Why Christianity--and Christians--Should Reject Same-Sex "Marriage" (Rev. Calvin Robinson)

Last month, in a meeting of the General Synod of the Church of England, the Rev. Calvin Robinson gave a clear and powerful response for why Christianity, and thus any faithful Christian, should reject any redefinition of marriage, including, and especially, same-sex "marriage." Some excellent pull-quotes: 

• We are directly talking about undermining God's plan as He has revealed it to us. We are replacing His authority with our own. 
• Yes, God is love, but He sets the terms, not us. 
• The church should absolutely be inclusive. Christ spent time with tax collectors and prostitutes, but it is they who went away changed, not Christ. 
• The church is open to sinners. Of course it is! That's the purpose of the church. But it should not be to encourage people to continue to sin. 
• [Christianity] is inherently discriminatory. God is discriminatory. He sets conditions on us entering His heavenly kingdom. It is not a free-for-all. We must turn away from sin--repent--and follow Christ. 
• [To those church leaders supporting same-sex "marriage"]: Stop teaching about diversity, inclusion, and equality. Get back to teaching about redemption and salvation. [To do otherwise] is spiritual neglect. 
• [To those church leaders supporting same-sex "marriage"]: We are seeing the most rapid decline of Christianity in this country that we may have ever seen. Do not accelerate it with heresy. You do not have the authority to bless sin. 
• When I hear the Bishop of London on record saying: "These new prayers will mean Priests can bless same-sex relationships (some of which may be sexual in nature)," I hear the Devil at work! 

This video clip is a condensed version of Rev. Robinson's talk (and contains all of the quotes above): 

Here is his full talk: 

Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
trevorgrantthomas@gmail.com

 

Marriage: Where Do We Go From Here?

With a liberal court, we get the rulings we deserve. Or, in other words, elections have consequences. It's safe to say that without the election of Barack Obama, we would not have had to endure liberal Supreme Court justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor sitting in judgement of marriage. (Both appointed by Obama in his first term, and both voting to legally redefine marriage.) Of course, the election of a republican, especially the likes of John McCain, gives no guarantee of conservative appointments to the Supreme Court. However, justices Roberts and Alito, appointed by George W. Bush, both voted against this sweeping perverse ruling on marriage. All of those who voted for Obama have their fingerprints on the tyrannical judicial travesty that resulted in the legal redefinition of marriage.

As many, including the President of the United States, taunt the truth and celebrate sin, there is still much to be done for those who are determined to stand for marriage as our Creator gave it to us. After the ruling, as Rush Limbaugh discussed on his program on the day of the ruling, many conservative minded Americans were discouraged and upset. Many Americans are now wondering what to do.

First of all, in a time where, as even Rush noted, “there is a spiritual war going on where truth is no longer truth,” we are to be bold and faithful witnesses to the truth on marriage and sexuality. For Christians, as we live our lives as followers of Jesus, and as we examine the world around us and the areas where we have influence, we should always be on the lookout for our opportunities to shine light into darkness. Thus, as a witness for the truth, one thing we should always be asking ourselves is, “What are the sins with which we are most struggling?”

Likewise, pastors, as they prepare their sermons, should always be asking, “Where is the enemy at work in attempting to deceive my congregation?” Or, as another pastor has put it, “What are your people’s idols?” Of course, this should lead us to ask where the enemy is at work in the culture at large. As has been clear for decades now, within the moral realm in our culture, the conflict is almost exclusively about sex.

As I noted on the day of the infamous ruling, we cannot blame this entirely on liberals and liberalism. Sadly, the U.S. Supreme Court giving legal status to same sex “marriage” also reflects a tragic failing of the church. We have ignored the fundamental truths on marriage, sexuality, and the family for too long. Homosexuality has a long way to go before it can inflict the damage done by promiscuity, pornography, adultery, abortion, fornication, and divorce.

And we can’t simply point out the sexual immorality of others. We must also be quick to discuss our own struggles with sin, especially those in the sexual realm, as situations call for it. Additionally, filled with peace, love, joy, and the like, we must live out what is right and true.

As Rick Warren put it late last year, celebrate healthy marriages (especially in churches). Don’t simply be an opponent of what’s wrong, be a proponent of what’s right. Our lives, whether single or married, should be an example of what a walk with Christ looks like so others are drawn to Him whether they hear us say anything about Him or not.

Specifically, on marriage and sexuality, if you are married, commit as husband and wife to remain faithful in all that the Bible reveals on the holy covenant of marriage. Namely, commit to remain faithful to one another and keep the marriage bed pure. Commit to remain married until your earthly union is dissolved by death. Furthermore, as a union of one man and one woman, commit to allow God to use your union as He sees fit to build His Kingdom.

Also, commit to model and to teach others the truth on marriage and sexuality. Namely, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life and that the only rightful place for sex is within marriage.

Likewise, if you are single, commit to remain faithful to all that the Bible reveals on the holy covenant of marriage. Namely, while unmarried, commit to keep yourself sexually pure and model and teach this behavior to those in your circle of influence. Furthermore, commit to allow God to use you as a single person as He sees fit to build His Kingdom, and commit to model and to teach others the truth on marriage and sexuality. Namely, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life and that the only rightful place for sex is within marriage. (All of this is in the “Marriage Commitment Challenge.”)

Second, those with a higher profile in the culture, those in leadership or who have a wide circle of influence, have a greater responsibility in this matter and all such matters. To whom much is given, much is required. Of course this means pastors, but also politicians, pundits, business leaders, famous athletes, musicians, producers, actors, authors, bloggers, educators, and so on. In other words, we need Christians in the culture at large to tell and model amazing stories on marriage and sexuality. As Rick Warren said, “Whichever side tells the best stories wins.”

There can be little doubt that to a great extent, the deception on homosexuality, marriage, and gender has occurred because of the efforts of liberals in politics, the media, and so on. Not only that, but as most of us well know, the traditional family has been mercilessly attacked in the media. As American Thinker noted recently, this is especially the case with fathers. As Rick Moran put it, “Hollywood has made a deliberate effort to undermine the patriarchy by savaging fatherhood.” This has been the case for decades now.

Christian conservatives, and our like-minded friends, have not done enough to counter this. For example, recently my wife and I, along with our four kids, attended a Christian concert. Several popular contemporary Christian artists performed. There was a lot of great (but too loud!) music that focused our hearts and minds on God. However, there was nothing said or sung that focused on marriage and family.

Similarly, there is more than one Christian radio station in our area (northeast Georgia) to which we frequently listen. I hear almost nothing from the hosts, guests, artists, and so on, when it comes to marriage and the family. Surely they are not shying away from the truth out of fear of “offending” their sponsors or audience. Similarly, famous athletes and other entertainers who believe what the Bible teaches on marriage and sexuality need to exercise their First Amendment rights (while they remain!) on these matters. (Like the NFL’s Ben Watson.)

Third, if you are a Christian parent, when it comes to your witness to the truth, you have no greater responsibility on this earth than your children. In other words, every parent is in youth ministry. There’s a reason millennials are the group most likely to support a perverse redefinition of marriage. Decades of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have led to tens-of-millions of U.S. children growing up in homes without both parents. Thus we now have millions of young Americans whose notion of marriage and family has been tragically distorted. This trend must be reversed.

Fourth, we need to be ready to minister to those who suffer from the sin of homosexuality. As the decades have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court foolishly attempted to redefine life in Roe v. Wade, science, technology, and human experience have revealed what sound morality has always taught: life in the womb is just that. Just a few weeks after conception, we can now literally witness, through sight and sound, the miracle of life in the womb.

The horrible images (warning: graphic) of post-abortive children have been seared into the consciences of tens-of millions. The testimony of regret of millions of women who were deceived by the abortion industry has helped shine light into a deep and ugly darkness. Yes, abortion remains legal and as brutal as ever, but restrictions abound and are growing. Crisis pregnancy centers have ministered to tens-of-millions and saved the lives of millions.

There is no getting around it: the wages of sin is death. If we linger in sin, we are going to reap suffering. This is certainly true with sexual immorality. Disease and death literally await those enslaved in the homosexual lifestyle. And how can we measure the broken hearts of those who have departed from their Creator’s plan on marriage and sexuality? As has happened in the pro-life movement, the Christian community must equip ourselves like never before to minister to those who are broken by the sin of homosexuality.

Last, conservative politicians need to act. We need a constitutional amendment that properly defines, or allows states to properly define, marriage. Wisconsin governor Scott Walker has been at, or very near, the top of my list of 2016 presidential candidates. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to redefine marriage, again justifying my high opinion of him, Walker issued a statement declaring, “Five unelected judges have taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage, an institution that the author of this decision acknowledges ‘has been with us for millennia.’”

He added that, “the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage.” As Rush noted, whether it’s Obamacare, marriage, spending, and so on, far too often conservative politicians make no efforts “whatsoever to deal with the assaults and the attacks that are relentless and daily from the left.”

If your congressional representatives at the state and federal level can’t stand up for marriage, they do not deserve your vote. However, a constitutional amendment isn’t the “only alternative left” when it comes to marriage. As implied at the beginning of this piece, Americans need to elect a conservative to the office of U.S. President. If liberal justices can be replaced by conservative ones, the Supreme Court can reverse itself.

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

On Marriage, America's Left Should Heed the Irish

As voters in Ireland voted overwhelmingly to approve same-sex "marriage," predictably, liberals across the world, but especially in the U.S., took a "victory lap." Lost in their jubilation, it evidently escaped most liberals the manner by which Ireland hastened herself down the wide path of destruction.

Make no mistake about it, a nation that rejects the oldest institution in the history of humanity, that rejects the foundation upon which EVERY culture rests, that declares motherhood and fatherhood "absurd," is well on its way to an ugly end. However, if a nation, a state, a city, or a tribe, chooses to take such a path, it should do so in the manner of Ireland. The people, not a dictator, not a handful of judges, should decide.

Barely five years ago, marriage as the union of one man and one woman was on a 31 for 31 winning streak with U.S. electorates. The average vote was 67.5% in favor of marriage as God gave it to us. This result included the very liberal electorates of Maine, California, Oregon, and Hawaii. The vast majority of U.S. states which have legalized same-sex "marriage" have done so at the whims of a federal judge. To reverse the overwhelming will of an American electorate in such a manner is the very definition of judicial tyranny.

Also, it cannot be ignored that the same-sex "marriage" vote in Ireland provides further evidence for the continued sad legacy of the modern Catholic Church. As of 2011, over 84% of Ireland identified as Roman Catholic. The waning influence of the Catholic Church on the grave moral issues of our time is shocking. As I've noted, this is yet another tragic result of the rotten influence of modern liberalism.

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

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

Neal Boortz is (Still) an Idiot on the Moral Issues

I often eat my lunch (11:45-12:15) at school in my classroom. When I do, I usually turn my little clock radio next to my desk on to WSB (Atlanta). This means I catch the very end of the Herman Cain show, the noon news, and the very beginning of Rush’s show.

This past Friday, Neal Boortz must’ve substituted (as he sometimes does) for Herman Cain. I heard a brief political discussion between Boortz, WSB’s morning host Scott Slade, and WSB’s chief political correspondent (often heard on Sean Hannity’s radio show), Jamie Dupree. As soon as I turned on the radio, I heard Boortz ranting—as he often does—about the attention republicans are giving to the “social issues.” He specifically mentioned same-sex (I think he said “gay”) marriage.

I can’t yet find any audio of the exchange from Friday, but Boortz sounded very much like he does here:

In this exchange with Jamie Dupree in late 2012 on “gay marriage” Boortz declares, “No one has ever been able to show me how this whole thing about gay marriage is going to affect me, my life, the future of my family, my daughter, her husband, my grandbaby, it’s going to have no effect on [us].”

He then asks Jamie Dupree, “Do some other elements out there, Jamie, just revel in getting these issues in front of the people so that they just ignore the stuff that’s really important to them?” Dupree replies, “I don’t know [it’s] so they ignore the stuff. I do think that this is an important issue for some people on the right.” An indignant Boortz then asks, “On what basis?!”

Unable to well articulate the Christian conservative position on this grave issue, Dupree, sounding frustrated, weakly replies, “Look, that’s how they feel. Whether it’s right or wrong in your own mind isn’t the point, is it? It is an important issue for them.”

Boortz then gives the predictably moronic reply so often thrown out by liberals who rabidly support all things homosexual, and libertarians who seemingly just don’t want to exert the mental effort necessary to understand why redefining marriage (and other similar moral issues) is so important: “If they’re so opposed to it, then don’t marry somebody of their sex. Wow, problem solved.”

(Of course, this sounds a lot like the bumper sticker you see often in support of the “right” to kill children in the womb (a moral issue that Boortz is also infamously bad on): “Don’t like abortion? Then don’t have one.” Whenever someone tries this nonsense on you, reply with: “So according to your logic, ‘Don’t like slavery? Then don’t own one.’ is a valid argument to be made?”)

Dupree continues to display his ignorant simpleton thinking on the matter and replies, “Some things are a big deal for certain sections, certain groups of people, and not a big deal for others.” Boortz then presents a mocking hypothetical where the country is nearing economic collapse, and in his best hick voice concludes, “That may be so, but at least them gays can’t get married.”

This type of lame libertarian thinking on the moral issues is one of the biggest reasons why so many young people are deceived on marriage, abortion, and the like. Given all of his years on the radio and in print, I find it quite unbelievable that Boortz has never had a call, email, or a face-to-face that has given him the correct Christian conservative position on marriage, et al. Sad as it is, it seems that Boortz and his ilk regularly and intelligently need to be shown why redefining marriage is a disaster for the country—including and beyond the biblical reasons.

For example, libertarians like Boortz (rightly) despise the welfare state. Why despise it? After all, isn’t it simply a matter of “fairness” to take from those who have plenty (or just more) and give it to those who are poor (or to those who have less)? Don’t libertarians like Neal Boortz want to help those in need? Why is it “wrong” to empower the government in such a way?

Boortz has gone so far as to call (most of) the poor in America “perpetrators.” He adds that, “Barack Obama has placed more people on food stamps than any president in history. The goal here is not so much to take care of people who can’t afford their food, as it is to create a dependency society of loyal Democrat voters. These are people who have discovered that they can earn a living at the ballot box.” To illustrate this, Boortz provides a “factoid:” “In the great social welfare state being constructed by Democrats, a person can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as they can working [a] $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.” (Emphasis his.)

Boortz (again, rightly) fears for the country. To have tens-of-millions of Americans so dependent on government is an unsustainable financial disaster that will reap tragic benefits for most all of us, and may destroy the country as we know it. As Ben Franklin put it, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Boortz (again, rightly—libertarians do get much right) is implying that the welfare state gives millions upon millions of Americans, who are otherwise quite capable, an incentive to be lazy, and thus shields them from suffering the “right and just” (“If a man does not work, he shall not eat.”) consequences of their immoral actions—consequences that might well help them see the error of their ways and turn from their wickedness. In other words, Boortz is making a moral argument against the welfare state. (He also seems to understand well my proverb, “It is no act of charity to be generous with someone else’s money.”)

And just when did the U.S. embark on this disaster? As the Heritage Foundation noted earlier this month, “Fifty-one years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson launched the War on Poverty. Since then, taxpayers have spent more than $22 trillion fighting Johnson’s war, three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history. Last year, taxpayers spent more than $920 billion on 80 different anti-poverty programs.”

What other national disaster began around the same time as, and has greatly contributed to the growth of, the welfare state? The sexual revolution, which of course, led to the collapse of the biblical family model in America. As the Heritage piece also notes, “A major reason for the nation’s lack of success for the last half century has been the collapse of marriage. Marriage is a powerful force in reducing poverty; a single mother with children is four times more likely to be poor than a similar mother who is married. More than two-thirds of all poor families with children in the U.S. are headed by single parents.”

Boortz seemingly understands the link to out-of-wedlock births and poverty when he gives his three steps for avoiding poverty: 1.) Stay in school 2.) Don’t get pregnant (Presumably he means outside of marriage. Gasp!—Again, sounds rather like a bit of “moralizing” on the part of Mr. Boortz!) 3.) When you get out of school, get a job. Any job. And keep that job until you can find one that pays better.

Of course, children need their biological parents to be, and to remain, married for reasons that extend far beyond those that are financial. How often must that which common sense (or at least it used to be common) and sound morality have always revealed be repeated to libertarian dolts like 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!

Are you understanding “the basis” for standing up for marriage now, Neal? (And please, don't try the "We shouldn't legislate morality" nonsense.)

What’s more, if the courts force same-sex marriage upon all of America, the terrible consequences will infect all of the U.S., as homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” will have the full force of the U.S. law behind it. This means that the lawsuits against small (or large) businesses (that are already bankrupting some) who refuse to participate in this perversion will be on the increase. In addition, churches, individuals, and organizations who speak out against this perversion will face “civil rights” penalties.

Perhaps worst of all, school children at every level all across the country will be taught that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and the perverse redefinition of marriage. Thus hundreds-of-millions of American children will grow up with an even more distorted view of what marriage and parenting are really all about.

Additionally, once the legal precedent for redefining marriage is set, the door is open for polyamorous marriage, incestuous marriage, and the like. If we are morally blind to homosexual "marriage," then we must be to the other perversions as well. Do you see now, Mr. Boortz, how this affects not only the future of your family, but the future of us all?

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

Same-Sex “Marriage:” The Way Around the Death Tax

Surprise! President Obama wants to raise taxes. In addition to other increases, as part of his new budget, President Obama wants to raise the estate tax (aka the “death tax”). Americans for Tax Reform notes that the increase would be from 40% to nearly 60%. This is about a 50% increase. However, as I have noted in the past, all property left to a spouse is exempt from the estate tax.

With the perverse redefinition of marriage that liberals across the U.S. have pushed on the country—which, after the Supreme Court rules on the matter, may soon give us same-sex “marriage” as the law of the land—some interesting tax scenarios may become available for all who are willing to take advantage.

Again, as the link above indicates, I’ve already pointed all of this out, but since Obama has put the estate tax in the headlines, my “delicious scenario” deserves a rehashing:

Once the redefining of marriage is taken to its logical conclusion—unless, of course, the left wants to “discriminate” and limit the definition of “marriage”—and polygamous and incestuous relationships are given the legal protection of marriage, then a wealthy small business owner or farmer, nearing the end of his life, will be able to “marry” his son or daughter (or both!) (no matter if either party is already married) for no other reason than to avoid paying additional federal taxes. Thank you, Justice Kennedy!

For conservatives, and other Americans still capable of actually feeling shame, there will be no shame or stigma in participating in such marriages, because the relationships will have absolutely nothing to do with sex and are all about “love” (loving to stick it to the feds, that is), and “love is love,” right libs?

For liberals, whether such relationships are sexual should have no bearing. I mean, what protest can a true liberal raise against any kind of sexual relationship between consenting adults? Upon what moral standard would they rely? After all, we would not want to “demean” a couple whose “moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.”

Also, there would be no violation of God’s law either, because as anyone who truthfully understands Scripture knows, marriage can only exist as union of one man and one woman. Thus, all that would be occurring is taking legal advantage of the folly produced by liberal logic. I suppose liberals could always change their “marriage” laws and require that same-sex “marriages” occur only with those actually engaging in homosexual activity, but that would require the government to enter the bedroom, and we know liberals don’t want that! (How wickedly ironic would that be? We go from laws against sodomy to those requiring 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

Homo-Hypocrisy

Recently, a Christian man--Theodore Shoebat, who runs shoebat.com--exposed the hypocrisy (and frequent vulgarites) of the militant homosexual agenda. Mr. Shoebat called 13 gay-owned bakeries and asked them to bake a pro-biblical marriage cake. All refused. Some used deviant vulgarities in their rebuff of Mr. Shoebat.

Recall that a Christian-owned bakery was successfully sued when they refused to provide a cake with the message "Support Gay Marriage" on it. I have well chronicled the wide variety of Christian businesses that have suffered the wrath of the homosexual agenda, and our foolish courts who have, for the most part, supported this perverse agenda.

Will these "intolerant" pro-homosexual businesses be held to the same standards as the Christian-owned businesses? Don't count on it. As is typical with the tenants of liberalism, it's never really about truth and justice. It's about furthering the liberal agenda, by whatever means necessary.

Observe Mr. Shoebat's experience with the pro-homosexual baker's below as he asked them to bake a cake with the message "Gay Marriage is Wrong." (Warning: explicit language.)

Part 1:

Part 2:

Marriage Commitment Challenge

In light of the viral “Ice Bucket Challenge” that has significantly raised both awareness and money in the battle against the terrible disease of ALS, I recently had an idea for a different type of “challenge.” This is a challenge to stand up for the truth—to be seen and heard in the fight against another, much more devastating plague on our culture.

(See our YouTube description here as well as below.)

For years now, I and many others have detaileded the tragic effects of the breakdown of the traditional (biblical) family unit in our culture (see my archive of columns/articles on my “Marriage/Family/Sexuality” page; also search my site for “marriage and family” and the like). In addition to the devastating effects for children brought up in a home without a loving and married mother and father, as has often been chronicled, the breakdown of the family is linked to an increase in poverty, violence, crime, and a host of other social ills.

Divorce, out-of-wedlock births, promiscuity of every kind imaginable, prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation of children, sex-trafficking, homosexuality, same-sex marriage—each of these once considered grossly immoral (“sin”) by most Americans—with some considered so gross as not even to warrant a discussion—are now not only considered acceptable in many circles, but some are even celebrated.

This is especially true of homosexuality. The federal government, the federal courts, state governments and state courts all across the U.S., school systems, corporations, Hollywood, the news media, the sports industries and media—virtually every realm of our culture has capitulated by some measure to the homosexual agenda.

Such acceptance and celebration has infected not only our secular culture, but the church as well. For the last decade we have watched as denomination after denomination, congregation after congregation, in the name of the fallacy that is today’s “tolerance,” compromise long-held biblical truths on marriage and sexuality.

Additionally, the movement to redefine marriage, which is being rabidly debated throughout the U.S., is not only seeking to shatter the foundation upon which all of our social institutions rest, it is seeking to legitimize—using, among other things, the full power of our legal system— homosexuality and all of its perverse variations, including transgenderism.

Bakers, florists, photographers, wedding hosts, and the like have suffered under our legal system due to their Christian views on marriage and homosexuality. This will certainly continue. As I noted a few months ago, and as Al Mohler recently pointed out, “We are in the midst of a massive revolution in morality.” Mohler adds that, “sexual morality is at the center of this revolution.” He refers directly to a “crossroads” and alludes to an unavoidable showdown that is looming within the evangelical church. However, I believe this is the case for our nation in general.

Given all of this, and as I mentioned at the beginning of this piece, the success of the “Ice Bucket Challenge,” I think it’s time for all who are concerned about where our nation is headed with marriage and sexuality to embrace a different type of challenge. This one involves no financial donation but could cost you plenty; there’s no ice-cold water involved, but it could be much more “chilling” for some. However, if this catches on and turns hearts and minds toward the truth, it will all be worth it.

What I propose is the following: Married couples—husbands and wives that is—as well as interested singles, would video a short (less than 1 minute) commitment statement on marriage and sexuality and post it online—Facebook, YouTube, etc.—for all the world to see. The statements I created (one for marrieds; one for singles) are below. You could use one of mine or create your own. It needs to be brief, so that people can view it quickly, but it needs to communicate clearly the truth on marriage and sexuality.

I propose that husbands and wives alternate reading sections, but do so in a manner that demonstrates unity: the type of unity that a Christian marriage is supposed to have. In other words, two are reading it as one. (My personal preference would be alternating the reading instead of reading it together, but others may reach a different conclusion.) Also, large groups such as Sunday school classes, church small groups, or even whole congregations could make the commitment together. Husbands and wives could make the commitment with their children present.

I especially challenge Christian leaders—pastors, elders, deacons, ministry heads, leaders of Christian colleges and universities, and the like—to make the marriage commitment and do so boldly. I also especially challenge Christians in high-profile parts of our culture—TV celebrities, movie celebrities, sports celebrities, news media celebrities, and the like—to make the marriage commitment.

However, the vast majority of us who make this marriage commitment will be those with a much smaller circle of influence. It will be this group that will convince most people that this commitment is the right thing to do. In other words, it will be the every-day Americans that will point the vast majority to the truth on marriage and sex.

As you challenge others to this commitment, I recommend that you do so in private. Some may not respond well to a public challenge on an issue such as this.

Yes, many of us who are in a Christian marriage have already said our vows before God and a crowd of witnesses. Yet, these drastic times call for more. The voices of deception are many. They need to be countered.

I’m under no illusions that the few words in these marriage commitments will, by themselves, elicit real change in our nation. Neither am I seeking merely a political solution. By and large, our politics are only a reflection of our culture. Real change will come as people live out the commitment and God uses His truth to bring repentance.

In other words, change will come when those deceived and those seeking the truth see millions of loving, committed, and fruitful marriages lived out before their eyes and God reveals to their hearts that this is the way that marriage was meant to be. Nevertheless, given where we are with marriage and sexuality in our nation, we need a large wake-up call and I believe that this “marriage commitment challenge” could be that call.

Dr. Mohler is right: sooner or later we’re all going to have to decide where we stand in these matters. We may as well start now. Is this “corny”? Perhaps, but certainly no more so than dumping a bucket of ice water on your head to help cure a disease—and look what that has accomplished.

Below are the commitments that I’ve written. Each one has been examined, and edited where necessary, by pastors and those involved in family ministry.

Married Couples:

As husband and wife we commit, before God and all who witness this, to remain faithful in all that the Bible reveals on the holy covenant of marriage.

Namely, we commit to remain faithful to one another and keep our marriage bed pure; and we commit to remain married until our earthly union is dissolved by death. Furthermore, as a union of one man and one woman, we commit to allow God to use our union as He sees fit to build His Kingdom.

Last, we commit to model and to teach others the truth on marriage and sexuality. Namely, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life and that the only rightful place for sex is within marriage.



Singles:

I commit, before God and all who witness this, to remain faithful to all that the Bible reveals on the holy covenant of marriage.

Namely, I commit to keep myself sexually pure while unmarried and model and teach this behavior to those in my circle of influence. Furthermore, I commit to allow God to use me as a single person as He sees fit to build His Kingdom.

If I am ever married, I commit to remain faithful to my spouse, keep our marriage bed pure, and remain married until our earthly union is dissolved by death.

Last, whether married or single, I commit to model and to teach others the truth on marriage and sexuality. Namely, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life and that the only rightful place for sex is within marriage.

Same-Sex Marriage ("Gay Marriage" for most liberals) Explained

This is a few years old (note than when this was made, Obama still "opposed" same-sex marriage), but still very good. Enjoy.

Revenge of the Gays

No one should be surprised that the Gay Gestapo saw to it that Brendan Eich got what they thought he deserved. “Live and let live” is not a hallmark of the homosexual agenda. We were warned.

In December of 2005 The Becket Fund, a nonprofit institute dedicated to protecting freedom of religion, held a conference to discuss the legal ramifications of same-sex marriage. Ten of the nation’s top First Amendment scholars, liberal, conservative, and moderate, were brought in to present their views of same-sex marriage and the likely outcomes if it is legalized. As a result of the conference a series of papers was published.  These papers were widely reported on. Publications such as The Weekly Standard, National Review, World Magazine, The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, The San Francisco Chronicle, and many others have covered the results of this conference.

The conference focused on four topics: Can the government force religious institutions to recognize same-sex unions? Can the government withhold benefits, such as tax exemption, from religious institutions that refuse to recognize same-sex unions? How will freedom of religion arguments fare against legal same-sex marriage? What are the effects on biblical (traditional) marriage?

Mark Stern, general counsel for the liberal leaning American Jewish Congress and a supporter of gay marriage, wrote in his paper, “No one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them. Same-sex marriage would, however, work a sea change in American law. That change will reverberate across the legal and religious landscape in some ways that are today unpredictable.” According to Peter Steinfels, writing for The New York Times, what Mr. Stern has in mind are “schools, health care centers, social service agencies, summer camps, homeless shelters, nursing homes, orphanages, retreat houses, community centers, athletic programs and private businesses or services that operate by religious standards, like kosher caterers and marriage counselors.”

George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley, also a supporter of gay marriage, in his Becket paper noted that, “As states accept same-sex marriage and prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, conflicts will grow between the government and discriminatory organizations. There will be many religious-based organizations that will refuse to hire individuals who are homosexual or members of a same-sex marriage. If those individuals are holding a state license of marriage or civil union, it will result in a discriminatory act that was not only based on sexual orientation, but a lawful state status.”

Doug Kmiec, professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University, and an opponent of gay marriage, participated in the Becket conference and wrote, “Were federal equal protection or substantive due process to be construed to require states to license same-sex marriage, those who have profound moral or religious objection to the social affirmation of homosexual conduct would be argued to be the out-liers of civil society.” Therefore, he argues that churches could be targeted for legal penalties and disadvantages as were universities that participated in racial discrimination decades ago.

He adds that, “This is hardly a far-fetched (idea), as apparently one of the main aspirations of the homosexual movement is retaliation against the defenders of traditional marriage.” Dan Brown of the National Organization for Marriage hinted at “aspirations of the homosexual movement” as well, and took it even further. After the will of the California people was undone with a judge ruling Proposition 8 unconstitutional, Brown declared that, “The goal of this movement is to use the law to reshape the culture so that disagreement with their views on sex and marriage gets stigmatized and repressed like bigotry.”

There you have it. Ultimately this debate isn’t about marriage or “discrimination.” This is an attempt, using the power of the American legal system, to force moral legitimization of homosexual behavior upon the American people. And it is about revenge upon all those—past and present—who have stood, and continue to stand in the way of such “progress.”

Unless America comes to her senses, there almost certainly will be many more Brendan Eichs, Barronelle Stutzmans, Jack Phillips, and Elaine Huguenins. After all, the undoing of an absolute truth (marriage is a union of one man and one woman) is bound to be confrontational and messy. When you call good evil and evil good, there are bound to be casualties.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas

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

There’s Nothing Wrong in Kansas (but is there something wrong with Andy Stanley?)

Kirsten Powers wants to know what is wrong with Kansas. She asks this because of a bill that recently passed the Kansas House of Representatives that would protect the religious liberty of businesses and individuals who wish not to provide services to homosexual couples. Of course, this is because such businesses and individuals take the biblical view of homosexuality—that it is sinful—that has prevailed for centuries.

The bill was “blessedly killed” (her words) in the Kansas Senate. Bills such as this are in response to lawsuits against businesses such as the florist in Washington, the baker in Colorado, and the photographer in New Mexico because they refused to provide their business services in same-sex “weddings.” Powers likens attempts at these types of laws to “Jim Crow laws” that existed decades ago in the south.

Here again we see the pro-homosexual movement attempting to associate itself with the civil rights movement that swept America in the 1960s. Powers then adds this troubling, but unsurprising sentence, “Whether Christians have the legal right to discriminate should be a moot point because Christianity doesn't prohibit serving a gay couple getting married.”

First of all, time and again, those of us who oppose same-sex “marriage” are accused of “discrimination.” This is a ridiculous accusation that I have dealt with often. All law discriminates. Thus, those who support same-sex marriage also must eventually “discriminate” when it comes to defining marriage. You can usually easily reveal this by asking same-sex “marriage” supporters whether they support polygamous “marriage” or incestuous “marriage.”

Secondly, if you read the law, it takes great pains to speak in terms of “marriage,” or a similar ceremony. We are not talking about refusing to serve a customer in general simply because of someone’s sexual behavior. (Although such refusal can also at times be justified.) If this were the case, most of us would probably have failed such a test at some point in our lives.

Thirdly (and ridiculously), no, the Bible does not specifically prohibit serving at a gay “wedding.” However, as anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Christianity would know, this is because the Bible prohibits homosexual behavior, and thus by extension, same-sex “marriage” as well. As I have often noted, when Jesus is asked about divorce, He talks about marriage (quoting directly from Genesis chapters one and two) in terms of how it was “from the beginning:” a union of one man and one woman.

Most disturbingly, Powers obtains statements that are seemingly supportive of her pro-homosexual position from pastors of the “largest church in Kansas,” Adam Hamilton, and the “second largest church in the U.S,” Andy Stanley (whose church is in my home state of Georgia). Powers quotes Hamilton as saying that, “Jesus routinely healed, fed and ministered to people whose personal lifestyle he likely disagreed with.”

Stanley is quoted as saying that he finds it “offensive that Christians would leverage faith to support the Kansas law.” He adds, “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.”

“Offensive?” Really? The “leave your faith out of politics” howls are supposed to come from the secular left, not the evangelical right. Far too many Christians (especially Christian politicians) have been brow-beaten into believing that their faith should have nothing to do with their politics.

And do Stanley and Hamilton really not see the difference between feeding a hungry prostitute and agreeing to photograph her next act of sexual immorality? Can they not tell the difference between helping a junkie get a job vs. baking a cake for his next crack party? In other words, sure we are to love all and worship One, but we are certainly not to wink-and-nod at or worse, participate in, sinful behavior.

This is especially true for homosexuality and same-sex marriage, as both are uniquely heinous in our culture. In other words, in spite of what many young people—especially those who call themselves Christians—today believe, issues such as homosexuality, marriage, and abortion deserve the attention they get from Christian conservatives. As Joel Belz noted years ago, it is time we stop apologizing for the attention we give these grave moral issues.

Why? Because, prostitution (at least not yet), drug abuse (well, there is the pro-pot crowd), murder (oops!—I forgot about abortion! Is there any sin liberals can’t co-opt in an attempt to turn out votes?)—and the like, do not have national movements and organizations that are devoted to preaching the value of such behavior.

As a result of decades of propaganda from organizations like Planned Parenthood, the Human Rights Campaign, a complicit media, and the Democratic Party, tens-of-millions of Americans have bought the liberal lies when it comes to abortion, homosexuality, and gay marriage. On these issues, we are a culture deceived, and if nowhere else, our pulpits need to be unambiguously screaming the truth in these matters.

Paul, in Romans—the “caput et summa universae doctrinae christianae” (“the summary of the whole of Christian doctrine”)—chapter 6 reveals something very black and white about humanity: “Do you not know that …you are the slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?” The question staring menacingly at America right now is, whose slave are you?

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas

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

Yes A.J., the Grammys Were "Demonic"

Back at the MTV awards show in the summer of 2013 when Miley Cyrus with her hair horns twerked her way into infamy, I wrote “Don’t Cry to Me about MTV.” Back then, I wasn’t sure what was worse: Cyrus gyrating around like a “demon in heat,” or that ANYONE watching (with some even allowing their young children to view the hedonistic display) was surprised at what they were seeing.

It seems much of America did not learn their lesson. The recent Grammy Awards show seemed to want to continue along America’s plunge into complete moral decay. Evidently (you couldn’t pay me to watch the trash) the show was so depraved that (several) Drudge headlines used words like “demonic,” “evil,” and “satanic.” Christian artist Natalie Grant was so disgusted that she and her entourage departed the show early.

Former Alabama and future NFL quarterback, A.J. McCarron, tweeted, “Is it just me or are some of the Grammy performances so far seem really demonic??” It looks as if that Alabama education is already paying dividends. Better be careful though, A.J., the NFL is watching and listening.

The Grammy Awards featured Katy Perry (the daughter of a Christian pastor), who was dressed as a witch and mockingly burned at a stake. Perry’s performance prompted even the folks at secular E! Online to wonder if they were witnessing “actual witchcraft.”

Of course, what would be a secular awards show without promoting homosexuality? Queen Latifah, who was deputized by (surprise!) Los Angeles County to make things legal (but of course, not moral), performed a mass wedding ceremony involving 33 couples, including many homosexual couples. The ceremony took place while Macklemore & Ryan Lewis performed their pro-gay marriage anthem “Same Love.”

Beyoncé (another surprise!) dressed as a hooker and performed a whorish dance where her hedonistic husband grasped her rear-end for the entire world to see. Sadly, like the 2013 MTV awards show, far too much of the world did see. At 28.5 million, the Grammy viewing audience was the largest in years.

As I noted last year, most of these performers could be described as little more than “whores,” as they have prostituted themselves on the altar of fame and fortune.

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas

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

The Gay "Marriage" Charade

After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the liberal pundits predictably cheered the ruling. With few exceptions, such pundits were very consistent (see here, here, here, here, here, and the Huffington Post, which dedicated a whole page) in one particular and notable aspect of this issue: it was “gay marriage” and not “same-sex marriage.”

Apparently it has escaped many liberals that, when one redefines marriage to include man/man and woman/woman unions, homosexuality never has to enter into the picture. Of course, for liberals this is really all about homosexuality. As I have noted before, marriage is just the means to a more sinister end for the homosexual movement. This is about sex and about legitimizing, through the American judicial system, a sexual lifestyle many Americans find immoral.

This is also about vengeance. Once the homosexual movement has the full protection of the law behind it (which it pretty much does now in about a dozen states), institutions with moral or religious objections to homosexual behavior will be attacked, not just with protests, but with the full legal force of the state. Churches, schools, hospitals, businesses, and the like will be targeted. Of course, in the liberal led states where homosexuality has obtained significant legal protection, this is already occurring.

Individuals who speak out against homosexuality will also be accused, and perhaps fined or arrested, for engaging in “hate speech.” This also is already occurring in other parts of the world where liberalism is more entrenched.

Liberals have become so consumed with forcing the legitimization of homosexual behavior down the throats (sorry!) of the American people that they have become blind to the unintended consequences of their legal actions. Let me provide you with a delicious scenario: legalized “same-sex” marriage—which is what we really have—renders the federal estate tax impotent.

Under current federal tax law, an individual can leave any amount of money to a spouse without generating estate tax. Thus, a small business owner or a farmer, wealthy or not, just prior to his or her death can “marry” a “partner” for no other reason than simply to avoid having his estate taxed (further) by the federal government.

What’s more, once the redefining of marriage is taken to its logical conclusion—unless, of course, the left wants to “discriminate” and limit the definition of “marriage”—and polygamous and incestuous relationships are given the legal protection of marriage, then a wealthy small business owner or farmer, nearing the end of his life, will be able to “marry” his son or daughter (no matter if either party is already married) for no other reason than to avoid paying additional federal taxes. Thank you, Justice Kennedy!

For conservatives, and other Americans still capable of actually feeling shame, there will be no shame or stigma in participating in such marriages, because the relationships will have absolutely nothing to do with sex and are all about “love” (loving to stick it to the feds, that is), and “love is love,” right libs?

For liberals, whether such relationships are sexual should have no bearing. I mean, what protest can a true liberal raise against any kind of sexual relationship between consenting adults? Upon what moral standard would they rely? After all, we would not want to “demean” a couple whose “moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.”

Also, there would be no violation of God’s law either, because as anyone who truthfully understands Scripture knows, marriage can only exist as union of one man and one woman. Thus, all that would be occurring is taking legal advantage of the folly produced by liberal logic. I suppose liberals could always change their “marriage” laws and require that same-sex “marriages” occur only with those actually engaging in homosexual activity, but that would require the government to enter the bedroom, and we know liberals don’t want that! (How wickedly ironic would that be? We go from laws against sodomy to those requiring it!)

Of course, liberals would howl at conservatives “marrying” simply to reduce their tax burden, but the law says nothing about such relationships being sexual. As Fred Kopp noted in American Thinker nearly two years ago, “When applying for a marriage license, there is no box to check, no oath to take, no questions about a person's sexual proclivity.  Ironically, the very heart of the ‘gay marriage’ movement -- homosexuality -- gets nary a mention on the marriage application.”

Also, near countless number of times, liberals have gone out of their way to make the case that it matters not whether a marital relationship is capable of producing children, so, again, surely it would matter not whether a marital relationship had anything to do with sex at all.

Therefore, two widowed sisters (one with children and one without) could “marry” so that the estate of the childless widow could be passed on the children of the other with a significantly reduced tax burden.

When multiples are allowed to marry—and make no mistake about it, polygamists celebrated the Supreme Court ruling on DOMA as well—these scenarios become even more crazy and complicated. No matter, though, the legal logic stands.

In fact, homosexuals are already taking similar “crazy” steps in states where same-sex marriage is not recognized. While writing this column, a link appeared on Drudge to an ABC news piece about a homosexual man (65 years old) who adopted his partner (73 years old) to avoid paying Pennsylvania's inheritance tax.

A perversion (something with which most liberals have no problem) of adoption no doubt, but evidently legal, nonetheless. Thus, if gays can adopt to game the system, then straights can “marry” to do the same.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

You want to be Governed by the Sodomites, Keep Voting for Liberals

By now you have almost certainly seen the ruling (5 to 4 overturning DOMA; punting on Prop 8) and read the pundit’s breakdown. If you didn’t hear Rush today, read his take here. For some good conservative news/commentary, see: Jim Daly (Focus on the Family); American Center for Law and Justice; Answers in Genesis; World Net Daily; My Website.

Given these rulings, one thing is clear: if you want gay marriage to be the law of our land, keep voting for liberals (or at least, not for conservatives—real ones that is). During Obama’s presidency, so far he has appointed two Chief (oops!) justices to the U.S. Supreme Court (Kagan and Sotomayor). Both voted to overturn DOMA. The Obama Justice Dept. refused to even defend DOMA. All of the states (along with D.C.) that currently allow same-sex marriage are led by liberals.

The nonsense that, politically speaking, the social issues don’t matter is helping to destroy this country. Only a nation that has forsaken God and His eternal truths allows the slaughter of its most innocent and helpless, along with the destruction of the foundational institution of civil society. A nation's laws and its government are, to a great extent, a reflection of where that nation is spiritually. Right now, that reflection is quite ugly.

Take heart though! Let us work as if everything depended on us, and pray as if everything depended on God.

Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Living With Liberalism: Gays, Graduations, and Swedish Meatheads

One doesn’t have to look far to witness the disaster that is modern liberalism. Sadly, leading the debauchery is the Boy Scouts of America. For over 100 years the Scouts have operated under the oath: “On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.” That oath has now been rendered meaningless and the Boy Scouts, as we knew it, is dead.

Yesterday, in historic infamy, over 1,400 members of the Boy Scouts national council voted (by a 61% to 39% margin) to allow openly homosexual boys into its ranks. As USA Today noted, “Since 1991 the Scouts have barred openly gay individuals from participating in Scouting because it was decided that being gay was incompatible with being ‘morally straight.’” So now, all of a sudden being “morally straight” doesn’t necessarily mean being sexually straight.

As is so typical with liberalism, whenever there’s a moral standard you want to change, just be persistent, loud, and threatening. It only took about 22 years with the Boy Scouts.

Persistent liberalism has worn down Dekalb County (in Georgia). For years now, atheist organizations have sought to get high school graduations out of area churches. In 2010, a federal judge ruled (based on a lawsuit brought against a Connecticut high school) that holding high school graduation ceremonies at a church was unconstitutional, and ordered the Enfield (CT) school board to find an alternative venue.

In recent years schools in Georgia have faced boycotts from atheist students and threats from atheist organizations for holding graduations in churches. This year, Dekalb County GA decided that the fight wasn’t worth it. They have decided to pull all graduations out of local churches. This is in spite of the fact that alternative venues are often not as convenient or as equipped to hold such events.

Then there is Sweden. For days now Sweden has suffered nighttime riots at the hands of unruly youths. The young thugs have set dozens of fires, targeting many cars and even a school. As reported by RT.com news, “Community leaders insist that a main reason for the violence is the high rate of unemployment in immigrant communities, particularly in the suburb of Husby near central Stockholm, one of the worst affected by the nighttime violence.”

Using very sound liberal logic, Swedish Democrats MP Kent Ekeroth stated, “In Sweden you’ve got welfare, access to the educational system – up to university level, you got access to public transport, libraries, healthcare – to everything. And still they feel that they [immigrants] need to riot through stones and Molotov cocktails. It’s ridiculous and a bad excuse.”

Apparently it has escaped many Swedes that, when you promote a culture of entitlement, those on the receiving end are likely to erupt when they don’t get everything they expect. Ingrid Carlqvist, editor in chief of the Swedish Dispatch International concluded, “The problem is not from the Swedish government or from the Swedish people. The last 20 years or so, we have seen so many immigrants coming to Sweden that really don’t like Sweden. They do not want to integrate, they do not want to live in [Swedish] society: Working, paying taxes and so on.”

In a moment of mental clarity, Carlqvist added, “The people come here now because they know that Sweden will give them money for nothing. They don’t have to work, they don’t have to pay taxes – they can just stay here and get a lot of money. That is really a problem.” Yes it is! Carlqvist is correct, however, the environment that has produced this “money for nothing” culture is a result of the liberal policies favored by the Swedish people and their politicians. Thus, the Swedes bear the responsibility for creating such a liberal haven.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

The Pagan Roots of Same-Sex Marriage (Yesterday's Pagans are Today's Liberals!)

In order to understand properly how we’ve gotten where we are when it comes to marriage and the homosexual agenda, one must first understand that this drastic change from long-held attitudes towards sexuality and family is not as sudden as it appears. Our obsession with sex and the attacks on the City of God (as Augustine put it) did not begin with the 1960s sexual revolution in America.

For millennia human beings have sought to shed the tenets of our Creator and go our own way. This is especially true when it comes to our sexuality. Much of the history of ancient Israel, as described by the Old Testament, included the struggle of the Jewish people with idolatry, false gods, and sexual immorality. Chief among these false gods which often drew Israel away from the God of Abraham was Baal.

Baal was the proper name for the most significant god in the Canaanite pantheon. When the judges ruled Israel, there were altars to Baal in Palestine. During the notorious reign of Ahab and Jezebel the worship of Baal was prolific. In spite of the warnings from the prophets (including the dramatic demonstration on Mt. Carmel by Elijah), the struggle between Baalism and the worship of God continued for centuries.

The worship of Baal included offering of incense and sacrifice—including human sacrifice. However, Baal worship was chiefly marked by fertility rites. It was believed that Baal made the land, animals, and humans fertile. In other words, Baal was seen as the god of “sacred sexuality.” To encourage the god to carry out these functions, worshippers would perform lewd sexual acts. Baal temples were filled with male and female prostitutes for such purposes.

The female consort to Baal was Ashtoreth. This goddess was also associated with sexuality and fertility. The worship of Ashtoreth also included obscene sex acts. Israel forsook the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and served “Baal and the Ashtoreths.” (Judges 2:11-23).

A third rival to the one true God was Molech (or Molek), the god of the Ammonites. The worship of Molech included the fire sacrifice of infant children. Ashtoreth is also seen as the female consort to Molech. Dr. Jeffrey Satinover describes the relationship between the “virgin-whore who copulates and conceives, but does not give birth (Ashtoreth) [and] the god to whom the unwanted offspring of these practices were sacrificed (Molech).”

In the Old Testament, 2 Kings records Josiah, the king of Israel, ordering the destruction of “all the articles made for Baal and Asherah (Ashtoreth)…He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes…[and] the quarters where women did weaving for Asherah.” Josiah also “desecrated Topheth…so no one could use it to sacrifice their son or daughter in the fire to Molek.”

With the rise of abortion (in lieu of sacrificing unwanted children at the altar of a heathen god, we do it in the hygienic atmosphere of a clinic), adultery, divorce, fornication, homosexuality, pornography, prostitution (especially the child sex trade), and so on, modern American culture makes the misled ancient Israelites look rather righteous. The same philosophy that led Israel astray is well at work in the U.S.: paganism.

Occultist, bisexual, and habitual drug user Aleister Crowley described the creed of paganism well: “Do What Thou Wilt.” As Satinover notes, whether expressed openly or tacitly working behind the scenes (with many individuals completely unaware of the philosophy to which they’ve surrendered), pagan principles are quickly coming to dominate our public morality.

The great lure of paganism is that the moral demands are few. Such demands are decided by each individual, and thus we have the chaos that stems from moral relativism. What was once deemed immoral, shameful, and even illegal is now a matter of “civil rights.” Abortion is declared a “right;” marriage is a “right” and thus is defined however it suits an individual; pornography is a matter of “rights,” and on and on.

And once a moral standard is successfully moved away from the truth, the next group that finds itself outside of the standard will look again to move it. Thus we get abortion apologists, such as Planned Parenthood official Alisa Snow who recently testified before the Florida legislature, who can’t even bring themselves to defend an infant born alive as the result of a botched abortion.

Such conclusions are unsurprising, when, as I noted last year, prestigious publications such as the Journal of Medical Ethics, give extreme pagan thought credibility by running articles like “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” which tragically argues that newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life.”

Such fluid morality is also how we go from the decriminalization of sodomy to demands for same-sex marriage. Summing up the pagan position in the current debate over marriage, writing for the Huffington Post, Max Londberg of the University of Oregon asks, “[I]f you love someone enough to tie the knot, then who the expletive is to say you can't do so?”

Also, in 2011 Andrew Viveros was hailed (by the Mainstream Media) as the “first transgender student in the United States to be crowned prom queen at a public school.” Despite being born a boy and having male reproductive organs, Viveros wants to be a girl. Full of pagan pride, and perfectly articulating the pagan creed, Viveros boldly declared, “It's OK to be who you are, it's OK to do what you want to do.”

In other words, the modern pagan has changed little in over 3,000 years. As the book of Judges also records about the ancient Israelites, “everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”

Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com