It’s All About the Girl – a Few Easter Musings

One of my favorite movie quotes is from the opening scene of “Spiderman” when Peter Parker states, “But let me assure you, this, like any other story worth telling, is all about a girl.”  Peter Parker was right, wasn’t he? Who would care about a giant ape in the jungle if he didn’t steal the girl who stole our hearts? Would William Wallace’s fight for freedom be quite so epic if he wasn’t spurred on by the hope of reuniting with his lost love? What would Robin Hood be without Maid Marion? “Is she worth it?” If the heroin isn’t worthy of the danger and suffering of the hero, the story usually isn’t worth our time.

Interesting trivia: Nearly every culture has some version of the story of Cinderella.  A partial list from http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type0510a.html

The Cinder Maid (reconstructed from various European sources by Joseph Jacobs).

Cinderella; or, The Little Glass Slipper (France, Charles Perrault).

Cinderella (Germany, Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, version of 1812).

Link to the version of 1857 (English translation).

Katie Woodencloak (Norway).

The Broken Pitcher (England).

Ashey Pelt (Ireland).

Fair, Brown, and Trembling (Ireland).

The Sharp Grey Sheep (Scotland).

Rashin-Coatie (Scotland).

The Hearth-Cat (Portugal).

Cinderella (Italy).

Little Saddleslut (Greece).

Conkiajgharuna, the Little Rag Girl (Georgia).

Pepelyouga (Serbia).

The Wonderful Birch (Russia).

The Baba Yaga (Russia).

The Wicked Stepmother (Kashmir).

Maria and the Golden Slipper (Philippines).

The Poor Turkey Girl (Native American, Zuni).

The Turkey Herd (Native American, Zuni).

The Indian Cinderella (Native American).

 The Green Knight (Denmark).

What makes this story so universal? It certainly fits the criteria of being all about the girl, in fact most fairy tales are, and while waiting for Prince Charming and the expectation of happily ever after have fallen out of favor with some, the picture of the damsel in distress, or struggling in oppression or danger or poverty often at the hands of the wicked stepmother being rescued by the brave handsome and virtuous prince is so deeply engrained in our cultural psyche we try to extract it at our own risk.

Let me offer speculation as to why the Story of Cinderella resonates in all levels of human existence. I believe it is an allegory of humanity itself.  Cinderella represents humanity; her situation represents the hopelessness of the human condition and Prince Charming? He is the Lord.  It’s not a perfect analogy of course but it is recognizable to something deep inside of us as the Gospel story.

Humanity was in Hopeless straights but it was not the misfortune of a wicked stepmother that caused our misfortune it was our own sin, unable to save ourselves we were the poor hapless maiden, though unlike the fictional Cinderella we had no beauty or virtue to recommend us to the Prince our depravity, like Cinderella’s poverty, made us undesirable, our garments stained with sin not ashes could never be cleaned by normal means.

It took magic to transform Cinderella so that her beauty could be revealed we needed much more. Our flaws were in our character not a ripped dress and smudged face, bippity-boppity-boo and a fairy godmother just wouldn’t do. We needed a Savior, and oh what a Savior we got!  He didn’t just wash our face, he cleansed our soul, no new ball gown, we got garments of righteousness, and best of all it doesn’t end at midnight. The cost for him though was high; he had to take upon himself human form than take up a cross. Sin can’t be waved away with a magic wand it can only be removed when the penalty for it is paid. Our beloved Prince paid the price for it with his death and in so doing transformed us into the pure maiden he would have as his bride. He didn’t love us because we were beautiful; he made us beautiful by his love.

Though we have danced with him and felt his love we still abide in our stepmother’s house, we still struggle with the trials of this world but his coming for us is certain, he needs no glass slipper to identify us, He knows us intimately and His Spirit seals our hearts. One day our Prince will come, on a cloud of Glory, in power and majesty as King of kings and Lord of lords, and that day may not be much farther hence. Our relationship to Christ is described as a marriage, Heaven as the marriage feast and we as the spotless bride awaiting the groom. The story of the gospel is better than any fairy tale because it is true But let me assure you, this, like any other story worth telling, is all about a girl, and from the Lord’s point of view, we are that girl!

Happy Resurrection Sunday!

Political correctness vs disrespect

The ultimate goal of political correctness is tyranny, so there is no doubt where I stand. In the name of PC the most obvious common sense tools of law enforcement are deemed racist profiling. The enemy of civilization cannot be identified as Islamic Extremist, but most damning is the silencing of anyone who criticizes anything. Political correctness is the ultimate tool of those who would end the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom in the United States as it has in much of Europe.

With this understanding would it not be refreshing to have a candidate for president who put aside political correctness?  Yes, and this cycle has seen several, but what saddened me was the inability of so many supporters of one particular candidate to differentiate between a rejection of PC and boorish and disrespectful comments aimed at women.

Here are a few examples of Trump quotes:

   “Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?! I mean, (Carly Fiorina’s) a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?"

"You could see there was blood coming out of (Megyn Kelly's) eyes, blood coming out of her whatever."

 “You know, it really doesn’t matter what they write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.”

 “I don’t think Ivanka would do that [pose for Playboy], although she does have a very nice figure. I’ve said if Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her.”

There are more but I think that’s enough.

Perhaps I’m just old fashioned; I know some feminists would consider my views sexist. I think a child having a mom at home is beneficial, I think a husband should be willing to be provider to make that happen.  I believe a man should protect his family (who would send his wife to check out a mysterious noise in the nigh?). I think combat is a man’s world. I think hitting a girl is wrong. A woman is a treasure to be sought and wooed and won and valued above all. Yea I’m an absolute shovanist in some books. Note: I would not want government imposing any of this, except the combat rules,  but these are the type of traditional Christian/American values I believe in.

This doesn’t mean I can’t work with women. Ive had women bosses who were great and women bosses who were terrible. I’ve promoted demoted hired and fired woman and never based one of those decisions on her gender.  But I have never treated a woman with disrespect. Not even when I had to ball them out for poor performance or call them out on an ethical question. Why? That’s how I was raised.

Manners are not PC, manners are the agreed upon rules, generally unwritten by which a civil society shows respect, without them the civil society itself is weakened. The disheartening thing is that Trump’s escapades do not hurt him with his supporters many of whom seem willing to rewrite their own views of right and wrong based on The Donald’s latest rant. This isn’t even about being Presidential, it’s about common courtesy and respect: have a problem with how Megyn Kelley does her job? Forcefully but respectfully confront her about it, to her face if possible. Don’t go to Twitter and call her a bimbo for a couple of GQ pictures.  

The problem is deeply rooted in several areas of our culture, and while Trump is a prime example he is not the cause, just a symptom.

The real problem is men have forgotten how to be men.  Ironically the feminist movement is partially perhaps largely responsible for this. In throwing of traditional feminine roles the feminist has largely neutered men. Much of the natural drive of a man is to have a woman. Properly trained, channeled and morally reigned in this turns into the beautiful relationship of a man and women becoming husband and wife I spoke of moments ago. Failure to do so, results in one of two things weak, ineffective men incapable of leading and doing the heroic things which are required of him by God and the good of Society, or that desire emerges untrained and unchecked and rather than a unique soul loved and created by God a woman is seen as just something to be possessed, used and done away with as the whim may strike. This is evident in Trump’s attitude and behavior, it is far far worse in certain cultures where rape and slavery are the result.  There is however some understandability that when the pendulum is swung so far to the PC side that in correcting itself it would swing too far the other way  when a simple compliment to a ladies appearance or harmless banter is elevated to the level of harassment it only adds to men’s confusion. Having said that is it really that hard to just show a little common courtesy? A good rule to follow, Eph 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

For clarities sake women are not merely possessions to be treasured or used, they are human beings unique and created, and endowed by their Creator with the same rights as men. Valued and important not because of what they do domestically or professionally but because Christ deemed them of such value that he gave his life for their sins to break down the wall of separation that sin has caused. Remember upon his resurrection it was to one of his women disciples he first revealed himself.

We live in a sad state of affairs when  man can make such comments as these and still be a presidential frontrunner. 

It is of interest to note that I decided on this topic before the explosion over the controversial add about the Melania Trump add and subsequent controversy. An anti-Trump group that produced the ad that has been called a vicious personal attack,  I would not have used this line of attack against Trump but the prospect of having a first lady who is a former model who posed nude or nearly so, is unique and perhaps is a legitimate point of discussion.  After all Trump thought Megyn Kelley’s far less controversial poses resulted in her being a bimbo, or at least whoever wrote the tweet for him did. Is it a vicious personal attack after all? It is her in the picture; she does want to be first lady.  Trump’s reaction to go after Cruz’s wife, though the ad was produced by a Romney affiliated with no connection to Cruz may finally be waking some people up to his brand of politic and attitude to women. Time will tell.

But consider this.  A recent ad, also by a Romney related group (if only he fought Obama so hard) had a number of ladies repeating Trump quotes about women. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKmhK8G--7c  This was no surprise to me my wife doing  her own research had already discovered these quotes. She is the love of my life and is as far from a feminist as one can be. She will not tolerate being disrespected however and that’s what Donald Trump’s comments are. Disrespectful.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if after years of being falsely accused of a war on women Republican’s nominate this guy and make those ridiculous claims of the past true going forward?

Ladies though believe me, there are still some guys out there who get it.

God Bless and Happy Easter

The Voters Nobody Wants (Though They Decide Every Election)

What do Ronald Reagan, George H W Bush and George W Bush have in common? Presidents? Yes. Republicans? Yes.

What do Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney have in common? Republican candidates? Yes. Losers? Yes.

What makes the difference? Therein lies the tale. Reagan Bush Sr and Jr were all strong on national defense, but so were the unsuccessful three. All Republicans have followed the example of that great man Reagan in supporting tax cuts to spur economic growth, and had George H W Bush not went back on his no new taxes pledge he probably wins a second term, but that has not been the thing that separates winners and losers on the Republican side.

We are told that the only hope of winning in a modern demographic is to get the Hispanic/Latino vote therefore we need a candidate that supports amnesty.  This argument fades a bit when you consider that if Mitt Romney had won 70% of the Hispanic vote, a lofty and nearly unattainable goal, he still would have lost to Barak Obama.  As critical as I am of Trump he has done a great service to the American people by blowing up this false amnesty narrative. American citizens, born and nationalized don’t want anything to do with amnesty and illegals don’t vote. (Unless their Democrats).  Reagan did make a deal on amnesty that was supposed to lead to border security but instead led to the loss of California, Reagan’s home state to becoming a Democrat stronghold. The border security measures Reagan demanded and the democrats agreed to were never implemented. You recall the backlash when Bush/McCain tried to sneak an amnesty bill through under cover of night? The Amnesty Kool-Aid is poison to the Republicans but if not for Trump they probably would still be drinking it.

Then there are the moderates and independents, they are the ones! Right? I have dealt with this in detail before http://advicenotaskedfor.blogspot.com/2011/03/oh-for-man-of-mushy-middle-how-my-heart.html but for now let me just say, We are told every election that if only a moderate can get the nomination without that old nasty tea party stopping them, they’ll win the general election. Of course the opposite always happens; moderates get the nomination then fail in the national election.

You think I’m going to say the Tea Party no doubt.  Well, the problem is this: the tea party is a protest movement they tend to vote against rather than for. They even vote in midterms, and they are a powerful force. The tea party voter though is not inclined to stay home because of a lackluster candidate and allow someone like Obama to be reelected.

If it’s neither the Hispanics nor the tea party who decide elections, then who? I take you back to August 21, 1980 when Ronald Reagan seeking the presidency said to a gathering of Southern Baptist ministers “"I know you can't endorse me … but I want you to know that I endorse you and what you are doing."  It was this moment that solidified the relationship between the conservative political movement and the “religious right”.

For what it’s worth, I identify more strongly with this group then I do with the tea party for one reason: the tea party largely shuns social issues. I do not. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness that the nation was founded on can only exist in what Adams called a moral and religious people.  Christian principles and moral absolutes undergird every aspect of American society and every institution. What did Reagan Bush and Bush have in common? They never shunned the social issues; they never betrayed the Christian base.

The Republican establishment claims social issues are a losing battle but history suggests that unless a candidate strongly supports the Christian view on these issues they cannot win. You see an increasing number of Christians have decided that the lesser of two evils is still evil and they will stay home, or skip the top slot on the ballot. Romney claimed to be pro-life now but once claimed to be more pro-choice then Ted Kennedy and failed to make sufficient protection for pro-life doctors in Romney-care. John McCain openly feuded with the pro-life leaders before seeking their endorsement, just 8 years later, Dole though “personally pro-life” sought to add a “tolerance clause” to the GOP platform and allowed no pro-life speeches in prime time during the ’96 convention.  

I have argued with my fellow believers about the quote the best way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, as a reason to plod along and support the non-liberal candidates even if they’re not as conservative as we would like, but more and more I see the Republican party move further away from Reagan’s stance I begin to question, can I really continue to support this party and be in good conscience to the Lord? The answer is … I don’t know.  

The truth is I will not support someone like Trump who has always been a liberal on social issues, until he magically sees the light when he runs for President, and now believes abortion should be banned sometimes at some point in the pregnancy, or who supports universal health care like they have in Canada.

No, if the Republican Party ever wants to regain the support Reagan enjoyed they need to return to what Reagan believed in. not election year catering but a history of commitment to real Judeo Christian values. Contrast  the wishy- washy  stand of the modern Republican party with Reagan “When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the Word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible"...

I'm accused of being simplistic at times with some of the problems that confront us. But I've often wondered: Within the covers of that single Book are all the answers to all the problems that face us today, if we'd only look there. "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but the word of our God shall stand forever." It's my firm belief that the enduring values...presented in its pages have a great meaning for each of us and for our nation...

Now, I realize it's fashionable in some circles to believe that no one in government should... encourage others to read the Bible... that will violate the separation of church and state...Well...the father of our country, George Washington, kissed the Bible at his inauguration...

John Adams called it "the best book in the world." and Ben Franklin said, "... the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men... without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel... our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach, a bye-word down to future ages."......

This is but one of Reagan’s many quotes that show why Christians supported him, his landslide victories have seldom been duplicated (49 of 50 states supported his reelection, and he narrowly lost Mondale’s home state of Minnesota by 3,761 votes.) it can happen again, someone who unites all conservatives, social, fiscal, and economic, but if the Republicans continue on the path of taking back that endorsement of the Christian Community that Ronald Reagan offered over 30 years ago we will withdraw our endorsement,  and votes, from you.  After all fair is fair. I don’t believe we have time to start a third party and build it in time to save the country, but if things continue as they are we will have no choice with a good conscience but to try.

Trump: The Republican Version of Obama

Did that title get your attention? Trump supporters already mad? Let me develop my point then tell me where I am wrong.

I have been attempting to put my finger on the meteoric rise of the Trump campaign and it still somewhat eludes me. There is a boldness and audacity that is refreshing, he shrugs off political correctness and defies apology, these are all positives but not unique to Trump. Cruz has battled boldly against the Republican establishment, Walker turned blue Wisconsin around over the slings and arrows of the union attack dogs on their own turf. Want someone not in politics? Dr. Ben Carson looked Barak Obama right in the eye and challenged him on principle in front of the world. Contrast this to Trump’s spat with Fox reporter Meghan Kelly which consists mostly of snipes and insults on twitter and other media outlets and you see the difference between bravado and bravery.  Still, Trump’s voice has largely drowned out these other men, he is after all louder and he owns his own microphone, at first I thought this explained it.

If I am near a radio between noon and three eastern I usually have Rush Limbaugh on. Recently he had a caller who was a Trump supporter who was talking about Trump’s economic policy (or lack thereof) and she said (quoting from memory) “Donald doesn’t need to give specifics, he knows that if you cut taxes and get rid of all these regulations that the economy will fix itself,” to which the host replied, “You realize Trump hasn’t said any of this, you are inferring it.” The caller replied, “He doesn’t have to say it I know he believes it.”  “Hmmmm” I thought, “this is anecdotal but enlightening. What if Trump supporters are projecting their own beliefs on Trump, i.e. he’s rich therefore he believes in free enterprise.”

The next piece of the puzzle came a week later on the same program where guest host author Mark Stein said, “Donald Trump has stated many views over the years some of which were conservative but many were not. What Trump is is a business man who sees the Republican Party as a listless and leaderless business ripe for a hostile takeover” (Again quoted from memory). I jumped up like Charlie Brown and proclaimed “THAT’S IT” so loud I could have sent Lucy flying was she near. If Trump is treating this as a business venture, what business model is he using: the last successful campaign Barak Obama’s!

What did Obama do, what is Trump doing? Pick one or two issues that will excite the base (Obama had Iraq Trump has immigration) then avoid specifics on everything else. Think I am exaggerating? Go to Trump’s own website look under positions and nothing appears except immigration. Obama gave many flowery speeches and about hope and change but never defined the change, Trump says he wants to make America great again but gives no specifics as to how. Obama criticized Bush as a substitute for principled debate, Trump resorts to personal attacks rather than substantive debate in every case. Trump is not Obama, he adapts the model of the Obama Campaign not the style, Obama is a snarky elitist, Trump an egotistical blowhard but the end result is the same, both men would much rather destroy the competition than defend the merit of their ideas and positions.

Obama counted on his previous positions and statements to be largely ignored, aided by a long history of voting present in the Illinois legislature, Trump also expects that his previous positions on most things will be forgotten, as very little of what he believed in 2000 still applies today, he suspects that his lack of political experience will shelter him. To anyone willing to look however there is one telling truth that betrays all. Obama was willing to break away from his policy of never putting down a recorded position in Ill. To vote in favor of letting infants who survive late term abortions to be killed by a second doctor. This would have shown us how radical he really is, had we paid attention. Trump has one similar telltale sign as to what type of President he would be. He once supported spoke kindly of and donated to Hillary Clinton. He now condemns her as the worst Secretary of State in the country’s history but truth be told she hasn’t changed since the days of Trump’s admiring praise. Trump could like Bill and Hillary, could respect them, even befriend them, but donate to her campaign? Hillary was a radical leftist then she is a radical leftist now the difference? Supporting her was in Trump’s interest then, criticizing her is in his interest now. He had no principled opposition to her and her ideology, her lies about WMD’s her turning against our own troops in combat, her attempts to socialize medicine in the first assault that helped pave the way for Obama-care, her lack of ethics and profiteering at the expense of national security. Trump didn’t turn a blind eye, he actively supported it! Obama’s infanticide vote proved him a radical, Trump’s Hillary support shows him a self-serving pragmatist. Name one time where Trump has taken a principled stand on anything where it cost him money. Of course the answer thrown out is that’s how things are done in NY send Trump to Washington so he can change it. Really? Give him more power and he will suddenly grow a set of principles? Faithless in little faithful in much? I remember that quote a different way. Trump reminds me of the Groucho Marx  quote ““Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well I have others.” 

If, God forbid, Trump becomes president, we know which way he will go if the good of the country comes up against the good of the Donald. Rush Limbaugh has recently been referring to the “conservative literary class who write about things but don’t do anything” as those who oppose Trump, well that isn’t me. I am just some dumb farmer in WV writing a little blog read by tens of people all over the world, but I know a huckster when I see one.

In years past having a complete lack of class would have disqualified a candidate from the Presidency of the US. What we learned in 2008 and 2012 is that a classless individual can not only be elected but reelected to that high office. Though in fairness Obama pretends to have class, most people not paying attention perceive him as a nice guy, heck Mitt Romney’s key campaign point seemed to be pointing out Obama was a nice guy. With Trump there is no pretense, he does not have any class at all and he doesn’t pretend to be a nice guy. This is a negative to old fuddy-duddies like me but in all honesty class would be an expendable trait in the right candidate with the right stands on key issues, though I cringe at the press release from the Trump white house on the day Angela Merkle the fiery prime minister of Germany refused to support an initiative of the Trump Administration: “no one takes Merkle seriously her face looks like it was hit by a VW and she has blood in her whatever, (according to Trump a polite term for a lady’s  nose) and besides Germans are stupid, that’s why they lose all those World Wars”. Tell me you can’t imagine Trump doing this? Is class expendable? Maybe in the right candidate but Mr. Trump ain’t 

No more Hiding, I aim to Misbehave.

The title of this blog is a quote from the character Malcolm Reynolds in the movie Serenity, based on the series Firefly.  It’s the story of a man who once fought for a cause but lost his faith, until finally the oppressive alliance pushes him too far. Generally speaking this quote would not be used in the context of Christianity and its relationship to government, after all respect and obedience to civil authority is a Biblical axiom.  Is it not? I refer to 1 Peter 2:13-17 13Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. 15For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: 16As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. 17Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. So no on a normal day misbehaving would not please the Lord, but we do not live in a normal day. The same Peter who penned (or possibly dictated) this passage also said Acts 4:19

But Peter and John replied, "Which is right in God's eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges!

And again Acts 5:27-31 27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, 28Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. 29Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. 30The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Remember that before the day of Pentecost all this apostles did for the Lord was hiding and denying. Then he became a fireball and when told to keep his faith to himself he might as well have said what the Serenity’s  fictional captain said, “No more hiding, I aim to misbehave”,  and misbehave he did until the world was turned upside down.  In fact not many years after writing 1 Peter the apostle would again face an increasingly oppressive administration that would replace the relatively tolerant Roman republic with a totalitarian Emperor who would turn his fickle ire against Christians and once again Peter set out to misbehave, until the Romans had him executed.  But Nero and those worse tyrants who followed him could never flip the world back to where it was before a few Galilean fishermen decided to misbehave.

I tell the story of another Believer in Christ, she was ordered by and increasingly tyrannical regime to acquiesce and actively participate in a practice clearly condemned by scripture, and she refused. She decided to misbehave and that increasingly oppressive increasingly totalitarian government decided she must pay, and sent her to jail.  That believer is Kim Davis, and that tyrannical force is the totalitarian mindset of the anti-God anti freedom forces that have taken hold of our government in these United States of America.

The story is this; Mrs. Davis is a county clerk in the great state of Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.  Federal judge David Bunning decided to take action and imprison Mrs. Davis as an example to any who deny the Federal Leviathan its due subservience.

Let me quickly deal with this, perhaps you look at it and say what she did is covered by 1 Peter 2 not Acts 5, she should obey. I disagree; ordering her to violate her conscience was no different than ordering a doctor to perform an abortion rather than simply finding a different Doctor with lesser convictions. Gays could simply have gone elsewhere to get their marriage licenses but the goal is not to get married, the goal is to obliterate all who dare oppose the leftist agenda. So maybe you don’t draw the line where Kim Davis does, where do you draw it? That is not an acceptable place. Once Kim Davis has been destroyed they’ll come to the next  line they have already run roughshod over private businesses who simply exercised their freedom to not do business at gay weddings, next they’ll come for pastors who won’t perform gay weddings, or for Churches who won’t hire gay pianists. Or those people who simply say they personally don’t believe in gay marriage. You will acknowledge gay marriage you will support it, you will love it, you will prefer it you will acquiesce or else will hide your convictions lest you suffer Kim Davis’ fate.

No more hiding, I aim to misbehave.

Oh foolish Christians in America, you have been so free and so blessed for so long, protected by the wisdom of the constitution and the blood of our soldiers on foreign battlefields that you don’t recognize persecution when it drags one of your sisters off to a Kentucky prison, or when it orders an Oregon bakery to pay 135,000 dollars in damages to a gay couple for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.   Churches were always heavily involved in the policy and morality of law until Lyndon Johnson, a progressive Senator in 1954 proposed an amendment to the tax code designed to cower Christian’s organized opposition to the New Deal agenda. Christians who had for millennia braved torture and beheading, and who spearheaded the fight to form a country where they could be free once and for all were  suddenly cowered by the threat of losing tax exempt status.   

Not all of us are quaking in fear; some of us aim to misbehave.

Memories Pizza in Walkerton Ind and Sweet Cakes by Melissa in liberal Oregon raised huge sums of money and garnered vocal support from Christians and freedom loving Americans despite being kicked off Gofundme sites that yielded to pressure from gay rights groups. The Alliance Defending Freedom is launching a challenge 60+ years overdue to the Johnson Amendment, through the Pulpit Freedom Initiative.  Twenty states have religious freedom protection laws, and some states are up to fighting the Feds whenever it deems it appropriate (Don’t mess with Texas).

Of course we don’t misbehave out of anger or prejudice. We pray equally for the soul and salvation of judge Bunning as we do for the protection and strength of Kim Davis. We offer God’s love and Christ’s forgiveness to gays and lesbians, not by accepting their lifestyle but by offering them freedom from sin. It is the same freedom and forgiveness that we experience when we bowed our knee to Christ. Further as Americans we are willing to enter the debate and follow the constitutional guidelines to affect the law. We do not recognize the right of 5 of 9 justices to cast aside all separation of powers and religious freedoms to achieve a social or political aim.

I have quoted this before but I remind you again of Jefferson’s words, “ I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.”

If Tom Jefferson, Mal Reynolds and the Apostle Peter all agree who am I to argue:

No more Hiding, I aim to Misbehave.

Marriage Eden’s Legacy or Sodom’s curse part II- the threats to marriage and the civil Society

 

First a bit of light diversion from the great American philosopher Bill Watterson:

Funny and insightful and relevant to a point I wish to make. Before Dr. Laura Schlesinger went on satellite I was a fairly regular listener. Once she read an e-mail from a gay man concerning gay marriage. The e-mailer was countering the idea that gay marriage was a threat to the institution of marriage by pointing out the fact that heterosexual couples were already in the process of destroying marriage without any help from gays. (For the record Dr. Schlesinger does not support gay marriage or adoption but does not condemn the gay lifestyle.)

Last time we looked at gay marriage. We looked at forcing the nation to accept a morally deviant behavior as morally equivalent to marriage that God ordained and how doing so erodes the very foundations of a free society.  What I hope to do now is look at some of the greatest threats to the very institution of marriage and suggest how we might put our nation back on a path of cultural and moral stability.

Threat number 1- Loss of Sexual Purity.

This subject has two subcategories that need be addressed, Promiscuity, and abuse.  I am hesitant to include this link the video quite honestly is disturbing and disgusting but it is accurate and maybe it will shock you into seeing what your kids are being taught. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7XR9yH2ETk

Even if the curriculum your school is using isn’t so blatantly obscene as are these Planned Parenthood curriculums, the basic concept is the same. Moral absolutes, the concept that marriage is the only and proper place for the expression of sexuality, and the idea that boys with boys and girls with girls is not morally equivalent is verboten.  I cannot imagine how infuriated my sainted mother would have been if ever I had been exposed to the sex-ed of today. She once gave the Jefferson County School system quite a going over for having school on Good Friday, and she never asked if I could be excused from class she just told them her son would not be there. The problem runs very deep, and perhaps its most significant cause is that parents have come to believe that the government has moral authority over our children. Yet Chief Justice Burger Wrote concerning Griswold vs. the State of Connecticut, “The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring tradition ¹⁷ [emphasis supplied]”. Even if the Court gives in to the liberals, this right cannot be taken away, it is inalienable. Don’t misunderstand the government can declare itself superior to the parent, and persecute those who refuse to acquiesce, but God’s law falls to the side of the parent. At some future date we will discuss this at greater length but the point being, parents you have not only the right, but the obligation before God to insure that your children are taught the acceptable use and context for sex, and the sanctity of marriage. I recommend homeschooling, the government system is just too corrupt and too Godless at so many levels for our kids to be sent to. Unless of course you think it’s wise to teach your kids to swim by throwing them into shark infested water.   They might not drown and they might not get eaten, but the odds that they will hold to your beliefs drastically diminishes after 12 years of indoctrination.

The second factor that so drastically increases promiscuity is what New York Times columnist Pamela Paul has called the “pornification” of the culture. Sexual imagery is everywhere, the poster boards in the Target ladies underwear isle would have been resigned to a “girly” book when my dad was young. I am not only referring to the extreme examples, to the ready availability of pornography on the web, or the Oscar dresses made of a handkerchief and two posted notes, I am talking about the general comfort level with sex as commonplace. There is a spiritual element of sexuality, a value that exceeds its biological function. Something of it needs to be kept a “mystery”. Am I the only one who finds a romantic scene in a film so much more intriguing when the curtain is pulled and something is left to the imagination? There is little romance in two people throwing off clothing and slobbering on each other, or maybe that’s just me.  As long as sex is treated as just one more thing people do like brushing teeth or going to the movies, we will never return to a sane and healthy view of sexuality as a sacred part of marriage.

Finally, the devaluation of sex also devalues women.  A woman is a precious and valuable thing. A few proverbs on the subject: Proverbs 19:14 House and riches are the inheritance of fathers: and a prudent wife is from the LORD.

 Proverbs 18:22 Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.

 Proverbs 31:10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

The sexual revolution (actually rebellion against the Lord) did not make women less of a sex object, it made them wholly that. Ideally a woman is to be sought and fought for, and wooed and won, treasured and protected, provided for and romanced, “as long as they both shall live.” In return for this giving of his life for her the woman offers to love and support her “prince” all the days of her life and only when he has made that sacred commitment is he worthy to receive the blessing of knowing her sexually. If she gives that away for less than a wedding ring (and the sincere commitment that accompanies it) she cheapens herself, but by withholding it she demonstrates her true worth. Laura Schlesinger once took a call from a woman who felt disrespected by her live in boyfriend Dr. Laura’s suggestion was to “make him leave 50$ on the dresser in the morning after you have sex, at least a prostitute places some value on herself. How is he going to respect you if you don’t respect yourself?” (Quoted from memory) I agree with the doctor.

The second layer of the loss of purity is more unseemly but must be addressed: sexual abuse. According to a CDC study as many as one in four college age girls have been raped, or someone has attempted to rape them.  Let’s deal with this but first it’s necessary to note that not all women are virtuous and there have been cases where men have been accused falsely by women looking for an upper hand in custody hearings or as some sort of revenge, so men, be careful who you are alone with. However the study in question was anonymous and no men were affected so we can assume these numbers are close.  The question of preventing sexual abuse is of paramount importance and its implications on marriage can hardly be overstated. First of all a woman once abused tends to struggle with issues of self-worth, and this leads often to promiscuity and other struggles with relating to a loving relationship. For woman, a level of caution is required, care with where she goes and who she goes with and how she behaves while she’s there. I think all girls should take self-defense courses.  Getting raped is never a woman’s fault, but a wise girl can lessen her danger considerably by being responsible.  With so many girls being hurt this way the grace and healing of the Lord are the first most important things. Then she will need a man to understand the trials she goes through as a result of her ordeal. It can be done, thank God!

 

We tend to look at Sodom and Gomorrah and see the homosexuality and relate it to the destruction of the cities, (GEN 9) after all we do call it “Sodomy”.  However though Homosexuality is a sin, I think the real evil in Sodom was the violent and abusive nature of the men. Not that the homosexual aspect isn’t of importance, the image we have been getting of the loving gay or lesbian couples just wanting to love each other is often false. Homosexuality is not a preordained condition; most men who identify as gay were victims of child sex abuse.  ( http://www.home60515.com/3.html ).  Gays tend to be violent, not all of course, but many are.  http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Sodomy/homoviolence.htm  and http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/gay-activists-threaten-violence/   America is desperately in danger of losing its very soul and the violent abusiveness of the culture is largely to blame.

Men are constantly bombarded with sexual images, violent porn is readily available, and there is a perverse mythos that women secretly want to be dominated. The curse of sin takes the natural desire to love and cherish and turns it on its ear and makes it a desire to own and dominate woman. No college professor would acknowledge that he condones rape, but when they teach the concept of moral relativism they do just that. If nothing is inherently wrong   on its own than the 35% of men who say that if they knew there would be no consequence would consider forcing a woman to have sex are not morally wrong. Not all men could be salvaged by moral absolutes but many could. For the rest we have law enforcement.

There is more to get to but given the length thus far we do that next time.

Until then keep on the firing line!

 

 

 

 

Marriage – Eden’s Legacy or Sodom’s Curse?

 

Gay marriage is a contradiction in terms. Marriage has been defined since the literal first moment of the existence of the two genders as the joining of a man and a woman.
23The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”

24For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh (GEN 2:23, 24)

The debate over rather to allow homosexuals to marry is fundamental to the survival of the American way of life. We have come now to a place where good is called evil and evil good. (Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!)

First of all, Homosexuality is a deviant behavior. It is a sin before God. Scripture is clear on this matter. Both the old and new testaments proclaim this with no uncertainty or wiggle room for interpretation.  This question is a question of morality; are we a moral nation or a degenerate one? Do we accept morality as having certain absolute codes or is it strictly a question of relativity? Leaving aside for the moment the most important aspect of the morality debate, the judgment of God,  let us remember that without a moral underpinning a free society cannot stand. One of the great philosophers of the great enlightenment Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu made the following observations on moral absolutes or to use his word virtue; “ There is no great share of probity necessary to support a monarchical or despotic government. The force of laws in one, and the prince's arm in the other, are sufficient to direct and maintain the whole. But in a popular state, one spring more is necessary, namely, virtue… When virtue is banished, ambition invades the minds of those who are disposed to receive it, and avarice possesses the whole community. The objects of their desires are changed; what they were fond of before has become indifferent; they were free while under the restraint of laws, but they would fain now be free to act against law; and as each citizen is like a slave who has run away from his master, that which was a maxim of equity he calls rigour; that which was a rule of action he styles constraint; and to precaution he gives the name of fear. Frugality, and not the thirst of gain, now passes for avarice. Formerly the wealth of individuals constituted the public treasure; but now this has become the patrimony of private persons. The members of the commonwealth riot on the public spoils, and its strength is only the power of a few, and the licence of many.”

The first argument that the gay rights activists will use is the claim that marriage is a right hence cannot be denied gay couples.  Never has “marriage” been an inalienable right. Federalism allows that the all matters not specifically enumerated in the constitution are relegated to the states. The states therefore have the right to choose whom they will and will not issue a marriage license to. 2012 saw the first electoral success for the gay rights lobbies and no conservatives are actively seeking to use the power of the judiciary to take away those state’s decisions. In Fact the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) was passed by a Republican house and signed by Democrat Bill Clinton with the expectation that some states would allow for gay marriage, and its key provision is to allow states the authority to recognize or not to recognize same sex unions from other states. Marriage is a spiritual institution and a cultural one that states recognize and encourage because it is beneficial, yes even essential, to society. States however did not invent marriage; they simply recognize “what God hath wrought”. Calling gay couples “spouses” does not make it so. A man cannot marry another man any more than he can marry a lamp post or a sports car. Marriage is what it is and not even the US Supreme Court can change that.

Don’t get me wrong, gays and lesbians have rights. They have the freedom to speak out on their beliefs, they have the right to keep and bear arms, they have the right of assembly and no one can take away their personal property without just compensation. They have the right to due process and they have the protection of the law against harm to their persons or possessions. They can engage in whatever deviant behaviors they wish in the privacy of their homes without the fear of unreasonable search and seizures.  They can find sympathetic clergy that will perform a ceremony over them; they can choose to live in the committed relationship they always talk about. They have no desire for liberty, what they want is for the rest of the country to be coerced or straight out forced to acknowledge their reprehensible arrangements as morally equal to “what God has joined together.”

Certain issues are presented by those who support gay marriage which should be addressed, such as death benefits or hospital visits, conservatism offers the solution without casting aside morals in a manner reminiscent of Sodom.  Federal regulations should allow for insurance companies to decide who they want to insure and who they do not. Some companies either for matters of principle or economics would love to extend their benefits to the “non-traditional” partners of potential customers while other providers would market to the more conservative consumers by only insuring traditional families. Likewise companies could determine rather to recognize common law arrangements, etc. the market is perfectly capable of dealing with these matters. Likewise anyone wanting to grant visitation to a partner other than a wife of children should merely have to go and have a paper drawn up in advance that says in event of my incapacitation I want the “so and so” to be allowed access  to visitation and to make decisions on my behalf. That simple, gays and lesbians can sin if they choose, live as free moral agents without using the heavy hand of judicial activism to force their conduct on the rest of us.

So you see my views, which are the Christian views, are not bigoted but they are principled. We don’t want to see gays and lesbians mistreated or punished, we do however want them to see the error of their ways and come in repentance to the Cross of the Lord for forgiveness and healing. We want them to bend the knee to God willingly, it is not the Christian, nor the conservative, way to force anyone to comply with our morals, and we simply ask the same respect in return.

The Gay Agenda is not the only threat to marriage. It may not be the most pressing, just the hottest topic. Next time we will look at the greater threats to marriage (AKA our civil society) then in the third part we will remind ourselves what marriage was meant to be!

Keep on the firing line.

PS our prayers go out to the people of Boston and the families who suffered loss or injury in yesterday’s terror attack. God bless you and bring justice to the evil bastards responsible.