Too Much Tolerance? Another op-ed piece from my college's newspaper

It's been a truly fascinating journey for me these past few months after finding an online archive of The Pendulum, Elon University's student newspaper.  I'm finding articles written by me that I had forgotten about.  I can really see the person I was then, and contrast him with the man who I am today.  There is a lot of growth there.  Some things changed in the intervening decades while others remained starkly the same.  I think my beliefs evolved, while staying true to the heart meat of my being.

So here's my essay from The Pendulum's October 1st, 1998 issue... gadzooks that was twenty-five whole years ago!  Well, this one calls for some background.  A year and a half before this was published Joycelyn Elders - the former surgeon general under President Clinton - visited Elon and spoke one night.  And I was a hot-blooded American youth "full of piss and vinegar" who was going to confront Elders on her radical stance on abortion and sexual policies.

Long story short: I did not comport myself as the Christian I had become five months earlier.  Instead of trying to change hearts I only made myself look very foolish.  Some fellow students liked that I had "taken her on."  But over the following weeks and months I came to realize how wrong I was in doing that.

I decided that I had to do something to try and make things right.  This essay was in part an attempt to do that.  Some people expressed appreciation for it.  Others ignored my apology and homed in on what I wrote about homosexuality.  Which wasn't the main focus of the article at all.

Well, anyway, here it is.  Click on the pic to embiggen it.

What do you folks think?

Read More

No, I do not "hate" anyone LGBT

Sigh...

I shouldn't have to make this post.  But as it seems how EVERYTHING today is supposed to be qualified, quantified, factionalized and most especially sexualized...

Contrary to what some have claimed, I do not now nor have I ever harbored any kind of hatred toward those who have chosen the homosexual lifestyle.  Or who are bisexual.  Or transsexual.  Or whatever.

As a Christian, I am called to not hate anybody.  I am in fact commanded to hate my own sin and my own fallen carnal nature, before I dare levy hatred toward another.  It is part and parcel to the "dying unto self" that those who follow Christ are told that they must do on a daily basis.

That does not mean however that I can or must acquiesce to any activity that is self-destructive.

And that, is what LGBT behavior is.

I've seen the damage and disease and ultimately death that is wrought by homosexuality.  Have looked at the photos of lacerated anal tissue.  Viewed images of penises wracked with things that no healthy male should have.  I have read the journal articles, about gay men and lesbians being far more prone to cancer than those who are not.  Human papillomavirus is a really nasty thing to subject one's genitalia to.  I have looked into the faces of people who have contracted full-blown AIDS, and those are eyes that I pray I never have to look into ever again.

Homosexuals have, on average, a lifespan twenty years shorter than that of heterosexuals.

Let that sink in.  A gay or lesbian person is likely to have two full decades shaven off their life expectancy, because of the all too physical consequences of homosexual behavior.

These are not things that can be "wished away" for sake of sexual license.  These are stone cold hard facts.  This is reality, that can NOT be escaped from because of one's "feelings" about the matter.

LGBTwhatever is incompatible with human design.  Its myriad of associated diseases and disorders attest to this.

How do I, as a person called by God Himself to love others, reconcile that love with the expectation that I am to celebrate a "lifestyle" that leads so very often to death?

I can not.  I can no more endorse the LGBT community than I can endorse cigarette smoking, or abusing crystal meth.  Because those are self-destructive behaviors also.

I can love homosexuals.  I can love lesbians. I can love bisexual individuals.  I can love transsexuals, though what they do to themselves is especially haunting.

But as a Christian (who fails and falls more often than not), as an objectivist who understands the concreteness of reality, as merely a human being trying to be decent... for those reasons and more, I can not love their kind of behavior.  Because when you scrape away everything else that's Chris Knight, you're left with someone who simply does not want to see anyone die.

No, "love is love" is not true.  There are many kinds of love.  There is philios: love of brothers and sisters.  There is the love of parents to children.  There is logos: the love of God.  And, yes, there is eros: love expressed sexually between man and woman.

What the LGBT community and its supporters demand we accept is not love at all.  It is lust.  And they want said lust to be without the burden of personal responsibility.  And THAT again is a denial of reality.

If you love a person... and I mean really love someone, you will NOT selfishly lead that person to demean themselves for your own desires, at risk of their health and even very life.

I love my friends.  There are men who are as close and dear to me as real brothers.  I love them and I would die for any of them.  But not for an instant have I been tempted to take it to an entirely different and inappropriate level.

Once upon a time, not very long ago, most men and women were capable of accepting that.  That love is a many dimension-ed notion and that each kind had its own unique place in the scheme of things.

We were a better people, then.  Not a perfect people.  But we were at least striving against the baser instincts of carnal nature.  And we accomplished great things because of it.

As a historian, I know also where unrestrained sexual pleasure leads a society to.  And that as much as anything else persuades me about the truly insidious nature of the LGBT lifestyle.

I could easily sit here all night, and rattle off a dozen reasons and more why I can not celebrate homosexuality and transgenderism.  Just as easily as I could tick off all the reasons why I must condemn it.

And I hope that my many friends who are LGBT will at last understand where I'm coming from.

Finally, know this: sex is a sacred, holy thing.  It is something that I believe should be celebrated within the boundaries of husband and wife.  In my sincere philosophy ALL sexual sin is equally abhorrent.  I can not disapprove of LGBT behavior any more than I can of sex outside of marriage.  That makes me come across as a prude, I know.  But there it is.  I have plenty of friends who do not agree with this.  And that is fine.  But so far as I know none of them have called me "hate-filled" or "polygamaphobe" because of it.

Sex is not a toy.  It's not something to be engaged in frivolously.  It is meant to be a sanctified act.  "The marriage bed is to be honored by all," scripture tells us.  If that was done more often, maybe we wouldn't have things like children without fathers, venereal disease and shortened lifespans.

That is all.

Read More

New post on Substack, about "groomers"

Still getting the hang of Substack, which may be a suitable repository for my more "political" essays.  This evening it's a post about the word "groomer", which has suddenly become quite unpopular on Reddit and other social media sites.  It is the belief of this blogger however that groomer is exactly the precise word to describe pedophiles who are determined to corrupt children...

My honeymoon with Twitter these past few months may soon be drawing to a close. In recent days the microblogging site has apparently cracked down on the use of the word “groomer”. Which has come to mean pedophiles brainwashing children into becoming potential targets for exploitation. Leftist activists claim that it’s a slur against homosexuals and transsexuals and should be banned as “hate speech”. Never mind that it can also mean things like dog groomer, “good grooming” etc.

It’s already verboten on Reddit: a site that for whatever reason I can’t remember looking at much less participated on. Maybe it had something to do with Reddit shutting down a subthingy in support of Donald Trump. So much for being a free and open forum of discussion and dialogue…

Back to grooming. I have no problem at all with using this word in referring to adults who introduce children - who are WAY too young for such concepts - to sexuality in general and the LGBTwhatever “lifestyle” in particular. Because “grooming” kids is exactly what is transpiring.

Mash down here for more.

Read More

So, about what happened in North Carolina yesterday...

Celebrating that one unaccountable man has redefined more than six thousand years of tradition from across the width and breadth of human society with one stroke of a single pen.

Seems more than a little ridiculous to me.  To say nothing of arrogant and presumptuous in the extreme.

I've seen a lot of hate and viciousness since yesterday afternoon.  Most of it seems to be coming from those who were most clamoring for "equality of love".  I can't understand that.  Or maybe I can and I don't care to articulate why... because what would be the point?

It's not same-gender marriage.  Same-gender marriage is a contradiction.  It's an oxymoron.  It is something so illogical that it cannot exist.  There will be consequences. Legal and otherwise.  Especially legal.  Ramifications for both "sides" of this debate.

Personally, I'm not worried at all about yesterday.  Marriage is something beyond human establishment.  It's untouchable.  Those people - and I'm referring to both parties involved in this - can scream that it's a mountain all they want.  Still doesn't change the fact that it's a pebble.

Bear in mind that at the time I was against Amendment One.  For various reasons I am still against it.  There are some things which are defined by something higher than man.  Whether that is God or immutable law, there are concepts which can neither be defined or redefined by legislation or activist judiciaries.  I couldn't support Amendment One because I knew something of the spirit of the men who were most pushing for it, and theirs was NOT borne out of respect for that higher concept of marriage.

And ironically, neither is what happened yesterday.  But where does this end?  Will polygamy be next?  Will corpses be given legal rights so that necrophilia is legitimized?

How far does this now go?

I'm looking at the LONG-term ramifications. And there will be consequences of this trend.

Some have asked by what right am I to dictate how two people are to love each other?  Well , I haven't conspired or ever attempted to tell anyone about what they express to another person.  I do have to sincerely wonder though about defining and re-defining something that is derived from law higher than man's.  Let's be honest: is what happened yesterday about marriage, or is it about coercing those who do not agree with it into endorsing something that they do not believe in?  There are some businesses which do not cater to same-sex marriages.  Some bakeries have refused to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples.  They have been "penalized" with fines and made to sit through "sensitivity" classes.  Are they to be forced to do so against their beliefs?  It is already happening.

If two people want to express their love for each other, fine.  Let them do it.  Knock themselves out.  But that doesn't mean that I or anyone else should be made to give it an official stamp of endorsement.  I didn't think that Amendment One needed to do that for traditional marriage and I don't think that one judge's decision "needed" to do that for "gay" marriage either.

I cannot reiterate nearly enough that marriage is something man can't define.  Our attempts to do that will only meet with disaster.  Perhaps not today, but eventually.

For what it's worth: I think a case can be made that Amendment One, and it's biggest proponents, paved the way for what happened yesterday.  It really was one of the worst-worded, worst-inspired amendments that I've ever seen (and I mean from a strictly legal perspective, not on whether one agreed with it or not).  The ones who were demanding it cared more for strutting their own egos than they were about anything else.  One cannot set out to do something with an impure motive.  Doing so will in time destroy that work.  And that is what happened here.  It became less about defending marriage and more about looking like players at the big table of politics.

There are many who would be wise to learn from this.

Read More

All I intend to say about A&E firing Phil Robertson...

A&E fired the star of not just its #1-rated series, but the top-rated series in the history of cable television.

That's not just shooting yourself in the foot; that's chainsawing your leg off at the hip.

This will go down as the stoopidest move in television programming history.  He could have been less crass about it, but Robertson said nothing any more offensive than the vast majority of other series.  Based on Robertson's comments, I'd say that he's expressing the heart of a true Christian: love God, and love each other.  When Phil Robertson said that he has no hate toward anyone else and that God created each of us equal and loves us in spite of how wayward we go from Him, I can't but trust his heart on the matter.

Let's say this for what it really is: Phil Robertson and the rest of his family on Duck Dynasty are coming under attack because they won't endorse the homosexual lifestyle.  This isn't about "intolerance" on Phil's part: if anything it's the people at GLAAD and the Human Rights Initiative that are being intolerant toward others.

This is about perhaps, at most, 3% of the population demanding that it's not enough that their lifestyle be accepted, but that it also must be admired.

Phil Robertson can't do that.  Neither can I.

Gay, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders are not a "persecuted" class of people.  They have no basis to claim being oppressed or attacked.  All they have in the public arena of ideas is proclaiming themselves to be victims demanding attention and sympathy.

Please, somebody tell me: how is one man shoving his penis up another man's anus an act requiring sympathy and compassion on my part?

Okay, maybe I could have been less crass there, too.  But ya gotta admit: Phil Robertson is only asking what has been on the minds of a vast number of people.  Certainly more than the number of militant homosexual lobbyists now crying for Robertson blood.

Read More

This is my Eagle Scout card

I received it during my Eagle Scout ceremony at Fairview Baptist Church in Reidsville, North Carolina on August 16th, 1992.

It immediately went into my wallet.

I have carried my Eagle Scout card with me ever since.  It has been with me through college, across the ocean, through some very dark times and into some very wonderful times.

I've never been without it.  I had long planned to someday be buried with it.

Moments ago I removed my Eagle Scout card from my wallet.  I do not plan to carry it with me ever again.

Within the past hour it has been announced that the National Council of the Boy Scouts of America has passed a resolution to allow openly homosexual members.

This is incompatible with the spirit and the meaning of the Scout Oath and the Scout Law.  The principles of Scouting are about being the best that God intends for us to be.  Strength of mind, strength of body and strength of character are inherently essential toward this.  And part of that means developing personal restraint.  God intended for us to control our own bodies.  Not for our bodies to control us.

The National Council of the Boy Scouts of America has demonstrated that it does not understand the meaning of either the Scout Oath or the Scout Law.

And so it is, with great sadness and a grieving heart, that I choose to no longer be associated or affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America.

Maybe someday I'll be able to pick up the card and carry it with me again.  I pray that day does come.

Read More

All I'm going to say about Jason "Look At Me I'm Gay" Collins

Jason Collins is no Jackie Robinson.

In 1947 there was an institutionalized discrimination against non-white athletes playing in major league sports.  Jackie Robinson broke through that barrier not because he happened to have been a black man but because he was very, very good at playing baseball.

In 2013 there is no institutionalized discrimination against gay athletes, lesbian athletes, bisexual athletes or transgender athletes.

So what does Jason Collins think he is proving by telling everyone "I'm gay"?

Does that make him a better basketball player?  I thought the whole point of sports as a multi-billion dollar commercial venture was to hire the best players possible, manage the team to the best of your ability and turn a profit by winning lots of games, selling lots of tickets and letting fans buy lots of over-priced beer.

So where does "I'm gay" figure into the scheme?

I've worked many jobs over the years.  Including alongside individuals who were gay or lesbian.  I respected them because of their talents and their abilities, and even sought to emulate their skills as professionals.  What they did on their own time wasn't my business and they had the maturity to not make it anyone's business either.

I used to work in a sandwich shop.  What would I have thought if one of my co-workers declared to everyone in the place "Look!  I'm gay!"?  Not much, truth be known.  Maybe it's just me but I've never been able to tell the difference between a straight sandwich and a gay sandwich.

Jason Collins however may have shot himself in the foot with this one.  He has put the emphasis on himself and his sexual orientation, not on his abilities as a player.  That has never been a good thing for the morale of a sports team.  If I were the owner of an NBA team, I would have to deem Collins a liability to my franchise.  If Collins goes no further with his career, he'll get lauded as a "sports pioneer".  If he decides he wants to keep playing professionally well... that's the thing, isn't it?  How many team owners are going to turn Collins down at the risk of being branded "homophobe" by the media?  Even if bringing him aboard solely because of his orientation means surrendering legitimately superior talent?

"Culturally progressive"?  Whatever.  But it sure as hell isn't good business.

It used to be that a person's merit and identity was base on his talents, his abilities, his beliefs and his virtues.  Today the notion of "identity" has become diminished to the point of meaningless.  Too many people want to feel significant and important because they feel entitled to it and not because they've earned it.  And there is no more cheap and gutteral way of demanding respect for that alleged identity than to say "I'm gay!  LOVE ME!"

Jason Collins and too many others want acceptance for their choice of lifestyle, not appreciation for their talents.  It's enough to make this writer wonder how much talent Mr. Collins must have, at all...

Read More

Bullying from Boy Scout big-wigs?! Executives manipulating data?! Gay policy under fire from on high?!

If true... IF this is at all true... this represents the most insane turn of events that I have ever seen coming out of the Boy Scouts of America in my thirty-some years affiliated with the organization.

The honor of a Boy Scout, painting by Norman Rockwell

First, I wish to direct your attention to an article by Austin Ruse on the website for Catholic publication Crisis Magazine.  Titled "Something Rotten in the Boy Scouts", Ruse raises a red flag about apparent manipulation of data at the Boy Scouts home office regarding the possible change of policy that would allow boys of homosexual orientation to have membership in the Boy Scouts.

Awright, let me be put it this way: the home office is ignoring the data from its own survey!  From the article:

There’s deception going on in the front office of the Boy Scouts. It includes deliberate misrepresentation of polling data, and threats to pack an upcoming meeting with anonymous and unqualified voters so that the Boy Scout policy on homosexuality gets forced on the majority of Scouts and parents who don’t want it.

The Boy Scouts are considering changing their policy of not allowing open homosexuality in either their Scout or leadership ranks. The policy has placed the Boy Scouts in the buzz saw of the zeitgeist and up until recently they have resisted. There are some weak-kneed leaders who want to throw over the policy and appear willing to violate the Scout Law to do it.

The Scout front office released the result of a national survey and “listening” process that purported to show that the Scouts—boys, parents, leaders and donors—favor a change in the policy. The Boy Scouts say the process reveals great changes in attitudes and that a majority of those at all levels of Scouting “tend to agree that youth should not be denied the benefits of Scouting.”

This was dutifully and even triumphantly reported in the mainstream press. The only problem is the news reports were wrong. And the news reports were wrong because the Boy Scouts misrepresented the results. One close observer of the Boy Scouts calls the poll “a pack of lies.”

The results of the BSA Membership Standards Survey:
A solid majority polled want NO change
to the current policy.

Do Scouting parents want to overhaul the policy and allow open homosexuality in the Scouts? The Executive Summary of the Poll says, “yes”, but the numbers say “no.” Fifty percent of Cub Scout parents support the current restrictive policy while 45% oppose it. A whopping 61% of Boy Scout parents support the current policy.

How did Boy Scout leadership get anywhere near the assertion that a majority of those in Scouting support homosexuality in Scouting? Part of what they did was what is known as a push-poll, a questionnaire designed not to elicit an accurate opinion but one designed to change opinions.

(snip)

What is going on here? Deception, that’s what. There is a small group on the Executive Committee of the Boy Scouts who want this policy to change. What they face is a membership that largely opposes the measure. So, they try to get their way by lying about a poll. But there is more deception than that...

The entire article cannot be recommended enough because Ruse's piece is by a wide margin among the best and most informative that I've found about the matter of homosexuality in the Boy Scouts.  Which, shouldn't be a matter at all.  The Boy Scouts are not meant to be a tool of politics.  Especially the politics of radical homosexuality.  The Girl Scouts of America let that happen to them and look at them now: a pitiful shadow of their former selves.  And one that has lost significant numbers of past and potential members to competing organizations for girls and young women.

But then comes this bit of information, which is even more full-tilt whacko.  A week ago I wrote about the Boy Scouts of America and how homosexuality is a concept which is in total conflict with the principles of the Scout Oath and the Scout Law.  In that post I mentioned OnMyHonor.net: a group of Scouts, Scouters and supporters who "are united in their support of Scouting's timeless values and their opposition to open homosexuality in the Scouts."  OnMyHonor.net has become a significant presence in this discussion, its leaders appearing on nationally televised news broadcasts in recent days.

So look at what was posted on the official OnMyHonor.net Facebook page a short while ago...

"Today, top BSA officals contacted OMH coalition partners to ask them to stand down! LOL. (not a joke)."

What the...?!?!? 

Is this right?  OnMyHonor.net has been told to cool it by the executives of the Boy Scouts of America's national office?

How the hell is what the BSA head office doing honorable?  HOW is it at all honest, "morally straight", or respecting the Scout Law?

It is not.  It is NOT!!

There is other information which in recent days I have been made aware of regarding next month's vote to keep or change the policy.  I haven't had enough corroboration about that information to confidently write about it but if there is any substance to those as well, in the mind of this blogger the executive are guilty of even more shameful acts, apparently for the cause of political correctness.

And if there is the least shred of truth to these assertions, if the Boy Scouts top executives are behaving in such a manner, then they should do the honorable thing and step down and leave the Boy Scouts of America.  They should make way for true leadership which is sincerely dedicated to the principles of Scouting which Lord Robert Baden-Powell knew were needed for young boys to become the responsible leaders that this world sorely needs.

Read More

Why the Boy Scouts can NEVER be compatible with homosexuality

The Boy Scouts of America has been a part of my life since I was eight years old, in the fall of 1982.  That was more than thirty years ago.

I started in the Cub Scouts.  I earned my Bobcat, Wolf and Bear ranks.  In fifth grade I graduated to the Webelos Scouts and earned the Arrow of Light.  A few months later I became a full-fledged Boy Scout.  And that was one of the happiest points of my childhood.

It was like choosing to be a part of something with high ideals that I would always be striving to understand and fulfill.  I guess you could say it was like being a medieval squire, doing his best and learning all he could and gaining skills and experience.  Until the day when he would be dubbed at last a knight and forever honored as an avatar of virtue, honor and courage.

And then, at long last... I earned the rank of Eagle Scout.  Something that less than 1% of all Boy Scouts earn.  And that became the supreme moment of achievement in my young life.  My Eagle Scout ceremony was in August of 1992 and every day... every day... since then, I have carried my Eagle Scout card in my wallet.

For the first time in my life, I am considering carrying that Eagle Scout Card no longer.  Because the Boy Scouts is ceasing before our eyes to be the organization of principles and steadfastness that have defined it since its founding by Lord Robert Baden-Powell.

The Boy Scouts of America has announced today that it's putting forth a proposal to change its policy toward homosexual membership.  If approved by voting members next month, the new policy would not deny membership to youths "on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone".  The current policy would still apply toward adult leaders and other members, however.  Here is the resolution which was issued today and here's the summary of the proposed change:

Youth membership in the Boy Scouts of America is open to all youth who meet the specific membership requirements to join the Cub Scout, Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, Sea Scout, and Venturing programs. Membership in any program of the Boy Scouts of America requires the youth member to (a) subscribe to and abide by the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law, (b) subscribe to and abide by the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle (duty to God), and (c) demonstrate behavior that exemplifies the highest level of good conduct and respect for others and is consistent at all times with the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law. No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.

As best I understand it the breakdown is this: a boy with homosexual desires could be a Boy Scout, so long as he does not behave in a manner which violates the Scout Oath and the Scout Law.  Homosexual adults would still be banned.

Homosexuality is not, has never been and can never be compatible with the principles of the Scout Oath and the Scout Law.  In more ways than I can readily tick off the concept of the two not being direly exclusive of each other is so wildly incredible that in all sincerity, I have to wonder if those supporting this measure have any understanding of the Oath and the Law at all.

Consider the Scout Oath.  The one that millions of young men and their leaders have taken since a time predating the first World War:

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.

As a Scout, the first duty we vow to strive to fulfill is that to God.  The Boy Scouts of America has never been discriminatory against sects or denominations.  In my years of Scouting I have met fellow Scouts who have been from my own Protestant background, but also a great many Catholics.  And Jews.  And Mormons.  Boy Scouting is not a "pro-Christian" movement.  However it is one which affirms and holds to the belief that morality and virtuous principles come to us from God and not man.

And here already, homosexuality is not compatible with Scouting.  Because no monotheistic faith in the entire modern history of the world has ever preached sexual permissiveness.  Ever.  And that means any and all inappropriate sexual behavior.  The traditional and time-honored belief across all sincere faiths is that to dishonor and abuse the gift of sexuality which God has given us is to dishonor God.

I won't deny it: a young boy in the throes of adolescence often feels consumed by thoughts of the opposite gender which he has never known before.  And there is nothing wrong with that.  In fact, I'm strongly of the belief that such thoughts and feelings are normal, healthy, and not sinful at all.  The Boy Scouts are not an order of celibate monks and I've never known any adult leaders who have thought we should be that way either.

However having those desires does not mean that we must succumb to them!  To the contrary: we believe that God requires of us that we learn to control those desires... so that they do not control us.  This demands an ongoing self-discipline and personal restraint which is fully at odds with the carnal world around us.  Our God is not anti-sex.  He has made it that sex is good, that sex is beautiful, that sex is a gift... and it is a gift which MUST be enjoyed solely between one man and one woman within the bounds of marriage.  No exceptions.

If we disregard that, if we can not commit to that kind of self-restraint and discipline which does not hurt us but instead strengthens us and builds us up, then we have already failed God.  If we are true to God as best we understand Him, regardless of which aspect of that faith we adhere to, then our sexuality is a sacred thing consecrated to Him and made holy.  And that is not possible with homosexuality.  Or with pre-marital and extra-marital sex of any kind.

It has nothing to do with homosexuality itself. It does have to do with being responsible with the bodies and minds that God entrusted us with. It is against the principles of the Boy Scouts to engage in ANY sexual activity outside the confines of marriage. To do otherwise is to violate the sacredness of our physical, mental and emotional well-being. There can no more be a homosexual Boy Scout or a bisexual Boy Scout than there can be a Boy Scout who has sex with his girlfriend, with multiple girlfriends or engage in necrophilia.

And if Scouting is to acquiesce to homosexuality then it must also be prepared to do likewise with cocaine, heroin and animal sacrifice.  If Scouting becomes tolerant of everything, then Scouting will stand for nothing!

The twelve points of the Scout Law are: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent.  If the Boy Scouts of America proceeds with this proposal, then we will have failed that Law in so many ways that it will be rendered absolutely meaningless.

Do not take this to be a judgment on homosexuals, because it is not that. If gay, lesbians and bisexuals wish to continue their activities, not I or anybody else can stop them. But those activities are NOT compatible at all with the Boy Scouts as Lord Baden-Powell intended them to be.  If homosexual men and boys wish to have their own organization, then let them.  They can make their own oath and law and comply with them however they wish.  But they shouldn't ask the Boy Scouts of America to endorse their behavior by changing our own principles!

And that is what this is really about: people trying to extort or enforce approval and endorsement of their behavior by those who earnestly believe that said behavior is immortal, unhealthy, self-abasing and legitimately dangerous.  Scouting can not capitulate to this!  "On MY honor I will do MY BEST" is how the Scout Oath begins.  To do our duty to God and our country and its people.  To put others before ourselves.  To keep ourselves "physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight".  But there is NOTHING mentally awake or morally straight about this resolution.

If the Boy Scouts of America votes to approve this change, then what else will be changed in time?  Where does it end?  Where does it stop?  At what point do we have the conviction to say "To this point, and NO further..."?

Again I must make clear: this has nothing to do with disliking or hating homosexuals.  A real Scout or Scouter can not do that.  Scouting also instills the values of respecting and extending courteous and cheerful friendship toward others even if we do not approve of their behavior.  Ultimately, that is something which they alone must answer for.

What this is about is what WE as Scouts and Scouters must answer for in terms of the morals and the values which we have taken a solemn oath to demonstrate in our lives.

"Brave" isn't the sole province of rescuing someone from a burning house or a sinking boat.  It doesn't mean a denial of fear.  But true bravery and courage is knowing what you believe, why you believe it, and holding true to that.  It means, if need be, standing one's ground... and standing defiant... when the world tells you to move.  To change.  To do what it tells you to believe or disbelieve.

True courage is having the strength, the mind, and the morality to tell the world "No.  I will not be disloyal to God, to my country, and to myself.  I can do no other.  I will not move.  You move."

That is not the popular thing to do in this day.  But it is what we have sworn or affirmed to do in taking the Scout Oath.

And I choose to spend the rest of my life striving to do my best to live by the Scout Oath and the Scout Law.  Even if doing so means that I can never again be a member of the Boy Scouts of America.

I can do that.  Sometimes one must lose a thing in order to save it.

I took an oath.  I promised to keep the twelve points of the Scout Law.  I will continue to do those.  Even though it looks as though doing so will lead me and no doubt many others to sever our affiliations with the Boy Scouts of America.

Ironic?  Yes.  Regrettable?  Yes.  Honorable?

If we are true to the Oath and the Law, we have no choice but to be so.  We must be loyal to God and our virtues, regardless of how the organization espousing them chooses to be loyal.

There has been formed a group of concerned Scouters, Scouts and others who are gravely concerned about the direction the Boy Scouts of America is tilting toward, and if you are as well I would seriously recommend that you check out OnMyHonor.net.  It describes itself as "the official coalition of concerned parents, Scout Leaders, Scouting Donors, Eagle Scouts and others affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America who are united in their support of Scouting’s timeless values and their opposition to open homosexuality in the Scouts".  Earlier today OnMyHonor.net posted a response to today's resolution, and the entire website addresses these concerns far more succinctly and eloquently than I possibly could.

Read More

Dear News & Record: Opposition does NOT equal hate and fear of homosexuals

One of the front-page stories of today's edition of the (Greensboro, North Carolina) News & Record is about DC Comics delaying publication of science-fiction writer Orson Scott Card's story for the upcoming first issue of DC Comics' Adventures of Superman anthology.  Chris Sprouse, the artist assigned to illustrate the story, is refusing to work on grounds that the "controversy" about Card's publicly-stated beliefs that homosexuality is wrong.  Especially his opposition to "gay marriage" during the lead-up to last year's amendment to North Carolina's constitution affirming that legal marriage is between one man and one woman.

You won't find it in the story posted on the News & Record's website, but the article's synopsis in the print edition reads thusly: "An uproar over author Orson Scott Card's homophobic views leads illustrator to withdraw."

"Homophobic"  As in, literally, "Orson Scott Card is in fear of homosexuals".  The implication being that if he is in fear of homosexuals, Card also harbors hate of homosexuals.  That is certainly how such things are associated in the minds of too many journalists these days.

I don't know if Robert C. Lopez - the News & Record reporter who wrote the story - is responsible for his article's print synopsis.  Regardless, whoever wrote it is either terminologically ignorant or journalistically negligent.  Or, inexcusably driven by agenda.

But that's not the point of this post...

There is a difference between disapproving of a person's activity and disapproving of that person as a whole.  I know many homosexual individuals.  I sincerely believe that their behavior is wrong and even self-destructive.  But I have never hated them.  Some are even good friends who I have worked with and acted alongside on stage.  I like to think that they can disagree with me as well without harboring any animosity.

But through the prism most politicians and journalists and media "personalities" have demanded we see reality through, a failure to endorse the lifestyle of others is indicative of hatred toward others.

No wonder the political climate of this country is so polarized.  How can there possibly be earnest and sincere discussion about anything at all, when any side sees others as deserving scorn and ridicule, and lacking merit enough to be heard out?

Orson Scott Card is being charged - whether or not it will be admitted aloud - with inciting fear, hatred and intolerance toward homosexuals.  Curiously, the irony has gone woefully under-appreciated that those levelling such claims are inciting fear, hatred and intolerance toward Card and anyone else who believes homosexuality is wrong.  At the Mysticon science-fiction convention in Roanoke last weekend, my girlfriend overheard two people conversing with each other about how Card - the literary guest of honor - wasn't "very Christian" because of his statements against homosexuality.  I also heard one attendee claim that it was wrong for Card to have been invited because he was, quote, "hateful of people like me".

The only people I see demonstrating legitimate hatred of others are those who want there to be hatred of others.  When all else fails in an attempt at persuasion, hate is the time-tested tool of evoking deceit, distrust and division.  It is a coward's tool.  It is a tool of men of barbarity, not men of intellect.

The News & Record writers and editorial staff should bear that in mind, pertaining as much to their personal predilections as their professional ones.

Read More

What does the Bible say? Homosexuality and marijuana use are legal!

And not just legal but apparently endorsed.

Found this on Facebook and it was too good not to share...

Just more proof that if you study the Bible hard enough, if you want to find something, you can find sanctioning for just about ANYTHING in it!

Okay, in all seriousness: I know and would dare say most everyone else knows that the Bible does not condone sexual immorality or drug abuse. But scriptures can... and indeed have... been twisted by selectively choosing out of context and inane literalism to create beliefs and doctrines that have no merit and indeed do not exist from study of the Bible as a whole.

No matter where you're coming from though, that graphic is still funny :-)

Read More

For everyone caught up in the Chick-fil-A controversy...

...here is a cautionary tale from 1987. Written by none other than legendary screen and comics scribe J. Michael Straczynski, it's The Real Ghostbusters episode "Chicken, He Clucked"!

Read More

I'm NOT eating at Chick-fil-A today...

...and you wanna know why?

Because today I just don't feel like I want to eat chicken.

It has nothing to do at all with the recent statements by the company's president, Dan Cathy, regarding his beliefs on homosexuality and "gay marriage". It was a statement of his personal opinion and he's entitled to have them. Personally, I'm inclined to agree with him, but that's not the point of this post.

So today has been declared "Let's Go To Chick-fil-A And Buy Their Food And Show We Support Traditional Families For God And Country Day Hurrah For Us!" or something. It's in response to the boycott that some "gay rights" groups (I never understood the concept of "gay rights" either: what rights exactly do some homosexuals believe they're being deprived of? I've never seen a "Straights Only" lunch counter in all my years of living in the South of all places...) have called of the restaurant chain.

So of course, hundreds of thousands and perhaps even a million or so self-described conservatives are descending upon Chick-fil-A locations across the fruited plain to rally their support behind Cathy, anti-homosexuality, and whatever else that "conservative leadership" (whatever the hell that means) has decided.

But I'm not going to Chick-fil-A today. And I've been called conservative (and "closet conservative", whatever the hell that means too) a heap of times.

I just don't feel like eating chicken today.

I mean, I've had chicken two of the past three days. Why would I want to go anywhere today to eat more chicken... is that "eat mor chikin"?

Now, is that supposed to be at all indicative of where I stand on this particular issue?

I'm not hungry for chicken today. Any of my conservative friends and colleagues got a problem with that?

And if we have arrived at a place where we feel that we must be a component of collectivized thought in order to "matter", to have any sense of worth in this world, then we've a much bigger problem we should be addressing than one company president's personal beliefs.

Read More

Selective Myopia: James Dobson decries "utter evil" Congress

I still can't believe that I almost went to work for this guy...

James Dobson of Focus on the Family is telling his radio listeners that there is now "utter evil" coming out of Congress. What scares Dobson, he claims, is so-called "hate crimes" legislation: the proponents of which want tougher penalties for those convicted of criminal acts committed against others because of "sexual orientation".

Now folks, I'm against "hate crimes" legislation myself. Because in my mind there is no such thing as a "hate" crime. Does the motive honestly matter why somebody chooses to hurt another, if the end result is the same as any other circumstance? I have as much sympathy for a victim of a criminal act as I will for any other... but I'm not gonna consider one victim to be any more "special" than someone else because of alleged precipitating criteria. So as far as that goes, I will say that I have to agree with Dobson.

Where I can not agree with him however, is what is very apparently his underlying motivation for saying such a thing. Indeed, there is little doubting the motivation for much of Focus on the Family's "ministry"...

"I want to tell our listeners something has come up that is so shocking and so outrageous, we must make our friends out there aware of it," he said on his daily radio program.

"I'm going to speak very bluntly today because there's no other word for it: the utter evil that's coming out of Congress," he said. "I've been on the air 32 years and I've never seen a time quite like this.

"The radical left controls the executive branch through the president, and the Congress where the Democrats have control of both the House and the Senate," he said, adding the courts are expected to move even further to the left."

Anytime I hear phrases like "radical left" or "far right", those pop a honkin' big red flag in my head... 'cuz such words scream what this is all about. And his very tired hyperbole like "so shocking and so outrageous" isn't working in Dobson's favor either.

James Dobson is primarily interested in "his side" regaining political control of Congress and the White House.

Except James Dobson apparently fails to realize that "his side" had both for most of the past decade, and accomplished... what, exactly, in that time?

Professing Christians in America like James Dobson still believe - and very foolishly, I will add - that this country can be saved through politics.

They are so much more wrong about that, than I can possibly put into words.

These people have become blinded by might. They have placed more faith in their own understanding than they have placed in the Christ whom they claim to follow.

And as I have said before: people like James Dobson have no sincere interest at all in issues like "gay marriage" and abortion being defeated and going away. Opposition to them brings in a huge amount of money to organizations like Focus on the Family. Why else did the Republicans never make any serious attempt to pass an amendment to the Constitution protecting "traditional marriage" when they controlled Congress? Because so long as they can keep promising to oppose it, there'll always be plenty of well-meaning rubes gullible enough to keep voting for them.

This is all a game, folks. The politicians in both major parties have been playing us like pieces for too damned long. And people like James Dobson and too #@*&-ing many others don't care one whit about what is right: they just want to have a seat at "the king's table".

So if we can't put our faith in politics, what do we put our faith in, then?

Maybe... God?

And not the "God" that people like Dobson would have us believe has decreed that "Thou shalt not vote against any Republican", either.

I mean a serious and sincere turning away from what we want: rejecting any desire for worldly power, and heartfelt repenting of ever having lusted for such a thing.

If there is evil at work in the land, it is because we - all of us, including the professing "conservatives" and "Republicans" - let it happen by trusting in ourselves more than we trusted in God.

Yes, this demands that thing called "humility" which has become inordinately out of fashion among too many of those who claim to follow Christ. But that is what it is going to require.

And until I hear a call for that coming out of the mouth of James Dobson, I see no reason why any of us should consider him to be a real "Christian leader" at all.

Read More

eHarmony to allow homosexual matching following lawsuit

Yeah you read that right: eHarmony, the relationship-matching website that's found especially strong popularity with Christians, is "going gay".

From the story in The Wall Street Journal...

A settlement Wednesday between eHarmony Inc. and the New Jersey attorney general requires the online heterosexual dating service to also cater to homosexuals, raising questions about whether other services that target a niche clientele could be forced to expand their business models.

The settlement stemmed from a complaint, filed with the New Jersey attorney general's office by a gay match seeker in 2005, that eHarmony had violated his rights under the state's discrimination law by not offering a same-sex dating service. In 2007, the attorney general found probable cause that eHarmony had violated the state's Law Against Discrimination.

As part of the agreement, the Pasadena, Calif.-based company will develop and market Compatible Partners, a Web dating service for same-sex couples, and will allow the site's first 10,000 users to register free. EHarmony will also pay $50,000 to the attorney general's office and $5,000 to the man who first brought the case.

This is so wrong that I don't know where to begin.

Okay, it's like this: I have my own beliefs about homosexuality. And I do have friends who are "gay and lesbian". And they understand where I'm coming from when I say that I can love them as God wants me to love them... but I can not condone what they are doing. Any more than I would want anyone to condone my actions when I do something wrong. It goes back to that "grace" thing or as someone eloquently put it: "hate the sin but love the sinner".

But that's not what infuriates me about this case...

eHarmony is a private corporation. It was founded by Dr. Neil Clark Warren for the purpose of establishing lasting relationships between men and women, based on Warren's research. As such, eHarmony has every right to pursue business as it sees fit. Nobody else should be telling eHarmony how to carry out its own operation. If a homosexual person thinks that there's enough pressing need for a similar service for his or her "lifestyle choice", then there's nothing stopping him or her from attempting to establish that service, and either it will be successful or it will fail. But there is no obligation at all to force another company to do business that way.

I'm sorely tempted to point out that this kind of government-mandated management of privately-held corporations was at the economic heart of Nazi Germany.

Dear Lord, what the hell has gone wrong with the free enterprise system in this country lately?! First it was the $700 billion bailout that is going to God Only knows where. Then this week it's the auto companies come begging for help when it was their own decisions that bankrupted them to begin with. Now it's this. And if it can happen to eHarmony, it can happen to any business in America.

Read More

Jenna Olwin's terrific take on the "Dumbledore is gay" thing

Earlier today I relayed the news that surely every Harry Potter fan on Earth has heard by now: that J.K. Rowling has announced that Albus Dumbledore was gay.

In the hours since then I've felt led to contemplate what significance that bit of info is supposed to have (and some of that thinking took place while watching a wedding, of all places). And I thought about posting some more about the subject. But it turns out that I don't have to...

In her unique voice, and with profound wisdom, Jenna Olwin has now weighed in on Rowling's revelation. And there's no way that I could excerpt it here and do it any justice or honor. You'll have to click on the link and read it as an entire thought, the way it should be taken in as an idea. It's quite an impressive read, and definitely recommended if you are of the Judeo-Christian ethic and are still wondering what to make of this... thing.

Excellent work, Jenna! :-)

Read More

J.K. Rowling says: Albus Dumbledore is a homosexual!

Okay, this one blows my mind bigtime (and it takes a hella lot to blow this mind)...

Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling has "outed" Albus Dumbledore, the headmaster of Hogwarts School and Harry's principle mentor (yeah I know how weird it looks to read that).

Not only was Dumbledore a gay man, but he had an unrequieted love for Gellert Grindelwald: his one-time accomplice in an ill-spirited bid for conquest of the wizard world, before Dumbledore came to his senses and later defeated Grindelwald during World War II.

I honestly don't know what to make of this. It doesn't really take away from the enjoyment of the books themselves, because this was nothing that was ever, ever a part of the story. It could be like Ridley Scott insisting years later that Deckard was himself a Replicant in the movie Blade Runner, when there was nothing indicating that to be the case either. And looking back on the Harry Potter books, even Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, I'm still not seeing any sexual undertones about Dumbledore at all.

Yet Rowling insists that Dumbledore is a homosexual...

Rowling told the audience that while working on the planned sixth Potter film, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," she spotted a reference in the script to a girl who once was of interest to Dumbledore. A note was duly passed to director David Yates, revealing the truth about her character.

The article also brings this up...

Not everyone likes her work, Rowling said, likely referring to Christian groups that have alleged the books promote witchcraft. Her news about Dumbledore, she said, will give them one more reason.

Let's just hope that Rowling doesn't answer any questions about what Albus's brother Aberforth is doing with all those goats...

Read More

Shirley Phelps-Roper arrested for letting son stomp on American flag

Remember this lady? It's Shirley Phelps-Roper. It will be a year ago next week that she and her family - the infamous Westboro Baptist Church - visited the TV station that I worked at. This is that "God hates fags church" that does those rabid anti-homosexual protests... most of them quite bizarre and all of them crossing the boundary of good taste. If you missed that report when it was filed last year, mash that link down for some truly disturbing photos along with my account of what happened that night during my close encounter with "the Phelps family".

Well, Shirley Phelps-Roper has been arrested in Bellevue, Nebraska: charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor after her 8-year old son stomped on an American flag during a soldier's funeral.

Here's the story from WMUR:

Boy Stomps Flag At Funeral, Mom Arrested

Pair Are Part Of Anti-Gay Church That Protests Funerals

POSTED: 1:44 pm EDT June 6, 2007

OMAHA, Neb. -- A woman was arrested in Bellevue, Neb., on Tuesday during the funeral for a fallen soldier.

Shirley Phelps-Roper was arrested on suspicion of contributing to the delinquency of a minor for allegedly allowing her 8-year-old son to stomp on an American flag.

Phelps-Roper is a member of a Topeka, Kan., church that conducts anti-homosexual picketing at funeral services for U.S. soldiers.

Hundreds of people packed Bellevue streets Tuesday morning to pay tribute to a firefighter and soldier. Spc. Bill Bailey was serving in the National Guard in Iraq when he was killed by a roadside bomb.

Police said the group to which Phelps-Roper belongs had a permit to protest 300 feet from Bailey's funeral.

Bellevue Officer Joe Gray, who made the arrest, said that at first the group brought out a couple of members' own American flags.

"The arrestee, Ms. Phelps-Roper, put one around her waist. The second one was given to a 10-year-old, who put it on the ground and started kicking it in the area they were protesting," Gray said.

Nebraska law states that it is a Class 3 misdemeanor when a person "intentionally casts contempt or ridicule upon a flag by mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning or trampling upon such flag." The law was passed in 1977.

"It appears the adults weren't stepping on the flag because they knew it was a violation of the law. But they allowed the children to go ahead and do that," Gray said.

Phelps-Roper said she believes she has the right to use the flag as a symbol, and said Nebraska's law is outdated.

"We're going to challenge that statute," she said. "That statue should have been repealed."

Gray said the arrest wasn't personal and has nothing to do with his beliefs. He said he's simply doing his job.

"It's state law, so we were enforcing the laws of Nebraska," the officer said.

Sarpy County Attorney Lee Polikov said the words from the group are fighting words, which are not protected speech.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: someday, the Phelps family is going to go way too far in front of the way wrong people... and some of them are going to be hurt or worse because of their antics. They won't have anyone to blame but themselves.

Read More