Tag Archives: Sexuality

Roundup

I’ve been getting lots of traffic on this older post: Wendy Wright schools Richard Dawkins.  For some reason it was mentioned on a Facebook page (but I can’t tell from where) and  fallacious comments poured in from Darwin fans.  Feel free to read the post and the recent comments and feel sad (about the education/mainstream media/entertainment brainwashing that led to this) or glad (about how well the Christian worldview stacks up against those false views and how Dawkins is a self-parody).  It is leading to quite a few views of the minimal facts approach to apologetics, so that is good!

Good things to remember if you are going on mission trips.  If you don’t have an effective plan you are wasting time and money, and may be doing things that are counterproductive to the Kingdom.   I actually had to persuade people at my former church that we should prepare people to share the Gospel as part of the training for missions (of course, they should do that anyway, even if they don’t go on mission trips).  It was predictable that they judged the speaker for judging.

This should be good: “Darwin’s Doubt” — Game-Changing New Book by Stephen Meyer To Be Released in June — That oughta get the Darwin fans excited – in a bad way.

The book’s official website is now live. Go there to pre-order your copy now — do so by April 30th, and receive 43% off and receive four bonus digital books. As someone who has read the book, I can assure you: This is a book not to be missed. If you thought Signature in the Cell was ground-breaking, wait till you get a hold of this.

There is a special term for Republicans who endorse government recognition of “same-sex marriage” — Democrats  (RINO just isn’t strong enough)

The 12 worst party schools in the country — consider going to one of these!

From the Moral Schizophrenia category: Puppies aborted, pro-choicer laments

I’m Sure Glad Our Government Is Not Making Withdrawals From OUR Bank Accounts (Evil Laugh) — Excellent point about how our government is robbing us just as the government of Cyprus tried to rob investors there.  The only difference is that our government is more subtle, using inflationary money printing to do the job — and the media and politicians let them get away with it.

Teacher booted from Portland School District after protracted battle with Planned Parenthood — a great teacher was hounded then fired for daring to disagree with the moral freaks at  Planned Parenthood who kill babies for a living, hide statutory rape and poison and so much more.

Speaking of PP, here’s an update to my summary post on them. They aggressively promote filth to youth.  Watch the videos if you have the stomach for them, and remember that they are marketed to children with your tax dollars.  They assume that every relationship will involve sex and that you will go from one sex relationship to another.  They pretend that people will actually follow their advice (Yeah, sure, people will always use condoms for oral sex.  Because kids and gays would never rebel and break any safe sex rules!).

Great article about the false argument that kids must be in public schools to be properly socialized.

“Preparing” your child for such a world is a euphemism for condemning him to life as a citizen of progressive hell. If mankind is to have a rational, moral future, that future will ultimately belong not to the damaged survivors of public school, but to the “unprepared” and “maladjusted,” namely the bug-studiers, stargazers, and bookworms: those whose intellects and character were permitted to develop naturally, with curiosity, not fear, as their impetus, and self-sufficient adulthood, not “socialization,” as their goal.

Something has gone terribly wrong with the modern world, and public education is at the heart of the problem. The solution will not and cannot come from a publicly educated population. Begin the process of liberating children’s souls now, so that in the future there will once again be Thomas Jeffersons and Benjamin Franklins to do what will need to be done.

How to change the world – Pro-aborts hate when pictures or videos of abortions are shown, and for good reason: They change hearts and minds.

Great summary of the problems with the History Channel Bible movie. Hat tip: Glenn

Capitalism has its rough edges, but it is far, far better than any other -ism ever considered.  Free markets, the rule of law and private property ownership (all supported by both the Old and New Testaments) do more to reduce poverty than any counterproductive program ever dreamed up by the Left.

Another item in the “I’d put a parent warning label on this post, except . . .”

The public schools want to teach this to your kids!  Sometimes the topics I address are so graphic that I’m tempted to edit them more.  Then I remember that not only does the Liberal establishment want to mention the topics, they want to teach your children that they are normal, safe and something they are expected to do.  And they won’t just mention the topics, they’ll tell your kids how to perform them.

This is the liberal-dominated education system in action.  See If It Weren’t Public School Doing It ….

“New York City 11-year-olds will soon be learning sex education from workbooks that include instruction on “mutual masturbation, French kissing, oral and anal sex, and “intercourse using a condom and an oil-based lubricant.”

The shocking revelations were uncovered in “recommended” workbooks reviewed by The New York Post. . . .

One of the preferred resources for students is Columbia University’s website, “Go Ask Alice,” the Post reported. That site includes discussions on topics ranging from “doggie-style,” oral sex with braces, fetishes, and “sadomasochistic sex play.””

The New York Post reports: “Starting in the spring, the DOE will require one semester of sex ed in sixth or seventh grades and one in ninth or 10th.

It says schools can pick any curriculum but recommends the widely used HealthSmart and Reducing the Risk programs and trains teachers to use them.”

Seriously, if any random stranger tried to talk to kids about stuff that schools teach in sex-ed classes, parents would be calling the cops. It’s just downright creepy to teach this kind of stuff to sixth-graders.

Two important posts from Kevin at Hillbuzz

I’m glad that Kevin DuJan is healthy again and actively blogging at Hillbuzz.  He’s a gay man who self-identifies as a Christian, so it is safe to say that we disagree on a couple things.  But I enjoy his candor and commentary on many issues.  He knows firsthand how vicious the Left can be to anyone who doesn’t follow the company line on all things Liberal, and he has some profound insights into the LGBTQ and pro-abortion subculture.

Here are two recent posts that I highly recommend.

First, see Advice on how to deal with gay family member who’s been brainwashed by the Left, if nothing else for his refreshing thoughts on “gay marriage.”

What’s happening here is classic Leftism…where the Left wants everyone to be victims and martyrs, because that makes them easier to control.  The Left has a clear and vested interest in making gays hate their families, because that means the gays won’t ever want to vote the way their families voted…and this helps guarantee more votes to the Democrat Party.

You see how the Left keeps the black community disfunctional, impoverished, and dependent on entitlement programs so that black entrepreneurs never emerge and blacks never achieve middle class status (where they would start wanting to vote in their own economic best interests, and not for Democrats who have kept black people in ghettos for decades).

The same thing happens with gays:  as long as the Left can convince young gay guys who’ve just come out that the people they grew up with all hate them for being gay, then Democrats can keep checking off the gay vote every election, using certain wedge issues to keep hate flowing at conservatives and Christians.

It is a well-orchestrated and heavily implemented scheme that’s run unchallenged for decades.

When a young gay guy like your brother starts reading The Advocate or Genre or Out magazine, in his exploration of his sexuality, he starts being brainwashed by the Left without realizing it.  The next step is for him to start picking up the Left’s anti-family, anti-Christian talking points, as broadcast by Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow, Rosie McDonalds, Sandra Bernhardt, Margaret Cho, Bill Maher, and other mouthpieces the Left uses to make hatred of conservatives and Republicans “cool”.

Being young and gay is partly about the search for acceptance. It’s about feeling different and seeking someplace where that difference is encouraged and not stifled.

The down side of all of this is that young gay guys like your brother fall under the influence of the Left, which fills their heads with the idea that life is just about rocking that hot little gym bod in as little clothing as possible as much as possible, reveling in the nonstop party that’s life in a place like Boystown, and shouting a giant F*** YOU! to everyone back home in Mineral City or Eureka Springs or wherever the guy was from.

It’s horrible, really, this brainwashing.

And the damage it all does is VERY difficult to undo.

Especially in terms of the key wedge issue the Left has used to divide gays from their families — and that’s the term “gay marriage” that the Left makes a line in the sand…which is often evolved into an insurmountable barrier between people who love one another.

I have said this many times before, and I will keep saying it:  if gays really wanted full equal rights, they would have sense enough to stop using the religious term marriage and start talking about spousal rights.  Better yet, show some of their trademarked creativity and invent A WHOLE NEW WORD for the spousal relationship between two guys and the similar arrangement between two women.  DO NOT TAKE A RELIGIOUS WORD and adulterate its meaning.  If there is no “gay baptism”, no “gay communion”, and no “gay confirmation”, there should be no “gay marriage”.

Case Studies of “The Tolerant Left”: NYC Democrat women who hate pregnant women

Here’s a case study of “The Tolerant Left” at work…in this instance, self-proclaimed “liberal” (read: Leftist) women in New York City who voted for Obama, have always called themselves Democrats, and who hate a woman in their office who’s gotten pregnant, is getting married, and is happily starting a family.

My friend Delphine works in a non-teaching position at a major institution of higher learning in New York City, in an office that is almost exclusively female, Obama-voting, and Leftist. The Big Boss of the office is a ridiculously wealthy Manhattan socialite who enjoys the prestige of her position (hobnobbing with the Mayor quite often, frequently being interviewed for her opinions on matters related to academia, having lunch with celebrity alumni, etc.) and the many millions of dollars her former husband left her, before the divorce.  This woman recently came out as a lesbian, and this liberation has turned to militancy on some levels, in that she clearly grinds an axe against women in the office with family responsibilities (since, not having those of her own, she seems to believe people under her on the organizational chart need to be at her disposal 24/7/365, husbands and babies be damned). She is what has been termed an evangelical or fundamentalist lesbian, who braids politics and autocracy into sexuality. Of, course, Big Boss is a big Obama supporter who makes many disparaging remarks during official staff meetings about Governor Sarah Palin, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, columnist Ann Coulter, and other conservative women.

The hatred exuded by Big Boss is real and palpable…she is a very angry woman who takes her emotions out on those unfortunate enough to work for her. She is the tyrant of her ivory towered fiefdom.

Just below her on the org chart is Little Boss, who is unmarried, childless, and upset in her 50s that marriage and children never happened for her (though she’s never stopped to wonder if it was her bad attitude and poor treatment of others that caused any of this). She, too, is a big Obama supporter and also never misses an opportunity to viciously malign Governor Palin or Congresswoman Bachmann in particular, often calling them both the “c-word” right there in the office, in front of the whole staff, as if it was the most natural and professional thing in the world to do.

. . .

Delphine just turned 30 last month, and is expecting her first child.  The baby was a total and complete surprise blessing, and she and the father have decided to get married this fall, before the baby comes.  Delphine is the most practical and efficient woman I’ve ever known and is not the center-of-attention type.  Meaning, just because she’s pregnant doesn’t mean Delphine has morphed into a “Hey! Come look at my sonagram! Come help me pick out baby names!” sort of person, because that’s just not her. Never has been, never will  be.

Clearly, she told the office she is pregnant.  She told everyone she is getting married. She’s had to adjust her habits a little because of the baby, but has not missed a single beat at work and has not drawn any sort of distracting attention to herself because she is pregnant.  She is the model employee, in fact, and she’s damn good at what she does for this university. They are most lucky to have her in their employ.

Well, Big Boss and Little Boss have been harassing her since she told them she was pregnant.  They don’t mind her getting married so much, even though Big Boss told her that her fiance is “ugly”, direct quote, but it’s the baby these two have an obsessive problem with.

Big Boss started things off by sneering at Delphine not long after she learned Delphine was pregnant, which Delphine thought was just her imagination for a while.  Big Boss is very angry at the world in general and often believes she was snubbed by Mayor Bloomberg or Governor Cuomo or someone, possibly Elmo, so Delphine didn’t realize her pregnancy so offended Big Boss until she had her performance review…and in the middle of it Big Boss started several sentences with “That damn baby better not…” and ended them with “or else your job is in jeopardy!”.

. . .

The problem is that not everyone is as comfortable standing up to bullies on the Left as Delphine.  And not everyone knows how to handle this garbage in the workplace.

Because the media protects the Left at every turn, it’s also rare to see stories like this told in print.

I wonder what would happen to the Left and people like Big Boss and Little Boss if “Case Studies of the Tolerant Left” became things regularly published online, from people who deal with this garbage in the trenches and have no other outlets to voice their exasperation.

There is no “Tolerant Left”.

There’s only the Left, in all its dictatorial we-know-best-do-as-we-say INTOLERANCE.

Do Planned Parenthood and “comprehensive” sex ed programs teach this?

See New study finds that teens who lose their virginity are more likely to divorce.  Read the stats at the link.  It is quite compelling.  Somehow I doubt that the answer to the title question is “yes.”  So you better tell your kids, and kids, you should tell your friends.

Divorce is very costly, very painful and very avoidable.  Out-of-wedlock sex also leads to more divorce, diseases, unplanned pregnancies and abortions.  If groups like Planned Parenthood, public schools, false religious teachers and the media really had your long-term best interests at heart they would put this on the front page for weeks.  But that isn’t their agenda.  They are too busy telling kids not to have sex until they are ready — which, shockingly enough, is right about the time they really want to have sex!

From the commentary there (emphasis added):

This dovetails nicely with the previous studies that Mysterious C sent me that showed that, for men and women, the more sexual partners you have before marriage, the more unstable your marriage will be. See the related posts for more. If you’re still a virgin, like me, (and I’m in my mid-thirties now, and I’m saving my first kiss for my engagement), then there is nothing wrong with you. If you want a stable marriage, then you don’t have sex before you’re married. There are tons of virgins out there, and there is a huge difference in the quality of romantic relationships when both parties exercise self-control with physical touching.

I was reading the Song of Solomon and noticed a couple things . . .

I just went through The Song of Solomon as part of my “read the Bible in a year” program and couldn’t help but notice that:

1. The love story involved one man and one woman.

2. The man seemed to know he was a man, didn’t question it and had certain manly traits and roles.

3. The women seemed to know that she was a woman, didn’t question it and had certain womanly traits and roles.

4. There wasn’t even a hint in this iconic book on romance of relationships between two men, two women, transgenderism, etc.

5. Despite their obvious passion for each other, the theme of waiting until marriage for sex was repeated at least four times:

Solomon 3:5 I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem,
by the gazelles or the does of the field,
that you not stir up or awaken love
until it pleases.

How politically incorrect!  I wonder how the theological Liberals deal with this work (other than immediately denying that it is God-inspired).  After all, they teach that homosexual, bi-sexual, transgender, etc. are preferences assigned by God.  It seems odd that He wouldn’t have been more inclusive.

And they also support the Planned Parenthood mantra of waiting to have sex until you are ready, and ignoring what your parents and religion have to say (Shockingly enough, kids tend to decide they are “ready” when they really, really want to have sex.  And then lots of disease and unplanned pregnancies happen.  Go figure!)

Seriously, it is a great book.  Sex is “God’s wedding present,” a truly great thing designed for a life-long relationship between one man and one woman.

Heterosexual questionnaire, aka Best. Homework assignment. Ever.

My daughter took a college sociology class (Motto: “Let’s use your parent’s money to turn you into a Liberal!”). Fortunately, just like her older sister, she has amazing critical thinking skills and a biblical worldview and saw through the nearly nonstop nonsense.

One of the homework assignments was to ask someone the survey questions below. It is obviously a twist on the questions people have asked gays – some of which are fair and relevant and others of which are silly. I’m sure the lesson we’re supposed to learn is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with LGBTQ behavior and we are all twisted homophobes (bi-phobes, transgender-phobes, etc.) for merely questioning the practices.

She picked me to answer the questionnaire. Yea! She had a 100% average going into the assignment, so she felt pretty comfortable that even if there was retribution she could weather it grade-wise. And she could always just claim that she interviewed one of those awful bigoted-hateful-homophobic-right-wing-fundie-nutjob-uneducated-conservative-zealots (because after all, if you call your ideological opponents names like that you must be right!).

Side notes: This oh-so-tolerant teacher didn’t bat an eye when one student (Official nickname: Drunk Guy) loudly noted during class that, “Conservatives are assholes.”

The teacher gave one assignment after another where she made a grand assumption without evidence then proceeded to ask why white males were at fault. One example: The lesson asking, “How does male dominance help to explain homophobia (or heterosexism).” I am not making this up.

The textbook used feminine pronouns exclusively, with the exception of when the subject was clearly a bad person, in which case male pronouns were used.

Let’s just say I’m very grateful for the Rate My Professors website. I think this is an outstanding tool for people to fairly evaluate their professors and warn others of those who are ideological bullies. What is scary is that this teacher was actually exercising restraint.

Here’s the survey and my replies. I just love helping the academic process move along. I’m sure the professor enjoyed them and changed her positions. Feel free to offer your own answers!

1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?

By nature and design I was born to be attracted to the opposite sex.

2. When and how did you decide that you were a heterosexual?

I don’t recall. There are many things I did instinctively as a child. Some were good, some were not. One of the keys to successful living is learning which instincts are wrong and dealing with them.

3. Is it possible that your heterosexuality is just a phase that you may grow out of?

No, but given that it is natural and biblical I have no reason to consider changing it.

4. Is it possible that your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?

No, because I don’t fear the same sex. I have countless friendships and acquaintances with men and they don’t involve fear, let alone neurotic fear.

5. If you have never slept with a person of the same sex, is it possible that all you need is a good gay lover?

There are many unhealthy things I have never done. I don’t need to try them to see if I might like them. And even if I did like them it doesn’t mean they would be good for me.

Having said that, I wouldn’t propose to LGBTQ people to have sex out of wedlock as a solution to anything.

6. Do your parents know that you are straight? Do your friends and roommates know?

Yes.

7. Why do you insist on flaunting your heterosexuality? Can’t you just be who you are and keep it quiet?

That is a “have you stopped beating your wife” type of fallacious question. I don’t flaunt my heterosexuality. I don’t march in heterosexual pride parades. I don’t fly heterosexual pride flags or put bumper stickers on my car.

I also don’t try to stop LGBTQ people from associating with whomever they like.

8. Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?

Many people put too much emphasis on sex. But I am not defined just by my heterosexuality. If I were to describe myself, I wouldn’t even use it as an adjective.

9. Why do heterosexuals feel so compelled to introduce others into their lifestyle?

I can’t speak for everyone, but I am very familiar with the physical, emotional and spiritual destructiveness of the homosexual lifestyle.

10. A disproportionate majority of child molesters are heterosexual. Do you consider it safe to expose children to heterosexual teachers?

I would like to see the statistics supporting your premise. My understanding of the sexual preferences of the Catholic pedophile priests is the opposite of that. LGBTQ people comprise roughly 2% of the population, so even if they molested children at the same rate as the rest of the population then 98% of molestations would be committed by heterosexuals. My understanding is that a disproportionate amount of abusers are gays.

11. Just what do men and women do in bed together? How can they truly know how to please each other, being so anatomically different?

It is not a well-kept secret that men and women were designed for sexual relations with the opposite sex.

12. With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships between heterosexuals?

The sexual revolution, which includes the LGBTQ agenda, is a big part of it. Human selfishness, the no-fault divorce laws, the explosion of pornography, and so much more contribute to it. Bible-believing, church-attending people (i.e., not just those checking the “Christian” box on surveys) have much lower divorce rates than average.

Having said that, the rate of partners for gays is exponentially higher than that for heterosexuals.

13. Statistics show that lesbians have the lowest incidence of sexually transmitted disease. Is it really safe for a woman to maintain a heterosexual lifestyle and run the risk of disease and pregnancy?

Statistics also show that it is nearly impossible to get an STD if two virgins marry and are committed to each other for life.

Statistics also show that gays are over 40 times more likely to get syphilis or HIV than heterosexuals. I assume there will be a follow up question asking if it is really safe to maintain a homosexual lifestyle and run the risk of disease or to have sex out of wedlock and run the risk of a child outside of marriage.

Is it really safe for people to ever consider having sex outside of a one man / one woman marriage?

14. How can you expect to become a whole person if you limit yourself to compulsive, exclusive heterosexuality?

I’m not sure what you mean by “compulsive,” but I can be a whole person as a heterosexual because that is who I am by nature, and it is in complete agreement with the word of God. My wholeness is not dependent on me experimenting with every sexual possibility known to man. In fact, I am much more whole by not doing those things.

15. Considering the menace of overpopulation, how could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual?

Overpopulation concerns are in error. The earth could support many more people. Also, the question is fallacious because 98% of the population is heterosexual (i.e., the 2% difference is negligible).

Having said that, the population replenishment argument against LGBTQ people is pretty meaningless.

16. Could you trust a heterosexual therapist to be objective? Don’t you feel that s/he might be inclined to influence you in the direction of his/her own leanings?

All other things being equal, I would trust them more than someone who ignores the physical, spiritual and emotional dangers of the LGBTQ lifestyle. If you really care about people you won’t deliberately hide the truth from them. If a therapist doesn’t understand the basic nature and design of human beings and teaches things contrary to the word of God, then I wouldn’t trust them on this topic.

17. There seems to be very few happy heterosexuals. Techniques have been developed that might enable you to change if you really want to. Have you considered trying aversion therapy?

Do you have any data to support that? I know many happy heterosexuals. And the ones who are unhappy may be so because they have violated God’s design for sex. My understanding is that suicide rates for gays are higher even in ultra gay-friendly cities and countries.

18. Would you want your child to be heterosexual, knowing the problems they would face?

That question seems incomplete. Perhaps you could note the problems that heterosexuals have that LGBTQ people don’t have? I would want my kids to live in accordance with natural law and the word of God. That is always the best plan. If people get high school degrees and don’t have sex out of wedlock, the odds of them being poor are very, very low. If they do the opposite then the odds of them being poor are very high. That’s just one example.

I do realize that people with the courage to speak the truth about sexual matters may be vilified as “haters” and such, but I would want my kids to do what is right rather than what is just popular. I am all for civility and I treat the many gays and lesbians I know with kindness. I have taught my children to do the same. But political correctness is merely saying what you know to be false in order to maintain your popularity.

“Landmark” abstinence education study

Read the whole thing: via Jill Stanek – Breaking from WaPo: “Landmark” abstinence ed study “could have major implications”.

The Washington Post posted a breakthrough story this afternoon about a “landmark” scientific study showing abstinence education works and comprehensive sex ed, well, not so much.

High points:

  • Study subjects were African-American students
  • Study controls and results were so airtight the Obama administration, which devised new rules to cutting abstinence ed from federal funding, admitted the new evidence may open the door for grants
  •  Study results were stark (33% of abstinence educated students had sex within 2 years vs. 52% who had comprehensive sex ed)
  • The new study involved 662 African-American students who were randomly assigned to go through 1 of 5 programs: An 8-hour curriculum that encouraged them to delay having sex; an 8-hour program focused on teaching safe sex; an 8- or 12-hour program that did both; or an 8-hour program focused on teaching the youngsters other ways to be healthy, such as eating well and exercising.

    Over the next two years, about 33% of the students who went through the abstinence program started having sex, compared to about 52% who were just taught safe sex. About 42% of the students who went through the comprehensive program started having sex, and about 47% of those who just learned about other ways to be healthy. The abstinence program had no negative effects on condom use, which has been a major criticism of the abstinence approach.

    Super freaks: Pro-abortion clergy

    The “Reverend” Chuck Currie posted this Open Letter from Religious Leaders to Members of Congress Supporting Inclusion of Abortion Services in Health Care Reform.  Who needs Syrup of Ipecac when you have religious people not only wanting legalized abortion (bad enough) but wanting to make pro-lifers pay for it?  That isn’t pro-choice, that is pro-abortion.

    And who doesn’t realize that once the government is in complete control of health care that they’ll do away with those pesky conscience clauses and force doctors to do abortions?

    Before I dive into the letter, I wonder where the “separation of church and state” folks are and why aren’t they frothing at the mouth over this gross intrusion of religious beliefs into our political system?  Oh, yeah, they are pro-abortion, so they don’t care about these religious beliefs being voiced.  Of course, there is nothing wrong with your religious views informing your political views, but a little consistency from the ACLU crowd would be nice.

    Dear Members of Congress,

    As religious leaders, we support public policies that are just and compassionate and prioritize the needs of those who are poor and marginalized in our society.

    Oh, they are so compassionate.  How about justice and compassion for these victims?  They seem more than marginalized to me.

    Therefore we are opposed to attempts – many made in the name of religion and morality – to exclude abortion services from health care reform. While our reasons for supporting the inclusion of abortion services in health care are diverse, they are grounded in the teachings of our faith traditions and our commitment to social justice.

    What nonsense.  I’ll be glad to debate Chuck over what the Bible says about taking innocent human life any day.  Justice is about protecting the innocent, not harming them.  I usually present the pro-life cause without the Bible.  It is rather simple, given the scientific fact that life begins at conception and that it is immoral to take innocent human life for 99% of the reasons given for abortion.  But if people claim to believe the Bible then the case is even easier.

    The majority of faith groups in America have affirmed that abortion is a decision of conscience that should be safeguarded by government. Further, these faith traditions affirm that health care services, including abortion, must be available to all, regardless of income.

    Got any Bible verses for that, Chuck?  I’ve read the Bible many times and noted that Jesus never told us to petition Caesar to take money by threat of force and loss of freedom from neighbor A to give to neighbor B for anything, let alone abortions.  He taught to give our own money to help others.

    If coverage for abortion is eliminated from health care reform, the poor and communities of color will bear the consequences.

    Yeah, they won’t have killed their children.  Hey Chuck, ever been outside the U.S., where 90% of the people make the poor in the U.S. look rich?  Are you saying that all those people should have been aborted?

    And what naked racism!  These pro-abortion plans will only increase the three-to-one ratio of black abortions to whites.  That will further the inequality and genocide of the black community.  Fact: More black human beings will die under Chuck’s plan.

    Already, a low-income woman is four times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy and five times as likely to have an unintended birth as her higher income counterpart. Lack of access to abortion services perpetuates inequality and compromises the future of women, their families and their communities.

    Then why don’t you just kill those pesky poor children outside the womb?  The size, level of development, environment and dependency of a human being should have no bearing on her right to life.  The “inequality” buzzword implies that someone forced these women to get pregnant.

    In this religiously pluralistic nation, our health care system should be inclusive and respectful of diverse religious beliefs and decisions regarding childbearing. One in three American women has an abortion by age 45, making it one of the most common medical procedures in the nation. Ignoring this truth belies the rhetoric of comprehensive, accessible health care.

    Oh, so if lots of people commit a sin then we should fund it?  Great logic, Chuck.

    And you aren’t being respectful of religious beliefs that oppose taking innocent human life.  Why are you forcing those people to pay for abortions?  Why not just give the money yourself to help these women have their unborn children destroyed?

    A health care system that serves all persons with dignity and equality will include comprehensive reproductive health services.

    Here’s some dignity and equality for you, Chuck.

    We call on Congress to preserve the current standard of reproductive health care and ensure that millions of uninsured and underinsured women will have access to these services.

    What satanic wordsmanship.  “Reproductive health?”  Not too healthy for the human being destroyed in the process.  “Preserve the current standard?”  No, they are asking for a major change.

    Chuck is such a great poster boy for these fake religionists.  Just a few tidbits about this “Christian Reverend.”

    • He did a whole sermon on how John 14:6 is wrong about Jesus being the only way to salvation.  His fake seminary was so bad that they didn’t even tell Chuck that there are 99 other passages with the same message, not to mention the endless Old Testament references commanding us not to worship other gods.
    • He is pro-oxymoronic “same sex marriage” and says homosexual behavior is not a sin, despite the fact that 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms, 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman, 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children) and 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
    • He preached a whole sermon praising Charles Darwin (he knows less about science than he does Christianity) and didn’t mention Jesus once.
    • He is a serial, unrepentent liar.   He knows it.  I know it.  He knows that I know that he knows it.  He deleted a comment of mine once (no biggie) but when I pointed that out he lied and said it had “racist, sexist, homophobic, offensive language and more.”  But despite a couple dozen requests he has never backed up that false claim.  He thought he could get away with that lie and is now too proud to ‘fess up.  Great example, “Rev!”  You’ll repeatedly lie like that but we can totally trust you on everything else, right?
    • The whole pro-abortion thing.

    There is so much more, but you get the idea.  There is a bright side to false teachers being so over the top with their heresies and blasphemies:  It makes them easy to spot.  They don’t even bother masquerading as angels of light; now they are out of the closet as angels of death.

    2 Corinthians 11:13-15 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

    He’s got a lot more ripping to do

    As noted in Actor rips anti-homosexuality pages out of the Bible, Ian McKellen of ‘Lord of the Rings’ thinks it is swell to rip Leviticus 18:22 out of hotel room Bibles.

    Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

    Here are some observations.

    Seems kinda like book burning.  Aren’t Liberals supposed to oppose that?  Oh, that’s right, free and open speech is just for people that agree with them.

    Should Conservatives do this with literature we don’t agree with?  I’d only have some of the comics plus a Post-It note sized piece of the Houston Chronicle left each day.

    Hey, at least he realizes what the Bible really says. If he’d just hang out with theologically Liberal (read: fake) Christians, they’d tell him that the Bible doesn’t really say that homosexual behavior is wrong.  He should just chat with Dan, ER, Geoffrey, Alan, Chuck et al and they’d straighten him out.  When it says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” what it really means is, “Go ahead and lie with a male as with a woman.  God made you that way, so He approves of it.” / sarcasm

    Also, he has a lot more tearing to do besides Leviticus 18:22:

    • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
    • 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
    • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
    • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

    By tearing out that page he also tears out the following, among other things.  Does he think those behaviors are acceptable?

    Leviticus 18:20 And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor’s wife and so make yourself unclean with her.

    Leviticus 18:21 You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.

    Leviticus 18:23 And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.

    They can tear out all they like, but the word of God isn’t going anywhere.

    Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

    Also see flaws of the shellfish argument, which addresses errors people make when trying to rationalize away Leviticus 18:22.

    Also see Problems with pro-gay theology, which addresses the three primary ways the pro-gay theology crowd gets it wrong.

    Classic pro-legalized abortion reasoning

    pro-choice-baby.jpgWhich is to say, classically flawed.  A commenter on the From one collection of cells to another post made some comments that I thought were worthy to be addressed in a separate post.  I find them to be thoroughly flawed, but they contained many arguments that pro-legalized abortion folks find persuasive.  Here is how I would respond to them:

    Ultimately we are not discussing whether a blastocyst is human, but whether it is a sentient human being. The mother clearly is and the fertilized egg clearly is not.

    That is an arbitrary philosophical argument that proves way too much.  We are discussing whether a human being is destroyed.  And Theobromophile explained why the sentient criteria is incorrect here.

    The mother may have been careless about birth control, or her birth control may have failed, but the fetus is part of her body and it is her body that will have to endure pregnancy and birth and her career that may be curtailed and her poverty into which the child will be forced to live.

    Lots of problems here.  Career, poverty, education and the other reasons typically given for choosing abortion would never justify murdering toddlers.  So why do they apply inside the womb?  It is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings.  Our worth is inherent in our humanity, not in some arbitrary time frame or philosophical and fuzzy “personhood” model.

    Using that reasoning, more than 80% of the pregnancies in the world should be aborted, because those children will be born into poverty worse than anything you find in the U.S. 

    The concept that abortion is murder is simply not shared by most of the American populace. It is a concept that is not even shared by all Christians. You are right to bring up the parallels, and I would suggest that assisted suicide for the terminally ill in constant pain is one, as are the DNR orders hanging from a loved one’s hospital bed, and certainly the death penalty is another. These are areas where the nation’s morality is still evolving.

    There have always been changes in our understanding of moral and ethical behavior and there always will be. Over time our laws change just as our morality changes. We once believed women belonged in the home as property of their husbands, but now they can vote, run for President, and have equal rights with men. We once believed that we could treat some our black citizens as inferior and conspire through law to deny them the right to vote, but we passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and now we have elected one to the Presidency. We once believed that gay people should not have the same rights as straight people, and one day soon we will abandon that prejudice. Will this happen with abortion? Who knows?

    Until then, those who do feel strongly about abortion on both sides should work together to reduce the number of abortions.

    This is pure double speak.  He has already rationalized that abortion is morally good or at least benign, but now he switches gears and says we should reduce the number.  But as I asked in an earlier comment, why should we reduce them?  If you don’t think they kill innocent human beings, why limit them? The pro-legalized abortion lobby insists they are safer than pregnancy and they are a cost effective method of birth control.  If you do think they kill innocent human beings, I’m not sure why you think they should be legal.

    Simply scaring young women into rejecting abortion is not the answer. We should work to reduce unwanted pregnancies in the first place, and we have to employ realistic methods, not simply tell people to abstain from sex. I fear that many on the anti-choice side will not join in such an effort because their opposition to abortion is at least partially grounded in a rejection of normal human sexuality and a desire to return women to traditional roles.

    He is using multiple logical fallacies here.  He begs the question and assume we are just trying to “scare” women.”  Pregnancy Resource Centers and other pro-life organizations just give the whole story and note the risks of abortion.  If the consequences are real, then “scare tactics” would be legitimate, anyway.

    He uses the “anti-choice” dig to imply that we are trying to take away rights. But as I noted in Who is really anti-choice?, my first reaction is that I am not ashamed to be anti-choice, provided that they mean “anti-choice to crush and dismember innocent human beings (regular abortions) or anti-choice to stick a sharp instrument in a baby’s head and suck out her brains (partial-birth abortions, aka infanticide) or anti-choice to let born-alive abortion surviving babies die in closets (the method of infanticide protected by Barack Obama).”

    He says it isn’t realistic to tell people to abstain from sex, but the liberal efforts at birth control have been a disaster.  Where is the “audacity of abstinence message” and “hope” that we can convince people to stop participating in such counter productive behavior? 

    Fact: If people follow the one man / one woman / covenant marriage guidelines for human sexuality then it would be impossible (or virtually impossible) to get STDs, out of wedlock pregnancies and affairs that destroy marriages and families.  Abortions would go down dramatically. 

    The notion that we reject normal human sexuality is outrageous.  Pro-legalized abortionists typically support all sorts of perversions.  We realize what studies show: Married couples have the most and best sex.  Men were designed to be with women.  That’s normal. 

    The notion that we want to put women in their place is outrageous as well.  Nearly all the volunteers and workers at CareNet are women.  Early suffragists were strongly pro-life.  It is a gross perversion of feminism to imply that women must have the right to destroy their children to be considered equal to men.

    Also note that we could easily play the motive game to demonize our opponents.  I could posit that you just hate God and are rebelling against him by affirming the “right” to destroy innocent human beings.  I could assume that you know abortion is a sin, but that by affirming it you make your own sins look less bad by comparison.  And on and on.

    But I don’t do that.  I stick to the facts: Scientifically speaking, abortion kills an innocent human being.  Morally speaking, we should defend the innocent from being murdered.

    Those awful Theocrats

    first-amendment.jpgYou know who I’m talking about: Those religious types who are always trying to impose their views on the populace, whether the topic is abortion, gay marriage, condom distribution to kids, etc.  We should obviously not permit their views to impact public policy.

    I’m talking about the religious groups that are pro-legalized abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-condom distribution to kids, etc. – groups like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, the National Council of Churches, the United Church of Christ, sub-groups of the Methodist church and other denominations, Catholics for Choice, etc.

    I’m kidding, of course.  I find the views of those groups to be un-Biblical and generally repulsive, but I am not proposing that we take away their access to the public square.  When I wrote Theocrats what probably came to mind was the “radical right” stereotype that really isn’t so radical

    Unless you are opposed to that First Amendment thingy, there are zero (0) reasons that people’s political views shouldn’t be informed by their religious views.  The First Amendment doesn’t restrict religious freedoms, it protects them. 

    But have you noticed that the vitriol against alleged Theocrats is exclusively directed at conservatives? 

    I have never heard people complain of liberal “Theocrats,” though I have seen major doses of irony when highly political liberal religious folks use fear-mongering against conservatives who participate in the political process. 

    In addition to citing the critics’ silence on religious groups that agree with them, you can also point out how they don’t seem to mind that your religious views drive you to oppose murder, rape, stealing and perjury.  This helps expose the disingenuousness of their argument and their transparent attempts to silence you.  What do they expect you to do, vote the opposite of your religious views? 

    And of course, how about those awful Theocrats who gave their lives to end the slave trade and legalized slavery?  Do the critics think William Wilberforce et al should have been stopped from “forcing their views” on people?

    I’m not saying politics is our #1 aim, or that the Right is always right.  I’m just saying that it is un-American, illogical, uncharitable and lazy to play the theocracy card instead of debating issues on their merits.