Michael Vick vs. Dante Stallworth (or Dog Killer vs. Man Killer)

The difference in the treatment of Michael Vick and Donté Stallworth by the media, teammates, the NFL, and the general public reveals a great deal about our culture. The picture painted is not a pretty one.

If you’ve never heard of Donté Stallworth, don’t be surprised. Unless you’re a fan of the Cleveland Browns, or unless you closely follow the NFL, you probably have no idea who he is.

On March 14 of this year in Miami Florida, Stallworth, a 28-year-old wide receiver for the Cleveland Browns, struck and killed 59-year-old Mario Reyes. According to his blood test, Stallworth's blood-alcohol level after the crash was .126, which was well above Florida's legal limit of .08.

This event received significant coverage by the sports media but scant coverage otherwise. On May 19 of this year I did a Google search of “Dante Stallworth kills pedestrian” and got about 69,700 links (“Dante Stallworth kills man” yielded about half this result.). I then Googled “Michael Vick dog fighting” and I got about 688,000 links—nearly 10 times more than the Stallworth search. Granted, such an activity is not a very scientific comparison; after all, Vick’s story has been around much longer, but it is not a far cry to conclude that the coverage of Vick’s incident far surpasses any reporting of Stallworth’s incident.

Even when there were only suspicions about Vick’s involvement in dog fighting, he was quickly ostracized and many people distanced themselves from him. About a week after Vick was officially charged, on July 23 of 2007, citing the league’s conduct policy, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell ordered Vick not to report to training camp until the NFL reviewed the dog fighting charges. Protesters, especially those representing the radical animal rights group PETA, gathered at the Falcons’ training facilities and outside the NFL’s offices in New York. Falcons’ owner Author Blank called Vick’s behavior “horrific.”

Four days after he struck and killed a man, Stallworth reported to the Browns’ voluntary off-season workouts. His attorney, Chris Lyons, said, “Donté reported to the Browns on Wednesday morning and he's been welcomed back by everyone—his teammates, the management, the coaching staff, and they've all been extremely supportive.”

After Stallworth was charged with DUI manslaughter, according to ESPN, “NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the league will review the case under its conduct and substance abuse policies.” Aiello stated, “As the state attorney has said, this was a tragic accident that raises serious issues and we join all those who have expressed their sympathies to the Reyes family.” No condemnation, no protests outside Browns facilities, and no mention of suspension from the NFL.

When searching for articles on Stallworth’s story, you will often see the event described as a “tragedy,” an “accident,” or a “mistake.”  It is also easy to find sympathetic quotes from teammates. Cleveland Plain Dealer reporter Mary Kay Cabot did a story in early April detailing the support from teammates that Stallworth was receiving. Browns linebacker D'Qwell Jackson said, “people should know that Donté is a great person who made a terrible mistake, not a terrible person.”

What Michael Vick did was a “mistake.” He deserved to be punished by both the criminal justice system and the NFL. However, what Donté Stallworth did was “horrific.”

He took the life of another human being and now faces four to fifteen years in prison if he is convicted.

As Vick approaches the end of his sentence, there is much discussion about his return to the NFL. Vick was suspended for the 2007 season and missed the 2008 season while in jail. It will be interesting to continue to follow and contrast these two stories. If he is guilty, how will Stallworth’s jail time compare to Vick’s? What will be the reaction of the NFL, the media, and the public to these ongoing sagas?

One thing is already clear: what a sad indictment on our culture that a man who mistreats (or even kills) animals has been so viciously condemned, while another man who may be guilty of manslaughter hardly draws the public’s attention. Perhaps the greatest tragedy here is the twisted set of morals that allows for such behavior.

Copyright 2009, 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

Let's be clear about Evolution

Nationally syndicated columnists, local columnists, and letter writers have had their say recently in the Times in the never-ending debate over evolution. Never one to shy away from this issue, I would like to add to the current discussion.

I’m taking a bit of a different approach with this column. I would like to point out some misleading arguments that are often used by both sides in this debate.

Perhaps the most glaring, and dangerous, mistake made by many is trying to reconcile the Bible with Darwinian evolution. Decades of compromise within the church when it comes to the Word of God is what has gotten Christians where we are in this matter. If one accepts the Bible as the infallible and undoubted Word of God, there is no sound, logical way to accept Darwinian evolution as fact.

In other words, if one believes that God used millions and billions of years of life and death to create man, he or she is in direct conflict with what the Bible teaches. An atheist who completely denies God and the Bible and holds molecules to man evolution up as absolute truth has a more logically defensible position than the Christian who wants to mix evolution with Scripture.

Let me give just one example of how Scripture is incompatible with Darwinian evolution. Consider Romans chapter 5: “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man (Adam), and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men…Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness (Jesus’ atoning death) was justification that brings life to all men.” 

Here we have Paul, the author of Romans, making reference to a literal Adam and a literal “Fall” through which sin and death entered the world and from which Christ came to save us. Darwinian evolution teaches that millions of years of death and struggle led to more and more variations in the plant and animal kingdom, and ultimately produced human beings, et al. This directly contradicts the Bible, which teaches that everything was created “good,” with no death, and death then entering the world through the sin of Adam (and Eve). The gospel message of Jesus is rooted in this. Anything that teaches otherwise is a lie.

One writer recently pointed out that the Bible “is not a science book.” This sounds like another common mistake: believing that evolution is only about science and that creation is only about religion. This is nonsense.

The writer is correct, of course, that the Bible does not reveal many specifics when it comes to “operational science.” However, the Bible is a history book, accurately dealing with real people and events. In fact, the Bible does as much (if not more) to contribute to “historical science” than most biology books. As the renowned archaeologist William F. Albright put it, “the picture in Genesis is historical, and there is no reason to doubt the general accuracy of the biographical details.”

Another tired argument that evolutionists should avoid is that bacterial resistance to antibiotics proves evolution. The genetic information for these resistances was already present in some of the bacteria. These bacteria then reproduce more resistant bacteria. This is an example of “natural selection,” which gives us variation in all types of creatures (dogs, horses, etc.), but is not an example of one kind of creature changing to another. In other words, “natural selection” is not Darwinian evolution.

There are also several faulty arguments that Creationists should avoid when it comes to this debate. One such argument is that, if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Darwinian evolution doesn’t teach this. It teaches that humans and monkeys have a common ancestor—the ever elusive “missing link.”

Another popular myth is that Darwin had a deathbed conversion. Sadly, given the weight of the evidence (click here to read more), Darwin renouncing his theory and accepting Christ seems an unlikely occurrence. One thing that is likely (more like certain) is that, just as Darwin does now, one day we will all know the truth.

Copyright 2009, 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

Liberal Hypocrisy is Nearly ‘Torture’

It is refreshing to see that so many liberals have discovered their moral compass. In their lust to claim the moral high ground over conservatives, along with their lust to discredit the previous administration and all of its conservative policies (and to prosecute as many of them as possible), liberals have decided that the “torture” of three al Qaeda figures in 2002 and 2003 is the issue with which to pursue their desired ends.

Liberals are throwing the word “torture” around much like they do the words “homophobe” and “racist.” “Homophobe” and “racist” are popular liberal “snarl” words—words that, when used, are intended to induce a negative response, appealing to a person’s emotions rather than their reasoning. The word “torture” is well on its way to becoming liberals’ newest and most favorite “snarl” word.

In other words, say the word “torture” enough when discussing the “evil” Bush administration, and perhaps Americans will be more supportive of liberal efforts to jail as many Bush officials as possible.

Near the heart-of-the-matter in this debate is the interrogation procedure with which we have all become too familiar: waterboarding. According to many different sources, waterboarding was used on only three al Qaeda figures: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

Also, as many have recently pointed out, these “enhanced interrogations,” as they were officially known, produced “high value information,” as Obama's director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, acknowledges. Former CIA Director George Tenet in 2007 said, “I know that this program [of “enhanced interrogations”] has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than [what] the FBI, the CIA, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.”

Michael Hayden, another former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said recently that, “the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work.”

Furthermore, it seems that Congress was kept well abreast of the program. In the words of Representative Peter Hoekstra, “We believed it was something that had to be done in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to keep our nation safe. After many long and contentious debates, Congress repeatedly approved and funded this program on a bipartisan basis in both Republican and Democratic Congresses.”

Of course, the mere fact that something worked and was approved by Congress doesn’t make it right and just. There are significant legal and moral issues in play when it comes to enhanced interrogation (or “torture”). Reasonable, sincere, and moral people have come down on both sides of this difficult issue.

Now I can respect an honest and consistent ethic (though I believe it is quite wrong) that lovingly honors human dignity (at every phase of life), and concludes that torture (whatever that is) is “intrinsically evil.” The Catholic Church takes such a position.

However, what I can’t respect, in fact what I loathe, is the reeking hypocrisy of those who condemn the “torture” of three known terrorists, (who had long before 9/11 declared war on the U.S., and who are still alive and breathing on the U.S. taxpayers’ dime), while supporting a procedure which has resulted in the slaughter of millions of human beings still in their mothers’ wombs.

For example, consider the recent “moral” clamoring on the issue of torture from three well known and widely read liberal columnists. Paul Krugman wrote, “the only way we can regain our moral compass…for the sake of our own national conscience, is to investigate how [the “torture’] happened, and, if necessary, to prosecute those responsible… because it’s about reclaiming America’s soul.”

Cynthia Tucker added, “If we’re the ‘shining city upon a hill,’ ‘the last, best hope of earth,’ aren’t we required to inhabit a higher moral plane than homicidal theo-fascists?” Eugene Robinson concluded that, “On the moral question, the [current] administration has been straightforward and righteous. One of President Obama's first acts was to declare that the United States will no longer practice waterboarding or other abusive interrogation methods, saying that such depredations are inimical to our nation's values and traditions.”

Now these columnists paint a clear picture of the bizarre liberal morality (notice how each invokes the term) which condemns “torture” but is deeply supportive of abortion “rights.” What kind of “morality” must one possess that allows for such duplicity? Whatever absurd set of principles tolerates such foolishness, I want no part of it. Paraphrasing the words of Christ, Why do they look at the speck of sawdust in their brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in their own eye? You hypocrites first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Copyright 2009, 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 TEA (party) was “Sweet”

“The sum of good government,” said Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address, is “A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned (emphasis mine).” The hundreds of thousands of Americans who took part in the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) parties across the U.S. on Wednesday could not agree more.

“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one,” said Thomas Paine. Those of us participating in the April 15 TEA parties fast see our government becoming “intolerable.” The current levels of government spending and taxation, and the ever present threat by the Obama administration (along with many state and local governments) for even more spending and taxation, have more and more Americans saying, “Enough!”

As I wrote at the beginning of February (here), arguing against continuing the Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax, over-spending by our government almost always results in more-and-more government, which then requires even more spending; this requires more tax revenue, which means more and larger taxes. It is truly a maddening and seemingly endless cycle. This financial absurdity is the major reason why there were approximately 1,000 TEA parties across America on tax day.

Sadly, many Americans these last few years have had to learn the hard financial lessons that resulted from excessive levels of personal indebtedness. The spending sprees that have gone on at every level of government these last several years are, for the most part, simply a reflection of our culture in general. I hope that most Americans—individuals, families, businesses, and government— are now waking up to the fact that we cannot spend our way out of debt and into prosperity. The TEA parties were a good indication that many Americans are indeed getting this message.

Jeff Jones, organizer of the Gainesville TEA party, in his speech at the protest, declared, “We have come here today to make our voices heard in defense of our Liberty.

To declare our love for the United States of America and our love for the freedom that our limited government once afforded each of us.... and we have come here today to tell a bloated, heavy-handed, socialist government that we have had ENOUGH.”

He continued, “This government pats us on the head and whispers in our ears, ‘we will be your Big Brother, and protect you from the unfairness in the world. We'll provide your house, your retirement, your car, your healthcare, and your job....in return for your allegiance to our socialist system.’ An American Socialist named Norman Thomas once said: ‘The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of “liberalism” they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.’”

Americans literally cannot afford to sit back and do and say nothing while the financial follies continue in Washington, and in state and local governments all over the country. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called states “the laboratories of democracy.” In other words, if you want a picture of what is going to happen with the federal government, then take a look at the states. Given the make-up of the current administration, with liberals in almost complete control, the best state at which to take a gander would be California.

In June 2002, the liberal magazine American Prospect hailed California as a “laboratory” for Democratic Policies. The author of the story, Harold Meyerson, boasted that “with its Democratic governor, U.S. senators, state legislature and congressional delegation, California is the only one of the nation’s 10 largest states that is uniformly under Democratic control.” In California, Meyerson said, “the next New Deal is in tryouts.”

In the few years since Meyerson’s bold declaration, California has 11.2% unemployment, a $41 billion deficit, and a credit rating that was slashed to the lowest of all 50 U.S. states (approaching junk bond status). It turns out that their “New Deal” was no deal at all. This, and worse, I’m afraid, is the destination of the U.S. government if we don’t stop the fiscal insanity. Hopefully the TEA parties were the beginning of the “change” this country really needs.

Copyright 2009, 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 Dumbest Word in the English Language

In a recent interview with the gay news website 365gay.com, Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, speaking of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), said, “At some point [DOMA] is going to have to go to the Supreme Court.” He continued, “I wouldn't want it to go to the United States Supreme Court now because that homophobe Antonin Scalia has got too many votes on this current court.” I submit to you that there is no dumber word in our language than “homophobe” (or “homophobia,” or “homophobic”).

The word was coined by psychologist and gay activist George Weinberg in his 1972 book Society and the Healthy Homosexual. The book was published one year prior to the American Psychiatric Association, with a vote of 5,834 to 3,810, removing homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. The word became an important tool for homosexual activists and their allies. Weinberg gave them a “medical” phobia with which to attack their opponents.

Weinberg defined the word as “the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals,” adding “It was a fear of homosexuals which seemed to be associated with a fear of contagion, a fear of reducing the things one fought for—home and family. It was a religious fear and it had led to great brutality as fear always does.”

Merriam-Webster defines it as “irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.” One problem I have with the word is that it makes no sense etymologically. “Homo,” from the Greek, means “the same” and “phobia,” from the Greek, means “fear.” So literally, homophobia means fear of the same.

However, my greatest complaint with the term does not stem from its etymological shortcomings. The English language, like most languages, is in constant flux and is full of silly words. The biggest problem with homophobia and its variations is that they have become “snarl” words—words that, when used, are intended to induce a negative response. Such words commonly appeal to people's emotions rather than their reasoning.

That was exactly Barney Frank’s intention—to paint an extremely negative picture of Justice Scalia to a very friendly audience, arousing their emotions against him and all those who see homosexuality differently than he does. In fact, nearly every time that I have heard “homophobe” uttered, or seen it written, it has been as a snarl word.

Other words, such as “racist,” “sexist,” and so on, can be used in a similar manner. Yet most all of us have seen or heard, whether firsthand or not, real racism and sexism in practice. On the other hand, almost exclusively those labeled as “homophobe” have a biblical conviction against homosexual behavior, and nothing more. They have no “irrational fear” of homosexuals, or a “dread of being in close quarters” with them.

A local language expert and fellow Christian, Dr. Danny Evans, notes that the common use of homophobe is a “completely erroneous use of the word. Most of us know that a phobia is a fear of certain things or situations. It's interesting that those who oppose homosexuality are categorized as ‘homophobic,’ especially since fear has nothing to do with the opposition to homosexuality. From a Christian viewpoint, homosexuality is not feared, but rather opposed based on the biblical explanation of it. We love people, no matter what their sexual preferences may be. It is the sin we despise.”

Recently (April 3), the Iowa Supreme Court struck down the state’s Defense of Marriage Act, declaring it to be in conflict with Iowa’s constitution. Almost certainly (as has already occurred in 30 other states, with an average approval of nearly 70%) there will be a significant effort to add a marriage amendment to Iowa’s constitution—and just as certainly, those who pursue this avenue will viciously be labeled as “homophobes.”

We have to go back only to last November when Californians passed Proposition 8, which amended their state constitution to read, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” to see how quickly homosexuals and their supporters will start screaming “homophobia!” in an attempt to demonize their opponents.

As Jonah Goldberg editorialized in December of last year, “It's often lost on gay-rights groups that they and their allies are the aggressors in the culture war. Indeed, they admit to being the ‘forces of change’ and the ‘agents of progress.’ They proudly want to rewrite tradition and overturn laws. But whenever they're challenged democratically and peaceably, they instantly complain of being victims of entrenched bigots, even as they adopt the very tactics they abhor.”

Unquestionably one of the things homosexuals “abhor” is the name calling. If they want to make their case intelligently and peacefully, it is time for the word “homophobia” to become “anachronistic.” (Look it up.)

Copyright 2009, 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