New Book

A Unique and Revealing Look at America!---The Miracle and Magnificence of America. If you enjoy this site, please consider purchasing my recent book. Click here to get it at Amazon. See here for more information.

Book Banner

Book Facebook

HELP US GET THE WORD OUT: If you "Like" this page, please visit our new Facebook page for The Miracle and Magnificence of America and "Like" it. Thank you!!!

Latest News/Commentary

Latest News/Commentary:

News/Commentary Archives:

News/Commentary Archives:

Thursday, April 30, 2015

Jonathan Cahn Warns: America is at War with Her Foundations (video below)

A little over a year ago, I noted how that the pagan principles that led astray God's people centuries ago were very similar to the pagan principles that have come to dominate much of American culture today. Messianic Jewish Rabbi, pastor, and author Jonathan Cahn recently made similar conclusions. Rabbi Cahn made his comments at the 2015 "Washington: A Man of Prayer" service at the U.S. Capitol.

Following the recent ridiculous hearing on marriage at the U.S. Supreme Court, where the American justices heard arguments on the perverse notion that same-sex couples have the "right" to marry under the U.S. Constitution, Cahn declared "The justices of the Supreme Court took up their seats on whether they should strike down the biblical and historic definition of marriage." He added, "That the event should even take place is a sign this is America of [George] Washington’s warning … a nation at war against its own foundation."

"If this court should overrule the word of God and strike down the eternal rules of order and right that heaven itself ordained, how then will God save it?" Cahn asked. "Justices, can you judge the ways of God? There is another court and there another judge, where all men and all judges will give account.

"If a nation’s high court should pass judgment on the Almighty, should you then be surprised God will pass judgment on the court and that nation? We are doing that which Israel did on the altars of Baal," he said.

"We are exchanging our light for darkness." Indeed. Hear his powerful words below.






Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Monday, April 27, 2015

Fueled by Liberalism, Baltimore Erupts

Make no mistake: This will happen again, and it will continue to happen in cities and towns all across the U.S. where liberalism is entrenched. Baltimore is just the latest foul episode. As much as some would like for this to be about race, this is about the rotten fruit of a political philosophy and a worldview that, among other things, eschews the notions of absolute truth, personal responsibility, sound morality, individual liberty, the biblical family model, and a host of other proper principles necessary for good government. 

Whether Ferguson, Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore, or any other significant American municipality dominated by liberals, it's just a matter of time until the next ugly eruption. As I asked last year--over four months prior to the Michael Brown incident--"Is there anything liberalism can't corrupt?" From the conscience to communities to corporations to families, churches, schools, and government, its destruction seems to know no bounds.

As I noted, the political machine in most every large U.S. city is dominated by Democrats, and has been for decades. And as Rush asked earlier today, why is the Democrat base so unhappy?

"Why are they unhappier than ever? You've had the Democrat Party supposedly paving the way for them for 50 years. You've had the Democrat Party running inference for them for 50 years. The Democrat Party promising to get even with all those racist conservatives and Republicans. The Democrat Party promising that whatever goes wrong, they're gonna fix. The Democrat Party making it clear that they are the examples of these downtrodden people.

"These downtrodden people are angrier than they've ever been! They're unhappier than they've ever been. They're more agitated than they've ever been. The urban core. Obama's base!"
And of course, no matter how bad it gets, they continue to vote for liberals. Because somehow, it's always the fault of conservatives.

While Baltimore's democrat mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (of course, a modern full-fledged feminazi must have a hyphenated last name) gave the rioters "space to destroy," John Angelos, Baltimore Orioles' executive vice-president and son of the majority owner of the Orioles Peter Angelos, was quick to perpetuate the victim status of those destroying his city (which got the Orioles game cancelled today).

According to the Washington Times, the younger Angelos wrote of his concern for

"the past four-decade period during which an American political elite have shipped middle class and working class jobs away from Baltimore and cities and towns around the US to 3rd-world dictatorships like China," which he said has sent "tens of millions of good hard working Americans into economic devastation" and "an ever-declining standard of living and suffering." 
"The innocent working families of all backgrounds whose lives and dreams have been cut short by excessive violence, surveillance and other abuses of the bill of rights by government pay the true price, and ultimate price, and one that far exceeds the importance of any kid's game played tonight, or ever, at Camden Yards," Mr. Angelos continued
"We need to keep in mind people are suffering and dying around the US and while we are thankful no one was injured at Camden Yards, there is a far bigger picture for poor Americans in Baltimore and everywhere who don’t have jobs and are losing economic, civil and legal rights and this … makes inconvenience at a ball game irrelevant in light of the needless suffering government is inflicting upon ordinary Americans," he wrote.
Of course, John and his father Peter Angelos are life-long democrats. Thus, this can't be the fault of those who are stalking the streets, smashing windows, burning cars, and attacking the police. Something else--or better--someone else must be to blame. And if only we would elect liberals, all this will change.

P.S. While few know the exact circumstances of Freddie Gray's death, one thing is clear: he was no stranger to the police. Take note of his rap sheet:
  • March 20, 2015: Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance
  • March 13, 2015: Malicious destruction of property, second-degree assault
  • January 20, 2015: Fourth-degree burglary, trespassing
  • January 14, 2015: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute
  • December 31, 2014: Possession of narcotics with intent to distribute
  • December 14, 2014: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance
  • August 31, 2014: Illegal gambling, trespassing
  • January 25, 2014: Possession of marijuana
  • September 28, 2013: Distribution of narcotics, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, second-degree assault, second-degree escape
  • April 13, 2012: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, violation of probation
  • July 16, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession with intent to distribute
  • March 28, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance
  • March 14, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to manufacture and distribute
  • February 11, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance
  • August 29, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, violation of probation
  • August 28, 2007: Possession of marijuana
  • August 23, 2007: False statement to a peace officer, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance
  • July 16, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance (2 counts)
Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Andy Stanley Still Sending Mixed Messages on Marriage/Sexuality

Last year, when the Kansas House of Representatives passed their version of a religious liberty bill, Pastor Andy Stanley was quoted as saying that he found it “offensive that Christians would leverage faith to support the Kansas law.” He added, “Serving people we don't see eye to eye with is the essence of Christianity. Jesus died for a world with which he didn't see eye to eye. If a bakery doesn't want to sell its products to a gay couple, it's their business. Literally. But leave Jesus out of it.”

In response to him and others at the time, I penned "There's Nothing Wrong in Kansas (but is there something wrong with Andy Stanley?)." It seems that Pastor Stanley is still struggling with the idea of how the church should deal with all things homosexual. As the Christian Post notes, speaking at a church leadership conference in California this past Friday, Pastor Stanley declared that local congregations should be the "safest place on the planet for students to talk about anything, including same-sex attraction."

He added, "We just need to decide from now on in our churches when a Middle School kid comes out to his small group leader or a high school young lady comes out to her parents...regardless of what you think about this topic — no more students are going to feel like they have to leave the local church because they're same-sex attracted or because they're gay. That ends with us."

Of course, he's absolutely correct. Churches should be the "safest place on the planet for gay youth." I wonder though: does pastor Stanley have the same inclinations towards prostitutes or those who struggle with pedophilia (whose numbers are very similar to those with same-sex attractions). Shouldn't the church be a welcoming environment for those as well? (As the old saying goes, the church is a not a sanctuary for saints, but a hospital for sinners.) Of course, the answer to that depends somewhat upon the attitude of the attendee. Are they seeking the church in order to get help with their sin (or "struggles," or however it is they identify the pain they're in), or are they demanding that the church redefine sin?

"The church is mean to homosexuals" is a common straw-man tossed about by the secular left and other homosexual apologists. However, the pastor of one of the largest evangelical churches in the U.S. should know better than to borrow talking points from today's liberals. How long is the church at large going to be smeared by the words and actions of a few (i.e. the Westboro Baptist crowd)?

The vast majority of evangelicals take the same "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach to homosexuality that we are to take with all sin. However, this is not enough for today's left and their homosexual agenda. They are determined to eliminate homosexuality from the list of sins. 

If you doubt me on this, take note. Barely two weeks ago, no-less than an Op-Ed columnist, Frank Bruni, at The New York Times declared that Christians who see homosexual acts as sinful are making "a choice" to engage in "bigotry." Bruni boldly concluded that "homosexuality and Christianity don't have to be in conflict in any church anywhere." Right, they don't have to be in conflict, as long as we accept the liberal definitions of sin and Christianity. 

I don't think that Andy Stanley is of this mind on Christianity and sin (at least I sure hope not!); however, he must surely be aware that this mindset is prevalent within modern liberalism, and therefore he should more carefully weigh his words when speaking on these grave matters. 

Pastor Stanley also wants churches to "take a break" for a year from the culture wars. (I prefer "moral wars.") In NO WAY should this be the case! Does anyone think those pushing the homosexual agenda are going to take a year off?! Yes, within the church (and Christianity in general) there seems to be an inordinate amount of attention given to issues like abortion, marriage, and homosexuality. However, this isn't the result of the church suddenly deciding that these issues are a special class of sin. It is due to the fact that abortion, homosexuality, and the like have a massive political/cultural machine behind them that seeks legitimacy along with total and complete acceptance--whether by force, deception, or other nefarious means--for these behaviors. (See above.)

Along with dominating the mainstream media, the liberals behind this machine own a political party (Democrats). With these massive cultural hammers, liberals have sought to pound traditional Christianity, along with other like-minded people, into submission when it comes to most anything in the sexual realm. In other words, it is liberals who have sought this fight, not Christian conservatives. Thus, without apology, abortion, marriage, homosexuality, and the like, deserve the attention well-meaning Christians give them.

I'll say it again: Marriage is the oldest institution in the history of humanity--older than God's covenant with the nation of Israel, older than The Law, older than the church. Marriage is one of the earliest truths revealed by God. If ANYTHING is true, marriage as the union of one man and one woman is true. On this, there can NEVER be compromise.

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Sunday, April 19, 2015

Surprise!--(hear sarcasm)--LGBT "Anti-Bullying" Conference Presents Perverse Content to Teens

************************WARNING: GRAPHIC!!!***********************


Chalk this one under "What in the world did you expect?!" Or, perhaps more simply, "How could you be so stupid?!" As has been recently reported, about 1,000 Iowa teenagers, almost all students from Iowa high schools, attending the Iowa Governor’s Conference on LGBTQ Youth, were widely exposed to content that one parent described as "pornographic."




In addition to a profanity-laced presentation by a male transvestite, there were discussions on a variety of methods of oral sex (including anal), and descriptions of how to properly vandalize the property of those opposed to the homosexual agenda. There was plenty of talk of orgies and condoms, but very little on bullying. As one observer noted, "It’s a conference teaching kids how to: how to be confidently homosexual, how to pleasure their gay partners – one session even taught transsexual girls how to sew fake testicles into their underwear in order to pass themselves off as boys.”

The biggest surprise was the shock of some of those attending. The father of a Des Moines high school senior reported that his daughter was "absolutely distraught," and like many other students and teachers, "left the conference early in shock." He also noted that the conference "was crude" and that it was "basically a sexual education class for same-sex couples...One presenter told students who asked whether anal sex hurt that, as a lesbian, it really depended on how big the device is that their partner straps on."

What did these fools expect?! The homosexual agenda is consumed with sex. Sex is their religion. As I've often noted, the homosexual movement is not really that concerned with bullying, or marriage, or anything other than forcing the full acceptance of homosexuality upon every facet of our culture.

The sponsors of this perverseness:
  • Principal Financial Group
  • Nationwide
  • Office Depot
  • The TJX Companies, Inc. (T.J.Maxx, Marshalls, HomeGoods, Sierra Trading Post)
  • The Iowa State Education Association
  • The University of Iowa
  • Iowa Association of School Boards
  • School Administrators of Iowa
  • Episcopal Diocese of Iowa
The EPISCOPAL CHURCH?!!! I wish I could say that I'm surprised.

There's been a lot of talk of bullying in schools these days--especially public schools. While certainly bullying is nothing to ignore, I've seen nothing to convince me that it's any worse today than it was at other time in our past. These anti-bullying campaigns seem suspiciously like another left-wing attempt at pushing the liberal agenda--especially the homosexual agenda. If your child is in a public school, be very wary of any "anti-bullying" campaigns. 

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Friday, April 17, 2015

Marco Rubio is Sounding Weak on Marriage

Scott Walker had to do it on evolution. Rand Paul had to do it over his treatment of female reporters. And now Marco Rubio has had to do it on marriage. Others will get their turn. The liberal media will make sure of that. In fact, every serious GOP presidential candidate will have to answer liberal "gotcha" questions multiple times over. One would think they would have learned how by now. If you're a conservative, you don't win elections by answering such questions in a manner that you think will please liberals.



When asked by a liberal reporter from Fusion this week whether or not he would attend the same-sex "wedding" of a homosexual friend, family-member, or co-worker, Rubio replied, "If it’s somebody in my life that I love or care for, of course I would."

Rubio went on to say, "I’m not going to hurt them simply because I disagree with a choice they’ve made or because I disagree with a decision they’ve made, or whatever it may be. Ultimately, if someone that you care for and is part of your family has decided to move in one direction or another or feels that way because of who they love, you respect that because you love them."

Rubio's comments sent many a liberal into their "hypocrisy" dance, and at the same time, satisfied many conservatives. Guy Benson of Townhall.com said that Rubio "gamely" addressed the gotcha-style question with a "serious, compassionate answer." I don't doubt that Senator Rubio has "compassion" in his heart on this matter. However, his compassion is misguided. Given the amount of time a U.S. presidential candidate that is a conservative and a Christian should have spent on this matter, I expected better.

I would never attend an event--family, friend, or otherwise--that celebrated homosexual acts. The reason that the law should not recognize homosexual "marriage" is that such unions are immoral and have tragic consequences on many levels. If you fail to recognize that in your personal life, why should you be trusted to legislate on such grave matters?

Additionally, according to Breitbart, Rubio and Rand Paul did not sign the Congressional friend-of-the-court brief requesting that the Supreme Court not force a redefinition of marriage upon the whole nation. Why did Rubio and Paul not take such an opportunity on this grave matter? Again, according to Breitbart, "The Paul camp has not been willing to go on the record and the Rubio campaign claims his views are well known and offered a handful of his public statements. However, the Rubio campaign did not answer why he did not sign the brief and take his views directly to the Supreme Court."

I like both Rubio and Paul as strong conservative presidential candidates. However, as ridiculous as it is, the legal definition of marriage is a terribly important issue in our time. Marriage is the oldest institution in the history of humanity. Marriage as the union of one man and one woman is one of the oldest truths revealed by God. If ANYTHING is true, marriage as God gave it is true. Any candidate worthy of my vote better acknowledge this and live it.

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Monday, April 6, 2015

On Marriage: Never Give In. Never, Never, Never…

The battle raging over religious liberty on several fronts across the U.S. has been quite revealing. Most telling are the lengths to which liberals continue to go to ensure that the homosexual agenda roars on undeterred. As Ross Douthat has alluded, the political and cultural melee we’ve endured the last several days is because the perversion on marriage wrought by liberals has prospered to the point that an ever growing number of Americans have found themselves in the crosshairs of today’s gaystapo.

Interestingly, and sadly, religious liberty laws like what passed in Indiana, the one that failed in my state of Georgia, the one sent back to the legislature by the governor of Arkansas, and that exist across the rest of the country, have served as little to no protection for business owners, who, because of their religious convictions, want nothing to do with SSM. This is especially the case in states where SSM is legally recognized.

As Tobin Grant noted on the Washington Post recently, “In the 20 years since RFRA became federal law, there has not been a single case in which a person successfully used RFRA to get around civil rights laws.” And if SSM is legal in a state (as the liberal courts ensured in Indiana), it is a “civil right.” In spite of this, liberals insist that such legislation is nothing more than a license to “discriminate.”

Of course, the timing of these attempts at mimicking the federal RFRA is what has liberals up in arms. In part, they are correct. These attempts at religious liberty legislation are, at least in part, a conservative political response to what is rightly seen as a rogue judiciary forcing marriage perversion upon states whose electorate OVERWHELMINGLY rejected such perversion. Thus, this battle over religious liberty has turned into yet another debate over SSM.

Of course, this has brought liberals back to using their worn-out cry of “discrimination.” Whether used as a tool in an attempt to paint the police as oppressors, to justify their ridiculous environmental agenda, to defend the “right” to kill children in the womb, to promote virtually any kind of sexual act that deviates from the standards God gave us, and as fast and freely as they can spend other people’s money, liberals resort to bawling “discrimination!”

And they do it because it works. Rampant accusations of “discrimination” got GOP governors and many legislators in the states mentioned above to kowtow to the modern militant homosexual agenda. “No one should be harassed or mistreated because of who they are, who they love or what they believe,” said Indiana’s Governor Mike Pence as he sought to “clarify” his state’s foray into RFRA. Liberals took gleeful notice.

After Arkansas’s legislature passed their version of RFRA, Republican Governor Asa Hutchinson declined to sign it and sent the bill back to the GOP-controlled legislature to be “rewritten.” Hutchinson said, “We want to be known as a state that does not discriminate, but understands tolerance.” Notice that? Liberals got a GOP governor, in the midst of a religious liberty fight, no less, to tickle their ears with two of their favorites. It’s as if Slick Willie himself trapped Hutchinson in the Clinton Library and wouldn’t let him out until he yelled “discrimination!” and “tolerance!”

What’s more, many so-called conservative pundits in the media are very quick to express their support for the various and new-found “rights” (including marriage) of homosexuals. Fox’s Megyn Kelly and Bill O’Reilly have both been sympathetic to SSM and the “rights” of homosexuals for some time now. David Brooks captured well the current “progressive” thinking that has infected some conservatives in this matter when he recently wrote, “If denying gays and lesbians their full civil rights and dignity is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. Gays and lesbians should not only be permitted to marry and live as they want, but should be honored for doing so.” (Imagine that. We should “honor” a lifestyle notorious for disease, depression, and promiscuity.)

When overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the U.S. Supreme Court’s swing vote Anthony Kennedy, wrote that DOMA created a “stigma upon all who enter into” same-sex “marriages.” He added that the law’s effect was to “demean” those in same-sex “marriages.” Kennedy also wrote that the “avowed purpose and practical effect” of DOMA was to “impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma” on those in same-sex “marriages.” In other words, the federal government was “intolerant” and thus “discriminating” against those in same-sex “marriages.”

I wonder if Justice Kennedy and his fellow homosexual apologists will have the same sympathies towards the polygamous, incestuous, or those same-sex couples who want to “marry” for reasons that have nothing to do with sex. Will he be as concerned about their “separate status” or the “stigma” they must surely suffer as their relationships are currently deemed less than others? In other words, are not these alternative (or perverse) relationships also suffering “discrimination?”

Of course they are. Though liberals are loathe to admit such, every position in the marriage debate requires a measure of “discrimination.” As an experiment, try to get a supporter of SSM to declare how the U.S. should legally define marriage. (My favorite line of questioning is, “How would you ‘discriminate’ and define marriage?”) In spite of all their blustering in this matter, it is next to impossible to get an answer.

Perhaps republican politicians should resort to such an approach. Sadly, they are far too eager to capitulate. It takes a strong will, a firm conscience, and a sure sense of what is right to stand against the homosexual agenda. Unfortunately, few politicians today can muster such character. This is especially the case if they fear it means a hit to their bottom line.

With the avalanche of court decisions in favor of SSM, sensing a swing in public opinion, and looking only to their bottom line, significant numbers of corporations are lining up against the truth in the marriage debate. A few weeks ago, more than 300 corporations issued a friend-of-the-court brief in the upcoming Supreme Court case that will decide if same-sex “marriage” will be forced on all of the U.S.

Many of these same corporations are now also pressuring states currently considering RFRA laws. Of course, many of these offended industries have been doing business for years with states that already had RFRA laws on their books, and many of them seem to have no problem doing business with communists or Islamists.

The sports industry has also fully embraced the “discrimination” meme, or is being heavily pressured to do so, when it comes to marriage and the homosexual agenda. A letter sent by Chad Griffin, president of the homosexual propagandists known as the Human Rights Campaign, to Roger Goodell, commissioner of the National Football League, said of Georgia’s religious liberty bill:

…Atlanta is a top contender for the Super Bowl in 2019, but this law directly contradicts the NFL’s nondiscrimination policy and values of acceptance and inclusivity. Should this bill become law, Georgia will not be a welcoming place for LGBT people or many other minorities.

NASCAR is disappointed by the recent legislation passed in Indiana,” said chief communications officer Brett Jewkes. NCAA president Mark Emmert was “especially concerned” about the Indiana legislation. Duke’s Coach K didn’t seem to be as concerned, and the living legend was called out for his silence on CNN. Former NFL punter and CNN contributor Kris Kluwe, who’s a rabid proponent of SSM, said “[I]f you are a superstar athlete or a superstar head coach, it is your obligation to be aware of these issues because you will be asked about them and you do have a platform to talk about these things and you should be knowledgeable about it because that is the world you live in. That is your society.”

Kluwe’s correct, though I’m sure when he means “talk about these things” he means “speak favorably about all things homosexual.” Like so many small business owners recently, any celebrity, even homosexual celebrities, caught deviating from liberal orthodoxy on homosexuality, are threatened, castigated, disparaged, mocked, boycotted, and so on. And when a pizza parlor in Indiana, and a florist in Georgia decided to “talk about these things” (mainly because they were asked about them)…well, you know the results.

Al Mohler was also right when last year he concluded, “We are in the midst of a massive revolution in morality.” And of course, “sexual morality is at the center of this revolution.” We are indeed at the “crossroads” Mohler referenced, and unavoidable showdowns are looming. More and more Americans, whether they like it or not, are being forced to make difficult moral decisions. In spite of the willingness of many mainline republicans to do so (because so many would love for all of this to just go away), the left is not silent on the social (moral) issues.

In other words, many Americans, who would prefer to remain on the sidelines as we continue to debate the moral issues in America, are being forced to declare with whom they stand. This fight is not for the weak, but like the battle for life in the womb, it is certainly worth having. And like with abortion, if the courts ignore the truth on marriage, our efforts must continue. We certainly can’t expect those who’ve aligned themselves with the enemy of truth to behave honorably.

Nevertheless, as Pastor Rick Warren instructs us, we cannot be afraid to be unpopular (which is very hard for most politicians and celebrities), and we must remember that the only way to be relevant is to make sure that our words and actions align with eternal truths. Don’t worry if you’re on “the right side of history;” you just need to be on the “right side.”

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Friday, April 3, 2015

David Brooks Wants Us to Honor Homosexuality

With supposed allies like The New York Times token “conservative” David Brooks, it is little wonder republicans find themselves constantly playing defense in the moral wars. Writing of the recent battle over religious freedom legislation that is raging across the U.S., Brooks, attempting to argue in favor of said legislation, makes several inane and ignorant statements. Of course, this is what results when one is corrupted by liberalism.

Using the oft-parroted notion of “love” (after all, who is against “love,” right?) when it comes to homosexual relationships, Brooks stupidly declares, “We are to be judged by how we love, not by whom we love.” Of course, this “love” argument is a worn-out straw man employed by liberals in order to paint conservatives with religious convictions against homosexuality as unloving. See it in action here.

The video on the above link shows CNN reporter Gary Tuchman of Anderson Cooper 360 questioning two female employees of a Christian florist in rural Georgia this past Wednesday. Displaying a typical liberal’s knowledge of Scripture, Tuchman asks, “The Bible talks an awful lot about love and loving your fellow man....You're not loving them if you don't want to serve them – right?” And we all get the implication, right? Christians who refuse to acquiesce to the homosexual agenda are “hateful.”

Taking exception to the pizzeria in a small town in Indiana who wants no part of same-sex “marriage,” yesterday, columnist Eugene Robinson penned, “Pizza With a Side of Hate.” In his piece Robinson ignorantly proclaims “a truth about same-sex marriage that should be blindingly obvious: Whether two men or two women decide to marry has not the slightest impact on anyone else.”

Such foolish libertarian thinking has duped many who are otherwise quite conservative in many facets of their politics. As I noted with libertarian dolt Neal Boortz, children are meant to be raised by their mother and father! It is in the best interest of good government to encourage this, or to at least not undermine it. It has been pointed out ad nauseam the tragic consequences that often result when children grow up in a home without their mom and dad. What a disaster we are forcing on millions of unsuspecting and powerless children when our culture won’t recognize one of the longest standing truths in the history of humanity!

Though David Brooks is an extreme outlier in the GOP, he is far from alone when it comes to capitulating to the homosexual agenda. Many pundits, politicians, and even pastors who typically align politically with republicans, and some who are deeply imbedded in the GOP, have decided that the party needs to surrender on homosexuality.

Brooks not only wants to surrender, he wants a celebration. He writes, “If denying gays and lesbians their full civil rights and dignity is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. Gays and lesbians should not only be permitted to marry and live as they want, but be honored for doing so.” No Mr. Brooks. If perverting and attempting to redefine the oldest institution in the history of humanity (even older than the church) isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong.

And there’s nothing to celebrate when we contradict one of the oldest truths revealed by God. And there is nothing hateful about living and speaking the truth when it comes to marriage. One of the greatest acts of love we can perform is telling people truths that we know they don’t want to hear. Whatever the politicians, pundits, courts, corporations, celebrities, and high church officials say, the truth on marriage remains and will for all time.

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

The Left’s Cries of “Discrimination” on Marriage Ring Hollow

As I have often done before, and as I will do until I die, let me once again defend the biblical view of marriage and sexuality. (Yes, that’s 21 links. I dare you to read them all.)

When overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the U.S. Supreme Court’s swing vote Anthony Kennedy, wrote that DOMA created a “stigma upon all who enter into” same-sex “marriages.” He added that the law’s effect was to “demean” those in same-sex “marriages.” Kennedy also wrote that the “avowed purpose and practical effect” of DOMA was to “impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma” on those in same-sex “marriages.” In other words, the federal government was “discriminating” against those in same-sex “marriages.”

I wonder if Justice Kennedy, and the other homosexual apologists, will have the same sympathies towards the polygamous, incestuous, "throuples," or those same-sex couples who want to “marry” for reasons that have nothing to do with sex. Will he be as concerned about their “separate status” or the “stigma” they must surely suffer as their relationships are currently deemed less than others? In other words, are not these alternative (or perverse) relationships also suffering “discrimination?”

Of course, one of the most frequent and favorite cries of the left is the dreaded “d-word:” discrimination. Never-mind that virtually every position in the marriage debate requires a measure of “discrimination.” In fact, American law is replete with acts that “discriminate.” For example, there’s age discrimination when it comes to voting, drinking alcohol, and piloting certain types of airplanes. Several states have mandatory retirement ages for judges.

In fact, we all “discriminate” regularly throughout virtually every facet of our lives. As an employer, we might discriminate when it comes to experience, ability, or education. My wife and I certainly discriminate when it comes to who we allow to care for our four children. And we are teaching our children (as does Scripture) that, as Christians, they better discriminate when they marry and not be “unequally yoked” (marry outside of our faith).

So the real dilemma for the left here lies not in their efforts to gain acceptance of same-sex marriage, but rather, how they would (eventually) discriminate and define marriage? Also problematic for liberals: upon what moral code would this definition rest?

As a Christians conservative, I understand well how marriage should be defined and the moral reasons why my discriminatory definition is justified. First of all, as a Christian I accept that God gave us the institution of marriage, and that the union of one man and one woman is THE foundation of every social institution the world over. Strong and healthy marriages lead to strong and healthy families. Strong and healthy families lead to strong and healthy communities. Strong and healthy communities lead to strong and healthy churches, schools, businesses, governments, and so on.

Also, science supports what common sense (for most) has long revealed: children, and society, function best when men and women are united in strong and healthy marriages. In “Marriage and the Law: A Statement of Principles” published by the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, the authors note that, “Children raised outside of intact marriages have higher rates of poverty, mental illness, teen suicide, conduct disorders, infant mortality, physical illness, juvenile delinquency, and adult criminality. They are more likely to drop out of school, be held back a grade, and launch into early and promiscuous sexual activity, leading to higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases and early unwed parenthood.” Thus, it is simply a matter of good government to promote—or at least do no harm to—an institution that is so beneficial to society.

However, the real effort of liberals (whether some realize it or not) in the marriage debate is NOT simply “marriage equality.” Many in this debate have been deceived; for you see, ultimately, this battle is not, nor has it ever been, about marriage or discrimination. The pro-same-sex marriage movement is an attempt to use the power of U.S. law to force the complete acceptance of homosexual behavior on a (mostly) unwilling culture.

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com