media.  I would pay lots of money to see all politicians asked those questions, and to have the media force them to answer and not just change the subject.

Good news that someone didn’t succumb to moral schizophrenia: Surrogate Mom Given $10K to Abort “Imperfect Baby,” Rejects Offer

When it comes to babies who are diagnosed with some sort of fetal abnormality in the womb, the pressure is high from doctors, family members and society to have an abortion. That’s why approximately 90 percent of babies with Down syndrome, for example, become victims of abortion.

When a surrogacy pregnancy is involved, the pressure brought to bear is only intensified.

But one surrogate mother has rejected that pressure — and an offer of $10,000 to have an abortion. Crystal Kelley was offered $10,000 to have an abortion after ultrasounds showed the baby she was carrying for another couple had severe medical problems.

Courtesy of Right Klik: “If you’re worried about getting killed by a gun, you should be about 5300% more worried about dying of heart disease.”

A fun way to finish – some of Dan Phillips’ #CheckYourJesus tweets:

If the “Jesus” you worship isn’t too jazzed about every bit of God’s Word, you might want to#CheckYourJesus
— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) March 5, 2013

If the “Jesus” you worship wants everyone to have his “best life now,” you’d better#CheckYourJesus
— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) March 6, 2013

If the “Jesus” you worship doesn’t love the church, you’d better #CheckYourJesus

— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) March 5, 2013

If the “Jesus” you worship says “Love” and you think “Statist bureaucracy confiscating & redistributing wealth,” you should #CheckYourJesus

— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) March 6, 2013

If your Jesus wouldn’t have cared about the RCC perverting the Gospel and the Word bec they’re pro-life, you should #CheckYourJesus

— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) March 6, 2013

If your Jesus taught you to call everyone who actually does take His words srsly a “hater” or “self-righteous,” you’d better #CheckYourJesus

— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) March 6, 2013

If the “Jesus” you worship keeps handing you “God told me” cards without Bible verses on them, you’d better #CheckYourJesus
— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) March 6, 2013

If your “Jesus” is OK with you hating his bride, #CheckYourJesus

— Machel (@trogdor42) March 6, 2013

#checkYourJesus if He doesn’t forgive your sins, but rather justifies them.
— Frank Turk (@Frank_Turk) March 6, 2013

If you claim Christianity but don’t know the gospel #CheckYourJesus
— ❂Captain Morgan ⚓ (@MorganSteelman) March 6, 2013

If your Jesus wants you to pray to his earthly mother, you need to #CheckYourJesus
— Chris Rosebrough (@piratechristian) March 6, 2013

If you think grace can forgive your sin but not mortify it, time to #CheckYourJesus
— Machel (@trogdor42) March 6, 2013

If your “Jesus” has a generous orthodoxy & claims He has followers who are practicing Buddhists, Hindus & Muslims U need to #CheckYourJesus
— Chris Rosebrough (@piratechristian) March 6, 2013

From the “I am not making this up” category

contradiction.jpgHow can the Supreme Court — or any thinking person — require college groups to let their ideological enemies be leaders?

When the Supreme Court ruled that a Christian student group could only be recognized at a small public law school if it accepted non-Christians and gays as potential leaders, some lawyers and campus advocates grew nervous.

via Supreme Court Decision on Religion Upends Campus Religious Groups 

This is such a transparent trampling of religious freedoms. Would the Supreme Court permit Christians to join the Muslim, gay and pro-abortion clubs en masse, vote themselves into leadership and then change the views and charters of the organizations?  Hey, come to think of it, that would be a great idea — except for the dishonesty part.

This reminds me a bit of my experiences with the Compaq and HP Diversity groups when I led the Christians @ Compaq / HP employee network groups. They always assumed we were out to get the gay employee groups, even though we never said a word about them — even when they advertised their “drag queen contest” team building trips on company web sites.  One HR person asked if we would let gays in our Bible studies (as if they wear signs saying they are gay — such stereotyping!).  I said of course they’d be welcome if they weren’t disruptive.

What I thought, but didn’t say, was that there is no place I’d rather have them than hearing the word of God.

Queue the crickets on the impact of the overturned gun control laws

Don’t miss both important lessons here:

1. Contrary to predictions by gun control proponents, overturning gun control laws caused crime to plummet.

2. If you only consume mainstream media, you wouldn’t know that.  And that should bother anyone with intellectual integrity.  Do not pretend to be fully informed if you aren’t consuming conservative media along with your liberal media.

Via Media Silence Is Deafening About Important Gun News:

Murder and violent crime rates were supposed to soar after the Supreme Court struck down gun control laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C.

Politicians predicted disaster. “More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence,” Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty warned the day the court made its decision.

Chicago’s Mayor Daley predicted that we would “go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we’ll settle it in the streets . . . .”

The New York Times even editorialized this month about the Supreme Court’s “unwise” decision that there is a right for people “to keep guns in the home.”

But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn’t rise after the bans were eliminated — they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate.

Not surprisingly, the national media have been completely silent about this news.

One can only imagine the coverage if crime rates had risen. In the first six months of this year, there were 14% fewer murders in Chicago compared to the first six months of last year – back when owning handguns was illegal. It was the largest drop in Chicago’s murder rate since the handgun ban went into effect in 1982.

 

Abortion, capital punishment and Troy Davis

Given all the news about the Troy Davis execution (and the relative lack of news about the execution of James Byrd’s killer - -where are his defenders, by the way?), I thought it was time to re-run this simple pie chart.  (First, though, be sure to read Ann Coulter’s piece about Davis, which has a lot of specific, accessible facts that anyone is welcome to try and refute.  Oddly, none of the mainstream media pieces I’ve seen on him mention any of her facts.  It is almost as if they have an agenda . . .)

My main point here is to note that if the people complaining about Davis’ alleged innocence were remotely consistent, they would be going insane over the “capital punishment” of roughly 20,000 innocent human beings in the U.S. this week.  Their crime?  Being unwanted by their parent(s).  And they are completely, indistiputably, 100.00% innocent of any capital crimes.  But they get no trials, no t-shirts and no sympathy from the mainstream media or the Left.  They are just destroyed and forgotten.

Oh, and on the capital punishment / racism angle, remember that the abortion rate for blacks is 3 times that of whites.  Yet the Left reflexively plays the race card on the Right?!

pie_chart-abortion_and_capital_punishment.jpg

I was once asked why I am pro-life but not anti-capital punishment (I am in favor of capital punishment, but only if it is applied in a Biblical model). The pro-life / pro-capital punishment view is often ridiculed in the media and entertainment, and I have heard many Christians mock it as well.

The main reason I find the pro-life movement to be more important is shown in the pie chart above. Since the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision, there have been over one million abortions per year. I rounded down to a million and then calculated the weekly amount of 19,231 human beings killed per week. Then I graphed the average of 1 (one) death via capital punishment per week (actually, the average is about 0.65, but I rounded up). It took almost thirty years to mark the 1,000th execution since the Supreme Court ruled it was legal again.

So what you see is a rather odd pie chart. The capital punishment slice of the pie is almost invisible.

In a given week in the U.S., there are 19,231 deaths of completely innocent humans versus 1 death of a convicted murderer who survived an average of over 14 years of appeals, and whose guilt is virtually certain. (And this doesn’t even take into account the shattered lives of the  women/boyfriends/husbands/parents who live with the pain of having the abortions or encouraging someone to have one). That is why my energy would still be directed to the pro-life movement even if I thought that capital punishment was un-Biblical.

Actually, I am OK with unrestricted access to abortions - provided that the unborn get the same 10+ years of appeals that condemned killers do.

Or, to paraphrase Randy, I’m pro-choice as long as the unborn human being is the one making the life or death decision.

More on capital punishment here.

Free speech and video games

Stan got me thinking about recent Supreme Court case about free speech and video games in his post about Free Speech.  For the record, I’m certainly opposed to these violent video games.

Briefly, the story is that the Supreme Court has struck down a California law that made it a crime to sell violent video games to children. It wasn’t even a close vote. The court ruled 7:2. The court made a stunning decision: Make parents responsible for their children. Is there any doubt that our court system (and the nation that supports it) has lost its mind?

This comment will probably reveal that I’m not a lawyer, but doesn’t the 1st Amendment specifically say that “Congress shall make no law . . .” and not “the States . . .?’”  Also, wouldn’t this get in the way of the 10th Amendment?

More importantly, I couldn’t help but laugh at some of the headlines noting that the responsibility to regulate this would now fall on parents.  That’s one of the major problems of people looking to government to solve all their problems.  The government solutions are usually counterproductive, but like drinking salt water the people just look to the government to solve even more problems.

This is just another example of the slippery slope of government intervention.  Countless parents have come to expect the government to feed their kids multiple meals per day, even if it means wildly wasteful programs.  But what could be a more basic responsibility of parents than to feed their kids?

Even though I thought the court’s view of this as a 1st Amendment issue was an overreach, I’m glad to see them err on that side.  It may mean we’ll have just a little more time before any criticism of the LGBTQX agenda is considered illegal.

Roundup

Yeah, I think this pretty much sums it up for us accounting / finance types:

Thanks, Comics.com

The Real Reason For Lefty Malaise – great explanation by Rich Karlgaard of Forbes about why Leftist ideas look swell in college classrooms but fail in the real world.

Pandering to Hispanics — L.A./Chicago Boycott Arizona… Unless There’s Money to be Made on red light cameras.  You can always tell how deep principles run when people hold them tightly — provided it costs them absolutely nothing.

Supreme Court: Public schools can deny funding to Christian student groups that bar gays — a horrible decision that only passed when they tweaked it to say that groups can’t exclude anyone.  But what will they do if hundreds of Christians join the Muslim group and change its leaders and by-laws to say that Jesus is the only way and Mohammad was a false prophet?  Make up your own examples!

More inconsistencies — We’re Here, We’re Queer and We’re in Abject Denial — gay groups support Palestine, even though the Palestinians would kill them all if they had a parade there while Israel would not.

Israel. The only place in the Middle East where one can be gay in public, without fear of being jailed, tortured or killed. The useful idiots aligning with Palestine don’t even realize that Hamas, a terrorist organization intent on “wiping Israel off the map,” is also oppressing some of its own people, particularly women and homosexuals. But, see, this doesn’t matter to them. Hamas is anti-Israel and anti-America. This is all that matters. Because George Bush. And evil capitalist America. They are willing to turn a blind eye to true oppression and homophobia so rampant that it results in bloodshed and death, as long as it fits with their preferred global agenda.

Hillary: Let the babies starve until we fund abortions – they love expanding abortions so much that they’ll hold food and medicine for babies as a result.  You can really feel the love, eh?

Besides, Hillary’s statement is nothing short of idiotic.  Maternal health does not depend on abortion.  In fact, abortion is a rather moot point when it comes to the stage of worrying about the health of mothers of newborn infants, isn’t it?

Darwin Meets Orwell – call this one, “Thanks for the concession speech, Mr. Naturalist!”  We’ve said for some time that naturalism can’t ground morality and this “expert” fully concedes the point.  His logic and conclusions are muddy, but the net of it is great to hear.  Yes, yes, we agree!  If your worldview is true then people can’t be held accountable!

Glenn’s last piece on his Catholic series, Catholic Iconography and the “Saints.” Nice summary.  I know many Catholics who, based on what they profess to believe, would be in the “true Christian” category.  They either weren’t taught or don’t believe the false doctrines from Rome and they do believe the essentials.  But that doesn’t mean I’d point people there.  The Reformation happened for many good reasons.

. . . These are the heavy burdens of legalism placed upon the members of the Roman Catholic Church, which result in the Roman Catholic Church being a cultic organization, in which the majority of its members are not true Christians (as testimony after testimony of ex-members attest).

How do we then witness to Catholics? The best way is to show them that salvation is a one-time thing and that it is not as a result of works. Point them to Christ, and not to Mary, for salvation. And that everything their leaders say should be passed through the grid of Scripture.

As noted on my Facebook page, my backup dog chewed through the mesh and inside of my suitcase to get to some candy stored in the front compartment.  She ate the Mikes AND the Ikes.  This is a re-enactment; she ran away when I was coming down the hall the first time.  She has lost a lot of teeth but still managed to chew through the fabric.

IMG_0028

Digg This

Campaign financing

The solution to campaign finance reform is more transparency, not in suppression of free speech. 

One of the most irritating hypocrisies in the State of the Union speech was President Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court.  Even if McCain-Feingold was meritorious it was still un-Constitutional, and the Court’s role is to decide the Constitutionality of laws and court decisions.  If Obama doesn’t like the Constitution as is, there is a process to amend it.  He shouldn’t shoot the messenger.

Worse yet is the fact that his campaign had incredible amounts of illegal contributions:

Nonetheless, if Obama really is concerned about foreign campaign donations, then Obama should request that Attorney General Eric Holder (or an Acting Attorney General since Holder likely has a conflict) appoint a special counsel with the power to investigate, and if justified, prosecute violations of the laws, and conspiracies to violate the laws, forbidding foreign contributions.

And the place the special counsel can start is with Obama’s 2008 campaign, which disabled security features in its credit card web portal so as to allow donors to evade restrictions on numerous aspects of the federal campaign laws, including the prohibition on foreign contributions:

Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity, campaign officials confirmed….

The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions.That the Obama campaign received foreign donations as a result of this scheme may be the only thing agreed-upon by both Pamela Geller and Charles Johnson. Indeed, Obama for America has admitted receiving foreign contributions. The fact that the Federal Election Commission is not investigating the allegations necessitates a special counsel. Nonetheless, if Obama really is concerned about foreign campaign donations, then Obama should request that Attorney General Eric Holder (or an Acting Attorney General since Holder likely has a conflict) appoint a special counsel with the power to investigate, and if justified, prosecute violations of the laws, and conspiracies to violate the laws, forbidding foreign contributions.

And the place the special counsel can start is with Obama’s 2008 campaign, which disabled security features in its credit card web portal so as to allow donors to evade restrictions on numerous aspects of the federal campaign laws, including the prohibition on foreign contributions:

“Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity, campaign officials confirmed….

The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions.”That the Obama campaign received foreign donations as a result of this scheme may be the only thing agreed-upon by both Pamela Geller and Charles Johnson. Indeed, Obama for America has admitted receiving foreign contributions. The fact that the Federal Election Commission is not investigating the allegations necessitates a special counsel.

If you don’t even understand the job description . . .

. . . you shouldn’t get the job.

All you need is 26 seconds to know that Sotomayar is unqualified:

This wasn’t some slip of the tongue or misstatement.  We should be charitable to anyone who makes an innocent misstatement and let them correct it.  But as one blogger put it, this was pure wink-wink-nudge-nudge.  She made no secret of how she really felt and the audience laughed along. 

Given her errors on the role of judges, she is not only unqualified to be a Supreme Court justice, she isn’t even qualified to judge a local dog show.  I mean that in the most literal sense.  Judges interpret laws, they don’t make them.  It couldn’t be more simple. 

I am the VP of an Internal Audit group.  We may make recommendations at times, but we don’t create the rules.  We just audit the organizations and see if they are in compliance.  It is a similar situation as with being a judge.  Different entities have different roles and responsibilities.  Things get really messed up in a hurry when one group does another group’s job.

I was very proud of my high school daughters when they read Obama’s views on judges and immediately realized he was 180 degrees from the truth.

Speaking at the Planned Parenthood conference in DC this afternoon, Barack Obama leveled harsh words at conservative Supreme Court justices, and he offered his own intention to appoint justices with “empathy.”Obama hinted that the court’s recent decision in Gonzales v. Carhart — which upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion — was part of “a concerted effort to steadily roll back” access to abortions. And he ridiculed Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote that case’s majority opinion. “Justice Kennedy knows many things,” he declared, “but my understanding is that he does not know how to be a doctor.”

Obama also won a laugh at the expense of Chief Justice John Roberts, saying that judgments of Roberts’ character during his confirmation hearings were largely superficial. “He loves his wife. He’s good to his dog,” he joked, adding that judicial philosophy should be weighted more seriously than such evaluations. “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

The Bumbling Genius has a great piece about the tragedy of this situation.  Check it out.

Side note: The news said she would make the sixth Catholic on the S.C.  No one seems to mind, though, because as a pro-abortionist she’s about as Catholic as I am. 

This is one of the greatest reasons the last election counted so much.  Shame on the Christians who voted for Obama.

Will she ultimately get nominated?  Sure, but the Republicans need to do their jobs and educate people on what judges are supposed to do.  One of Bush’s biggest failures was not communicating his message.  He could have stood up every week and explained why abortion is wrong, for example.

Yikes! This is a major problem with Obama and his supporters

Anyone who understands the role of the Supreme Court should know that either side should have 100% believing that the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution.  According to a recent poll:

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

That’s pretty scary, considering that appointing judges is one of the most important thing that Presidents do.  Much of the remaining things they promise aren’t even under their direct control. 

Hat tip: Stop the ACLU