The Birth of a Tragedy

They have my undivided attention.

I remember 9/11 pretty well.  I was sitting in the living room of our old house in Orleans watching the television in horror as my 8-year old brain digested an all-too-obvious yet still terrifying fact: we have been attacked.  I didn’t think it was possible.  America was always an impenetrable fortress in my mind and war a thing of history that wouldn’t ever happen to us again, at least not in my lifetime.  Yet I watched those assumptions melt away before my very eyes.  The worst part was that, at the time, we didn’t know who was attacking us or why.  Even for an 8-year-old child who couldn’t fully understand the situation, it was terrifying. 

I thought that would be a unique event in my lifetime. 

It hasn’t been.

Columbine.  Virginia Tech.  Sandy Hook.  These tragedies struck our hearts at their core as we mourned for the innocent victims mercilessly slaughtered like animals.  Then, while we were busy contemplating gun control, two young men decided to blow up some runners at the Boston Marathon. 

I was horrified. Beyond horrified.  These terrorists didn’t even make a public proclamation like self-righteous jihad killers.  They just wanted to kill some people.  Bloody.  Violent.  Twisted.  Evil.  That’s how we see this, and I concur with every fiber of my being.  I pump my fist along with the crowds who call for their lives as penalty.  I feel disgusted.  I feel wronged.  I feel attacked. 

I am tired.  Tired of feeling afraid.  Tired of feeling in danger.  Tired of feeling wary that anyone on the street could be the next sadistic maniac to pull out a Glock and start shooting people or pull a hunting knife and start stabbing everyone.  None of us “sign up” for life, but none of us would have signed up for this. 

I want to do something.  I want to take all weapons from everyone, take all of the mentally unstable individuals and lock them up, anything to stop this from happening again.  But here’s the honest fact: I can’t stop it. 

If we know a man named Steve will be the next killer, we can’t stop it.  We take the guns, he’ll use a knife.  We take the knives, he’ll use a bow.  We take the bows, he’ll use a hammer.  We take the hammers, he’ll use a club.  It’s pretty hard to outlaw wood.

We’ve been treating the symptoms and not the problem.  The problem is in our spiritual condition.  We as humans are to blame.  We have been acting out in rebellion to God as long as history has come and gone and this is what we reap for our actions.  We have been begging for a society without God.  As He does when asked, He is bowing out, and this is what it looks like.  Is this really what we want?

Canadian Pro-Lifers and Freedom of Speech

Yesterday Linda Gibbons, a Canadian who is a Christian and a staunch pro-lifer, was released from prison after five years.  When I first read about her, I was kind of surprised at her circumstances.  She has been in and out of prison for the last ten years due to her stance on abortion and her zealous activism.  That surprised me.  Although Canada does not have as much freedom of speech as the United States, I still didn’t expect someone to be in prison due to speaking out against abortion.  Then I kept reading.

First of all, it is important to understand the differences between Canada and the United States.  Canada also guarantees freedom of speech but not under the exact same terms.  Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedom of speech as a “fundamental freedom,” but section 1 of the same document allows the government to pass laws that limit freedom of expression so long as the limits are reasonable and can be justified.  As you can see, that “exception” is extremely broad and allows the government a manner of control over their freedom of speech, legitimized by their charter.  One example is that it is illegal to speak out against homosexuality in Canada; it is classified as illegal under the term “hate speech.” 

Canada also differs from the United States when it comes to abortion.  There are no legal restrictions on abortion, so it is considered a valid medical route.  That being said, there are activists in Canada that are fighting against it.  Which brings me back to Linda Gibbons. 

When I first read about Linda Gibbons, it sounded as though she was being imprisoned for being an activist.  Naturally, I was very upset.  However, there is more to the story.  The way that she had been protesting abortion is by protesting outside of abortion clinics.  There are some discrepancies on what all was going on, some reports indicate that she was supposedly harassing people, others indicate that she was peacefully protesting.  Her arrests have been on the basis of harassment, and most recently, violation of an injunction which order her not to come within 150 meters of an abortion clinic. 

The Canadian publication National Post did an interview with her and her responses sound a lot like what Peter and John said to the Jewish elders in Acts 4 and 5.  Others have suggested that her zeal would be better directed in counseling. 

I appreciate Linda Gibbons’s attitude toward the life of the unborn.  However, I want to ask a serious question.  How much good is she doing?  Some of the most encouraging pro-life campaigns I’ve heard of come in the form of pregnancy centers that give frightened and isolated pregnant women a viable alternative.  Those have done a lot of good.  How much good does protesting outside of abortion clinics do?  Let me ask it another way.  Why didn’t the apostles march straight up to the Jewish leaders and protest against them and demand that they repent?  It wouldn’t have done much good.

We ought never to back down from preaching the truth.  We should, however, think about what our actions show and what the wisest approach to take is.  While there is a respectable and legal way to preach the truth, we ought to take it.  It is not until those options are depleted that we ought to act in rebellion to the law.  Let’s avoid acting in such a way that would give someone an excuse to call us loud, self-righteous bigots and do what God told us through Paul in the letter to the Ephesians: Speak the truth in love.  Always remember Colossians 4:6: “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.”

The Problem with the Pro-Gun Position

After my last post, this title might seem a little odd.  After all, I just spent a lot of time telling all of you that Christians can be pro-gun, right?  Why would I turn around and talk about why that’s a problem?

Well, the two are not entirely contradictory.  I still hold to the belief that a Christian can be pro-gun (can be, not has to be).  However, there’s an issue that I’m seeing in this whole debate.  Gun control has been a debate for a very long time, but more recently it has been a reaction to the tragedy at Sandy Hook.  

Politicians and advocates of gun control have reacted to the violent shooting, and gun owners immediately have reacted in defense of their rights to own guns.  “If you outlaw guns, only criminals will have guns!” and “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people!”  There’s one thing that the pro-gun people are missing though.  If you don’t want guns to be controlled, how do you suggest we stop the violence that results in tragedies like Sandy Hook?

Here’s what I see happening: we don’t want our guns taken away.  I hesitate to say “toys” and I hesitate to say “weapons” because guns are different things to different people.  To the married man with three small kids who lives in a dangerous city, it means protection for his precious children.  To the gun enthusiast who lives in the backwoods of Kentucky, it means recreation.  Regardless, these people have something to lose so they react defensively.  I understand that.  However, we need to grapple with this: SOMETHING needs to be done.

The Washington Post reports that 84 people died in mass shootings in 2012, not including the shooters that killed themselves.  New Republic reports that 45% of the deaths due to mass shootings in the past 30 years have happened in the last 6 years.  There are no signs that the numbers are going to stop increasing anytime soon. 

I’m not saying that this means that the pro-gun position is indefensible.  On the contrary, I hope that we can take care of this problem without strict gun control.  What I am saying, though, is that we cannot spit in the face of Americans concerned about violence, tag them as “mindless liberals” and not offer an alternative solution.  Something needs to be done.

This is normally the part where I offer my solution to the mess.  Unfortunately, at this point, I don’t have a very good one.  I have been inclined to say leave the laws on how many guns and how much ammo you can buy alone and tighten the laws on who can buy guns so that dangerous people can’t get their hands on guns.  However, would that really work?  The man responsible for the shooting at Sandy Hook killed his mother and stole her guns with which he shot the kids at the school.  I don’t have an answer.  I’m looking for one.  This is an unresolved problem with the pro-gun position.  So I ask you, what is the solution?  

The Christian and Gun Control

I debated whether or not I should write this article for a long time.  I put it off for a while because I thought a lot of people were saying and writing things about it, and there were other things that had been neglected that I wanted to address.  However, there is a lack of clear thinking on this issue.  So I’m going to talk about gun control.

I’m going to start by giving you what my politics are on the issue, because that no doubt influences my views somewhat.  I don’t like labels, but if I have to take one, I’d label myself as a conservative.  I break that mold on certain occasions, but in general, I believe that capitalism works and the government should give its people as many freedoms as it can without endangering them.  I believe that the Second Amendment is referring to the rights of the citizen to arm himself or herself and that ought not be infringed.  I do believe that we ought to have better background checks and more strict regulation in terms of who can have guns so that incidents like Sandy Hook don’t happen.  My belief is that the problem is in the killer, not the weapon of choice.  I will probably go more in depth with this at another time, but for now that is all I will say.

That covers my base view of gun control.  My view on it as a Christian becomes more complicated, or at least deeper.  You see, just because the government grants me the right to do something, that doesn’t mean I should do it as a Christian.  When I turn 21 in November, it would be perfectly legal for me to buy all kinds of alcohol and drink until I’m well past drunk.  The command for Christians is to not be drunk.  The question then becomes what the Bible says about what we use guns for.

I think it’s fair to say we can legally use guns for basically three purposes: hunting, recreation (the shooting range, for example), and self-defense.  Since the question is really about violence and not about recreation or hunting, I’m going to take a look at self-defense.  Does a Christian have the right to defend himself or herself with violent or even lethal action?

The passage that is often used with this is Matthew 5:39, the passage that tells us to turn the other cheek.  It’s pretty hard to turn the other cheek when you’re shooting at somebody.  That, I grant, is true.  However, if that is how we are to understand Matthew 5:39, why does Jesus tell his disciples to take up swords when he sends them out (Luke 22:36)?  Doesn’t that seem contradictory?  When you look at the context of Matthew 5, I suggest we ought to understand it in terms of taking mistreatment by those in the world, not when people are trying to kill us or our family members.  It seems pretty clear that Jesus instructed them to take swords to defend themselves.  I doubt they were using them as razors.

Before we leave this topic, there’s one more thing I want to address.  1 Timothy 5:8: “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”  Let’s say I get married and have kids.  One night somebody breaks into the house.  They have a knife.  They go straight for my 3-year old daughter.  If I don’t protect my daughter, am I providing for her?  I will grant that the passage is speaking primarily of financial means in the context, but let’s use our brains.  If I do not defend my daughter, am I providing for her?  I submit to you that I have a God-given responsibility to protect my family.

In closing, I want to offer a caution.  My point is that a Christian can use a weapon in the defense of himself and his family. That does not mean, however, that to be against guns is the anti-Christian position.  I want to make that clear.  It simply means that being pro-gun is a defensible position for a Christian to have.  I also don’t want to leave this topic without including Romans 13:1-2: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.  Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” 

We have every right to arm ourselves in defense of ourselves and our families.  We do not have the right as Christians to take up arms in rebellion against our government, no matter what rights they take away.  The principle in Matthew 5 is important here.  When we are mistreated, we are not to retaliate.  That much is clear.  So if you are a Christian and you are pro-gun, that’s great.  Just remember where your boundaries lie, lest we be found to resist what God has appointed.

Beloved Bystanders

I’m afraid that every day it is getting harder to do the right thing.

Last week, a Florida high school student pulled a loaded gun on another student.  He intended to shoot him for arguing with a friend of his.  Thankfully, another student saw what was happening and grabbed the gun and with help from two other students who jumped in, was able to get the gun out of his hand.  These three students may very well have saved a life.  What was their reward?  Suspension.

There is something very wrong with our society.  Our freedom of speech has been slowly leaving for a while now.  That has been my biggest concern.  Now, however, we punish students not just for speaking up, but for acting when someone’s life is in danger.  This is beyond despicable.

According to the school representatives, they can suspend students when they are involved in some kind of violence.  I suppose the preference, then, would be stand by and watch. 

In 1964, a woman named Kitty Genovese was murdered in New York City.  A lot of people are killed in New York City every year, but the thing that made this particular murder significant was that she cried for help, and her neighbors heard her, but no one did anything.  This story is occasionally brought up in psychology textbooks.  I still remember the first time I heard this story.  I was horrified that something like this could ever happen. 

I’m not sure if this event is indicative of our entire culture, but I do know that even in an individualistic society, conformity is valued more than being a hero.  That’s generally the way things have always been, but this is different.  Normally when someone’s life is in danger, people applaud the hero.  Why did the school suspend these three kids?  Honestly, I have no idea what’s going through their minds, but I am going to use it as a springboard for a tangent that relates.

There’s a guy’s Bible study at my apartment every Monday night.  Recently we’ve been studying 1 Peter, which talks a lot about how the Christian responds to suffering.  I’ve been thinking about that some lately, especially in connection with 2 Timothy 4:12, which says “Indeed, all who live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.”  God does not call us to passivity.  God calls us to stand up for the truth.  As we do, though, we may face situations like these, in which we are punished for doing what is right.  In these circumstances, I’m reminded of Peter and John’s response at the end of Acts 5, where after being beaten for preaching Jesus, they leave rejoicing that they had been counted worthy to suffer for Christ. 

I’m not saying that we’re going to be flogged for believing in the resurrection of Jesus starting tomorrow.  What I am saying, though, is that we do experience persecution for doing the right thing, even if it isn’t in exactly the same terms.  We need to be prepared to pay what it costs to do right.  

The Man Behind the Curtain

Last night, I went to an open lecture on the Purdue University campus that was entitled “Debunking Darwinism.”  It was given by Dr. Gunnar Dieckmann, a Christian chemist who has studied Darwinism and its effects in both historical and scientific contexts.  I went for two reasons.  I work for the student newspaper and I was assigned to cover the event, and I had seen the flyer and was interested in attending anyway.  Interestingly enough, the information that I found most fascinating was not scientific, it was historical.

I should probably mention here that I do not believe in evolution.  If you’ve read very much of my writing, you probably knew that already.  Even so, I had always been under the impression that Darwin’s ideas were very successful even from the start.  I also was under the impression that he was an atheist, since there are very few evolutionists who are not atheists.  Here’s where it gets interesting: neither one of those two facts are true. 

In his book the Non-Darwinian Revolution, Peter Bowler says that Charles Darwin’s ideas were not readily accepted but were even combated by his fellow scientists, and it wasn’t until the 1920s and 1930s, about 80 years afterwards, that his ideas gained the immense popularity that grew to what it is today.  Charles Darwin himself admits that there is controversy over his ideas in On the Origin of Species itself: “For I am aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite those at which I have arrived.” 

Here’s the unfortunate truth: we eat what we’re fed, often with no questions asked.  I myself until recently believed that most Americans accept evolution as a fact.  You would think that were the case, given that it is taught in all of the public schools and state universities, and is treated as an accepted fact by most news media outlets.  However, that also is not true.  The Huffington Post in an article last summer gave the results of an interesting survey.  Participants were asked this question: Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?
1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,
2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process,
3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

The results are surprising.  Only 15% answered in favor of atheistic evolution.  32% answered in favor of supernatural (God-guided) evolution, and an incredible 46% gave the answer that God created human beings in their present state. 

My friends, we have been lied to.  We have been led to believe that evolution is a scientific fact and, as Richard Dawkins put it, “Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is stupid, insane or hasn't read Jerry Coyne.”  So would Richard Dawkins be willing to say that nearly half of all Americans are stupid? 

Here’s what happening, folks: the evolutionists are the ones in control.  They are the ones in control of the scientific journals as well as much of the media, so they control the illusion that evolution is an undisputed scientific fact and that Charles Darwin was a hero who was embraced by his contemporaries.  That isn’t the truth.  Don’t eat what you’re fed without asking questions, because the poison will eventually kill you.  

The Light is Getting Closer

Respect for life is starting to gain some ground.  I admit that I have been one of those people that assumes that most politicians are too weak to make a stand for anything that might seem controversial, and most of them do pretty much the same stuff once they’re in office.  Of course, I would have admitted that there are exceptions.  One is developing right now.  An article in the Washington Times came out on Monday that said that 72 members of Congress have written a letter to the Government Accountability office requesting that Planned Parenthood be investigated. 

Planned Parenthood performed over 300,000 abortions last year and received over half a billion dollars in federal funding.  That in and of itself is dangerous and is the primary reason for the investigation.  The Hyde Amendment, passed in 1977, made federal funding of abortion illegal.  Since then, it is been amended so that it has three exceptions: when the life of the mother is in danger, when the pregnancy results from rape, and when the pregnancy results from incest.  The Guttmacher Institute, an organization like Planned Parenthood that pushes “reproductive rights” and is an abortion provider, reported in 2005 that less than 2% of women get abortions because of rape or incest.  They didn’t even have health concerns in the report as a reason for abortion.   

Technically speaking, Planned Parenthood receiving federal funding is not a problem legally, so long as that money does not go to funding abortions.   The question becomes, what are the chances that of the half billion dollars, not a penny is going to abortions when Planned Parenthood performed over 300,000 of them?  Texas Representative Pete Olsen said that a previous GAO report was done, but new information has surfaced.  “[it was] before we learned what many feared to be true — that Planned Parenthood has failed to properly follow correct billing practices to prevent federal tax dollars from funding abortion services, as demanded by law.” 

This is big.  Just last week, Planned Parenthood said some of their clinics in Indiana would be facing failure if a law passed that required giving an ultrasound before giving an abortion-inducing pill (read about it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/indiana-senate-approves-requiring-ultrasound-before-abortion-pills-given-tougher-clinic-rules/2013/02/26/fae39b44-806e-11e2-a671-0307392de8de_story.html).  Now, in addition, they could face punishment for the misuse of federal funds. 

Perhaps the most encouraging part of this is how many Congress members joined in.  72.  It’s pretty hard to ignore a request made by 72 lawmakers.  In a time when respect for unborn life was reaching an all-time low, we are seeing an encouraging fact: the battle isn’t over yet.  According to gallup.com, in 1996 only 33% of Americans were pro-life.  In 2011, 45% of Americans were reported to be pro-life.  In addition, when you take away the pro-life and pro-choice labels, only 39% of Americans in 2011 saw abortion as morally acceptable. 

I fear many Christians have accepted it as a fact that the battle is over and abortion is accepted by everyone in our society.  That’s not true.  Not yet.  As a matter of fact, things are looking better now than they were fifteen years ago.  We’re gaining some ground, so let’s take advantage of that and keep pushing forward.  Keep praying, keep talking, and keep taking the issue head-on.  With God’s help, we have nowhere to go but forward.

There is a Man Shooting at Me, but He Has a License to Carry

The future is starting to look bright for our unborn children.  In my home state of Indiana, a bill is being proposed that requires an ultrasound before and after administering a drug known as RU-486, according to an article by lifesitenews.com.  RU-486 is a contraceptive, or an abortion-inducing drug.  As state senator Travis Holdman said, “We're just trying to control and regulate abortion-inducing drugs, which heretofore have not been regulated by the state of Indiana. I don't believe we're asking for anything that's unreasonable. We're talking about the life of the mother and the child.” 

The Planned Parenthood facility in Lafayette, IN said that it may be forced to close down if the bill is passed.  Wait a second.  They will be forced to close if they have to give an ultrasound before giving an abortion inducing drug?  Does something seem wrong with this picture?  Here’s the thing: they are right.  They probably will have to close.  According to the executive director of an Iowa pregnancy resource center, 90% of women who see their baby choose to give birth.  That’s pretty significant.  Ultrasounds are the death of what Planned Parenthood stands for: the death of unborn children.

Ultrasounds are key in the battle for our children’s lives.  Pregnant teens are told that what is inside of them is nothing more than a mass of tissue; sure, it could become a baby, but it won’t if you don’t let it.  When these young, impressionable mothers see the reality on the screen: the baby’s fingers, head, and face moving, the reality becomes irrefutable.  No amount of justification, lies, or scientific jargon can refute the simple truth: it is a baby.

So what about the other 10%?  If it is so overwhelmingly obvious that it is a baby, why do the other 10% go through with it?  I can’t answer that question for them, but I can show what I believe may be the reason.  You would think that upon the realization that this is a baby, a helpless human being, that we are killing, that we would immediately stop.  Unfortunately, this isn’t the case.  Mary Elizabeth Williams, a writer who has written for the New York Times, The Nation, and other publications, wrote an article in which she said, “When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand.”  Sounds pretty good right?  Except it didn’t end there.  She went on to say “Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal...a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.” 

This statement left me in shock.  It made me realized a horrifying truth: while people are realizing that a fetus is indeed a human baby, some are not allowing that to change their stance on abortion.  Instead, some are saying that women have the right to kill their children (just as long they are inside of them and not outside of them). 

Here’s the good news: the legislation that Indiana is putting forth is an indicator that not everyone is going along with this trend.  Keep praying and keep talking about it, and with God’s help, we can make this generation the one that owns up to the horror that abortion truly is.

Exception to Protecting Life?

What constitutes murder?  That used to be a pretty simple question with a pretty simple answer: if you kill somebody, it’s murder.  Somewhere along the line somebody started blurring the definition of who a “somebody” is.  Eventually we got to the point of Roe v. Wade in 1970 that the Supreme Court deemed abortion legal on a federal level.  It’s been an uphill battle ever since in the protection of life for the vulnerable and helpless unborn children.  Because of that, we tend to celebrate every small victory that we get.

If you’ve been reading what I’ve written recently, you’ll know that I have been following the Presidential race lately.  I watched the Vice Presidential debate last night.  While I had many issues with what Joe Biden said, I had very few issues with what Paul Ryan said.  I’m going to make an issue out of one of those things, though. 

The moderator asked Joe Bide and Paul Ryan what part their faith played in their views on abortion.  Ironically both are Catholic and they gave two completely different answers, but that’s not the point right now.  Paul Ryan identified himself as pro-life.  I was happy at that point.  He said himself and Mitt Romney will fight abortion.  I was very happy at that point.  Then he said they make exception for rape, incest, and cases that endanger the mother’s life.  What. 

I’ve heard this kind of thing said before by people who identify themselves a pro-life, but it never ceases to amaze me.  Allow me to take you through some logical conversation for a moment.  Defining life can be a very difficult task, especially when getting technical, but it’s not as difficult as it seems.  So you have this thing inside the mother’s uterus.  If left alone it is born a human being, which we accept as being life.  Is a toddler any less alive than a teenager?  No.  So it does not matter how far along they are in the process.  Does location make a difference in whether something is life or not?  No.  So why does it matter whether a child is inside or outside of the mother?  It doesn’t.  That is the logic behind being pro-life.  It’s a simple answer to a simple question: a baby is a somebody.  Therefore killing babies is killing someone, that is, murder.  It’s as simple as that.

Now, back to the issue: Paul Ryan says that life should be protected, except in cases of rape, incest, or situations in which the mother’s life is in danger.  In the above paragraph, when did the definition of life ever include how the life came to be?  It didn’t.  And it never will.  Normally I try to celebrate the small victories, and normally I am excited to see someone standing for pro-life values.  Not this time.  Because it is our duty to protect life no matter how the life came to be.  It is awful that incest happens.  It is horrible that women get raped.  But guess what?  That’s no excuse to murder a child.  Take an unapologetic stand for life.  Below is a video of Rick Santorum on Piers Morgan doing an excellent job of showing how we should respond to this.  

The Voice I've Been Waiting For

So, I’ve been a bit of a sour patch lately.  I decided it was time for something to lift my spirits a little bit.  So I came back to a video that I saw a while back. I encourage you to watch this, even if you manage to read my entire post.  Kirk Cameron was brought on Piers Morgan to talk about his documentary, “Monumental.”  However, it didn’t take long for the wolf to rip off his sheep’s clothing.  It soon became an attack on Kirk Cameron’s moral beliefs, especially his views on homosexuality.  Kirk remained calm and collected and simply said that he believed it was destructive and unnatural behavior.  Now, what was especially low was that Piers Morgan, having made a few comments during that conversation with Kirk Cameron, waited until Kirk Cameron was gone and brought another “expert” on stage, and there they crucified Kirk Cameron, making a mockery of his archaic ideas.  Piers Morgan specifically said he had no idea “how he could say he hates people that are born that way.”  Hold the phone.  Kirk said homosexuality is destructive and unnatural.  He never said anything about hating anybody (and we’ll overlook the fact that the “gay gene” was scientifically proven to be false years ago). 

I’m doing it again.  Negativity aside, there’s a side of this that is really cool. Even though Kirk Cameron has received a mountain of criticism for this, he has never, not once, backed down on his stand nor apologized for his comments.  In a society that is broadening the definitions of hate speech every day, it is refreshing to see someone who is willing to stand for the truth, no matter what the consequences.  Let’s take this and use to help us to see that we are not alone.  I have been crying in the abandoned streets, hoping someone will yell back.  Someone has, and on national television at that.  Take a stand.  Now.