Outlawing Criticism

Sometimes history is relevant.

My last post highlighted the troubling violence in our society, which I attributed to a godless society.  I’m going to revisit one of the first signs that we were going away from God in the modern era, and hopefully challenge one of the biggest giants opposing godly reform in our modern society: Kitzmiller v. Dover.

I know some of you might be staring at the computer screen with a rage comics poker face, completely oblivious to the last statement.  I know you are, but frankly I wish you weren’t.  This is something that we ought to be educated on.

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. is a federal U.S. court case from 2004.  The short version of the story is that the Dover area school district had made a textbook supporting intelligent design a mandatory reading, which was challenged on the basis of the First Amendment (no establishment respecting a particular religion).  The court ruled that requiring the book to be read was unconstitutional.  The rest is history.  Now any theory outside of macroevolution is scorned and ridiculed as musings of a moron.

On the surface, this doesn’t seem like such a bad thing.  After all, as a Christian I wouldn’t want my kids to be required to read a text promoting Buddha.  Should we be upset about this?  Let’s take a look at the book itself.

Of Pandas and People, the textbook that started this whole debate, is not what it has been proposed as.  Having read my summary, you probably assume that it is basically a religious text, right?  This is not the case.  The book points out several problems with macroevolution, then goes on to propose intelligent design as a viable alternative without pointing to any particular designer.  Here’s my question: do you want your kids to be a taught a theory which has flaws in it, and the book which shows the flaws in it has been banned?  

This is not good science and it is not good education.

Secondly, let’s talk about the legal grounds of objection.  I said earlier that the objection was made on the grounds of the First Amendment, which is often referred to as “The separation of church and state.”  Here’s the kicker: those words are nowhere in the Constitution. 

Here’s what the First Amendment says:

                “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In this circumstance, did Congress make any law respecting the establishment of religion?  No.  As a matter of fact, this text does not respect the establishment of religion.  As a matter of fact, I would argue that the case’s decision was ultimately an infringement of the First Amendment.

In the decision, the following was stated:

The school board was barred from “maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and 

from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.”

On the surface, this appears to say that the board cannot force teachers to teach something against their beliefs.  That is good.  However, what does this mean in practicality?  If you are an evolutionist, you’re protected.  You can preach evolution in the classroom until your feet fall off and you collapse of hunger.  Believe intelligent design?  Tough luck.  Done your homework and believe that evolution is flawed?  Too bad.  Your beliefs are not as valid as the evolutionists and therefore you have to teach evolution.  This is respecting establishment of beliefs.  We may not call it a religion, but the same concept is there. 

The unfortunate truth as that as upset as we may or may not be about this case, the damage has been done.  This is why it is more important now than ever to educate ourselves and others about evolution and intelligent design so we can counteract the bias within our current system.  At the end of the day, we cannot blame our society on the school system.  It is the responsibility of parents as well as individuals to educate their kids (and themselves).  We were asking for trouble when we made the education system the parents of our children.

Don’t eat what others feed you.

Before you comment a single word, search the facts.  The facts from both sides.

Intellectual honesty is the path to freedom.

                                                                                                                             

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.

Rand Paul, John Brennan, and Katniss Everdeen

I like to keep up with stuff that happens in the political world.  That proves to be awful difficult, though, when you don’t watch the news and just happen to pick up on what you see or hear.  As a result, I get behind and people talk about stuff and I have no idea what’s going on.  Recently I’ve heard about Rand Paul and him being commended and I had no idea what it was about.  So I looked into it.  It turns out that it is a recent development on something I’ve already read about that has me pretty concerned.

Here is the basic background to what is happening.  The Obama administration believes that it has the right to conduct drone strikes on American citizens on American soil if they are believed to be involved in terrorist activity.  No arrest, no trial, no sentencing.  This has caused quite an uproar and has sparked controversy in several issues, including the value of life, the rights of the American citizen, and what the limits of executive power are.  This culminated on Wednesday, when the appointment of John Brennan as the director of the CIA was being discussed.  Brennan has been a staunch supporter of the administrations drone policy, so naturally some of our more reasonable members of Congress had a problem with his appointment, Rand Paul being one of them.  So in response, he filibustered Brennan’s appointment.

If you aren’t familiar with what a filibuster is, it is basically when a politician wants to protest a decision, so he or she speaks for hours during the meeting so that the vote is either delayed or prevented.  Paul spoke for just shy of 13 hours.  Now that is one dedicated politician.

The unfortunate result was that Brennan was still voted in.  The question I must ask, then, is did it do any good?  In general, I am not a fan of filibusters.  It seems to me that they do very little in practicality, but I will say this: at least the man did something.  During his filibuster, Paul said “if there was an ounce of courage in this body, I would not be here alone.”  Why is Mr. Paul alone?  Are we all okay with giving one man the power to kill an American citizen without any arrest, trial, conviction, or sentencing?  I think not. I daresay that Paul may not be the only one in Congress who feels this way.  But he’s the only one with the courage to stand up and say so.

The most despicable part of this whole mess is the value we are placing on human life.  It is a trend that 

seems to be increasing every time I turn around.  Planned Parenthood executed a record 333,000 unborn babies last year.  Euthanasia is now legal in the states of Washington, Montana, and Oregon.  Now the President thinks he has the right to convict and kill any American who is suspected of being of involved in terrorist activity.  Human life is becoming increasingly disposable. 

Today I started reading The Hunger Games.  A lot of the books I read describe worlds that I wish were real and that I would love to be a part of.  Not this one.  It describes a North America that requires her districts to submit a boy and a girl to “The Hunger Games” to fight ‘till the death.  Not only is this necessary, but it is celebrated like a festivity.  It is seen as good.  As right.  Another book I read a while back offered another futuristic look at human life.  In Unwind, abortion has become illegal but parents can, while their child is a teenager, have them “unwound,” a process by which they are salvaged for body parts and organs.  

As I read those books, I appreciate the warnings that they offer regarding where a lack of respect for human life leads.  I like to think we’re a ways off from what those books describe.  But are we?

The Sleeper Sin of Insubordination

Some of you probably read my title and thought “what in the world is he talking about?”  Let me explain.  I’ve been thinking some recently about the idea of “sleeper sins.” There are some sins that we clearly label and condemn and stay away from.  There are others that slyly slip in.  They slide under our radar as things that can be seen as virtuous, wholesome, or expedient.  C.S. Lewis spoke of the sin of gluttony this way in The Screwtape Letters, speaking from an elderly demon’s point of view: “One of the great achievements of the last hundred years has been to deaden the human conscience on that subject, so that by now you will hardly find a sermon preached or a conscience troubled about it in the whole length and breadth of Europe.”

Since Sandy Hook, gun control has been the favorite subject of everyone with an opinion.  The subject has become especially prevalent among Christians, many of whom I have found are pro-gun.  Whether you are for or against gun control is not the target of this post.  What I want to point out is the way that some Christians are reacting to proposed gun control laws.  The state of New York recently passed a law that made guns with a capacity of more than seven rounds illegal.  It hasn’t actually taken affect yet (it will on April 15^th), but it has caused quite an uproar among pro-gun Americans both inside and outside of New York.  President Obama supposedly wants to enact similar gun regulations nationwide. 

If I’m ever running out of material to write on, sometimes I just browse Facebook until I find something that gets me going.  Sometimes that doesn’t take any longer than ten minutes.  I have seen a lot of posts in the past few months that basically say something like this: “Obama wants to take our guns away.  I hope he’s ready for a revolution.”  Or something like this: “If you want me guns, you’ll have to rip them from my cold dead hands.”  You get the idea.

There’s a problem here.  A pretty big one, too.  Romans 13 says that we are to be in subjection to the governing authorities, for they are established by God.  Is the man who takes part in a revolution in subjection to the governing authorities?  I think you know the answer to that. 

Here’s what a lot of you are going to be saying at this point: “But Logan, the Constitution gives us the right to fight back!”  Listen and listen carefully: I don’t give a hill of beans what the Constitution gives us a right to do.  Like any patriotic American, I believe in the Constitution and I believe that it should be followed.  However (and I do believe we need to be told this, sadly), the Constitution of the United States of America is not an inspired document.  We do not have the right to do something as Christians because the Constitution gives us the right.  We answer to a higher power. 

Secondly, I’ve heard the argument “Because of the Constitution, the government doesn’t have any authority over us!”  Let me frank.  That’s bull.  It’s a smokescreen that we’ve used because we don’t have a way to justify our attitudes.  Search the Constitution for something that says “The government will have no authority over the citizens.”  You won’t find it.  There’s checks and balances to be sure, but if lawmakers and law enforcement really have no power over us, then why haven’t conservatives kicked out Obama?  Because citizens don’t have the authority to do that.  Not without due process. 

Let’s stop pretending.  God tells us to be submissive, so we should be submissive.  End of story.  Otherwise, we will find ourselves fighting God.

Are Political Labels Christian?

Sometimes I am hesitant to make direct correlations between Christianity and politics.  Certainly there is a Christian perspective in moral issues such as homosexuality and abortion, but unfortunately some Christians have equated Christianity with certain political perspectives.  For example, to be a Christian you must not only be pro-life but also pro-gun and pro-capital punishment.  I am not at all saying that I am against those things; as a matter of fact I am staunchly in favor of capital punishment.  However, I want to take a look at the attitude being statements like these.

First of all, to be fair, I do care a lot about politics.  I’m not a fan of identifying myself with a party, but if I was asked to give a black-and-white answer, I’d say that I am an old-school Republican.  However, I don’t like being identified as a Republican, because, to be honest, I don’t agree with everything Republicans do or stand for.  Most Republicans that identify themselves as pro-life give exceptions for rape and incest.  I do not believe that exception should exist.  Mitt Romney wanted to restrict internet pornography by making new computers filtered.  Although most Republicans were opposed to that because it possibly meant more government control, I was in support of it.  You get the idea.

I confess, I grew up in a family of Republicans and in a church that was mostly Republican.  So do you know what I thought about Democrats when I was a kid?  You probably have a pretty good idea.  If my mind was a dictionary, the entry would have sounded something like this: “Democrat.  An ignorant and idiotic moron who believes in pouring money we don’t have into the hands of the unemployed who waste it on booze and drugs.”  Gradually, I heard the tag “liberal” associated with Democrats, so I grew to associate the same definition with the word “liberal,” and thus, to me, the most unintelligent person on God’s green Earth had to be a wide-eyed liberal Democrat. 

Then a wrench got thrown in my philosophy.  When I was growing up we had a close family friend that lived pretty close to us that watched me quite a bit.  At some point during my childhood, I found out that she was a Democrat.  My entire world of prejudice and bias came crashing down.  She was an intelligent, kind, God-fearing woman who spoke common sense.  We just disagreed on some political issues.  That helped me to begin to see a very helpful truth.

In one of my communication classes, we’ve been talking about something called Heuristic cues.  When we are considering an issue but don’t want to exert the mental energy to think seriously about the topic and the arguments for whatever reason, we use cognitive short-cuts.  Some of those are things like credibility of the speaker, attractiveness of the speaker, so on and so forth.  One of those heuristic cues is political labels.  If someone says something challenging that we don’t like, we think, “Well they must be a wide-eyed liberal!” or “Well they are just a society-loathing conservative!”  Now comes the point of this entire post: are associations like that Christ-like, regardless of which side we are coming from?

Titus 3:2 “speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.” 

It’s pretty hard to show perfect courtesy toward all people when we’re screaming at them for being idiotic liberals or narrow-minded conservatives.  This is the part where people are apt to misunderstand me.  Allow me to clarify.  I am not at all saying that it doesn’t matter where you stand on political issues.  Many political issues can have moral and spiritual implications.  However, what I am saying is that we cannot be judging people’s integrity based on their political alignment.  As a matter of fact, if I had my way, we would do away with the terms Republican, Democrat, conservative, and liberal altogether.  Let’s be Christ-like in our interactions with each other and learn to have cool and collected open discussions with each other.  Otherwise, we may be found to become what we hate most: the angry close-minded bigot.

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.

The Petraeous Scandal

It has been quite the tumultuous week for national news.  President Barack Obama was re-elected on November 6^th, but that’s old news now, due to the shocking revelation from David Petraeus.  The CIA director resigned last Friday, citing an extramarital affair as the reason for his resignation, saying that he had shown “extremely poor judgment.”  I don’t disagree with that.  Upon closer investigation, though, some other facts come out that muddy up the waters a little bit.

The affair was with David Patraeus’ official biographer, Paula Broadwell (a married mother of two children, by the way).  She made several trips to Afghanistan with Petraeus as his official biographer when he was still a general in the United States Army (and the face of the wars with Afghanistan and Iraq).  According to Patraeus, though, the affair did not begin until after he took the position as director of the CIA, which was September 6, 2011.  None of this really bothered me at first.  I hate to see another reminder of the failings of our country’s leaders, but it is nice to see someone admit fault instead of covering for it by saying something along the lines that they “deserve to be happy.”  However, there is more to the story.

Let’s start with how this all got unfolded.  If you stopped here, it sounds as if he felt guilty, broke off the affair, and resigned all in a relatively brief period of time.  That’s not the way it happened.  Enter Jill Kelley, a family friend of David and Holly Petraeus’s (Holly is David’s wife).  While Paula Broadwell had been following David as his official biographer, she had been suspicious of Broadwell, saying that she was far too “gushy” about him.  It’s worthy of note that Broadwell is 40 years old and Petraeus is 60.  Earlier this year, Kelley began receiving anonymous emails that she found so threatening that she took them to the authorities.  Upon investigation, the FBI tracked them to Paula Broadwell, and found emails exchanged between her and Petraeus.  In the interest of being delicate, I will say that the emails between Broadwell and Petraeus made it crystal clear that an affair was taking place between them.  So this was not a result of the conscience of David Petraeus, but of an investigation of the FBI.  However, that’s what I find the most upsetting.  According to Petraeus, he ended the affair four months ago.  In other words, what really happened was that four months after the fact, someone ripped back the rug and he resigned since his dirt was uncovered for the world to see.

There is some positive things in all of this: he did admit that it showed extremely poor judgment, he was the one who broke the affair off, he did it before he got caught, and as of yet he and his wife have not divorced, which I hope means they are working it out as married couples should do in these situations.  However, he didn’t apologize until he had no choice.  There’s something here that we can learn from: don’t be sorry you got caught.  Learn true repentance instead.  Aim for true integrity and selfless service and this won’t happen in the first place.  If you lose your place and it does, have the sincerity to correct in the best way possible.  That will save you from these kinds of headaches in the future, and your loved ones will thank you dearly for your honesty and integrity.

The Mourdock Controversy

In a debate for a seat representing Indiana in the U.S. Senate, Richard Mourdock made some comments that have caused the entire political world to erupt like Indiana is Pompeii.  The candidates were asked what their view regarding abortion was.  Richard Mourdock, the first to answer, said that he believed that life is a gift from God and should be protected, although he does make an exception when the mother’s life is in danger.  Well, there’s nothing new there, right?  The controversy came in what he said next.  “I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”  This has been met with no end of criticism from Democrat and Republican alike.  Even Governor Romney (who has vowed to fight abortion when in office, mind you) criticized Mourdock’s comments, and President Obama said “I don’t think any male politicians should be making health care decisions for women.”

Now, there’s a lot to consider about all of this.  First, I want you to have an appreciation for the political climate regarding abortion.  Abortion has been legal on a federal level since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in 1973.  The specifics are up to the states, but it is completely legal on a federal level due to that landmark case.  That has not kept more conservative politicians from fighting it.  There are several politicians that believe abortion is wrong.  However, until recently, I did not know of any politician (besides Rick Santorum, the man who really should be our president) who did not make the infamous three exceptions: rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger.  Governor Romney himself makes these exceptions.  Roe v Wade could possibly be overturned again (making abortion illegal unless individual states make it legal), but that depends on which Supreme Court Justices are selected, which will be done by the winner of the November election.  So the main point is this: abortion is legal on the federal level, those against abortion generally make exception for rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in danger, so those who don’t make these exceptions are seen as radical.

Now, back to Richard Mourdock’s comments.  These are his words that are being broadcasted all over the national news: “I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”  Now, that sounds like he’s saying that God intended for rape to happen right?  That’s what I thought too.  Then I saw what the nation news isn’t telling you he said: “God creates life, and that was my point. God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that He does. Rape is a horrible thing, and for anyone to twist my words otherwise is absurd and sick.”  That pretty much clears up the controversy, doesn’t it? 

Here’s the point I want to make: Governor Romney and the other members of the pro-life crew would agree that a fetus is life right?  Even if they don’t believe that life is created by God, they admittedly believe that a fetus qualifies as life, so killing that life is wrong.  Why then does it matter how the life originated?  Joe Donnely, an opponent of Richard Mourdock’s, was quoted saying that rape is “is a heinous and violent crime in every instance.”  I agree.  Here’s the logic of most politicians: “as long as we’re at it, let’s tack another violent act onto it.  Kill two birds with one stone.”  I for one find it refreshing to see life being defended, regardless of how it began.  Life is life and murder is murder.  I do, however, want to go one step further than Richard Mourdock: why is the life of the mother more important than the life of the child?  When we make that distinction, are we not trying to play God?

Ultimately, we can take this as an example of a refreshing fact: the battle for undefended human life is not as lost as it may have seemed.

                                                

Voting for Christian Values

Religion and politics.  Yeah, that’s what I said.  Religion and politics.  I know, it’s dangerous for me to use the two in the same sentence (especially right next to each other), but hopefully it got your attention.  Most people despise the mixing of the two like it’s the combining gasoline with a flamethrower.  Still, I think it’s valid to consider the relation of the two.

First, I admit that I don’t like defining Christianity as a religion, because that makes it sound like a legalistic worship system. That’s not what I’m talking about, so I will try and stay away from that word.  What I’m talking about is Christianity as a relationship.  When we look at it that way, it changes everything.  Everything.  I’m not married, but I can imagine some things about being married that I can assume to be true.  If I am married, I assume that it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to spend a lot of time talking to other women.  I think that’s valid.  Being married would also affect how I spend my money, the plans I make, and the activities I’m involved in.  I wouldn’t want to do anything or involve myself in anything that would offend my wife.  It’s pretty simple logic.

I’m not going to get into how the Bible and Christian beliefs fit into economic policy.  I have my opinion on all of those things and I may even write on them at some point, but right now, I want to focus on moral issues that are relevant to the election.  There are always two biggies: abortion and same-sex marriage.  Abortion is pretty simple: don’t kill.  A baby is life, and if you don’t agree with that or want more elaboration, you can see my previous post about that.  Secondly, same-sex marriage.  That’s also a pretty simple one.  Marriage is defined in Genesis 3:24 as one man and one woman.  In addition, homosexuality is directly condemned in Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9.  Those are two issues that the Bible is very clear on.

We have a very unique opportunity in America because we have the ability to directly influence who our country’s next leader is going to be.  Now as a Christian, being in a relationship with Christ, how can I vote for a candidate who supports abortion and/or same-sex marriage?  Ultimately, that is saying that economics are more importantly than morality.  Economics are more important than what God has said about our behavior.  Where are your priorities? 

Being relevant to this election, President Barack Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage in May 2012.  Asked shortly thereafter about his position on the issue, Mitt Romney firmly said that he opposed it.  Barack Obama has long been a pro-choice candidate.  Mitt Romney is pro-life and has recently announced that he will fight to get abortion illegal.  In addition, Mitt Romney is also promising to fight a branch of immorality that has become particularly bad but is rarely mentioned: pornography.  In today’s world, the average pornography user begins at age 12.  The revenue from pornography is more than all professional American sports combined.  Here is a direct quote from Mitt Romney: “(I)t is imperative that we cultivate the promotion of fundamental family values. This can be accomplished with increased parental involvement and enhanced supervision of our children. It includes strict enforcement of our nation's obscenity laws, as well as the promotion of parental software controls that guard our children from Internet pornography.” 

I may not agree with everything that Mitt Romney says, and I never will agree with everything that any candidate says.  But I will say this: I want morality to make a comeback.  I want to live to see a world that again begins to see sexuality as God sees it: as reserved for marriage and not to be indulged in at will.  Under Mitt Romney, we may stop sliding backward and start inching forward.  

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 Gloves Are Off

The lions can smell raw meat hanging out to dry.  To answer your question, yes, I did just finish watching the Vice Presidential debate.  Biden versus Ryan and the gloves have come off.  The question is whose jaw got broken?

First of all, appreciate the context that this debate came into.  This comes from a first debate that spawned a mockery Obama-sponsored big bird commercial (without Sesame Street approval), a fabricated 5 trillion dollar tax cut accusation against Mitt Romney, and, quite frankly, a debate in which Romney came out ahead, the Obama-Biden administration needed a win.  Enter the snarling and starving lion.  Problem is, Ryan wasn’t about to be Biden’s dinner. 

To start with, the facts are not on Vice President Biden’s side.  Unemployment is up, the deficit continues rising, foreclosures continue, and the stimulus money hasn’t worked.  That being said, it doesn’t necessarily mean that Romney and Paul know what they’re doing either.  I came into this sure I wasn’t voting for Obama-Biden, but unsure what I thought of Romney-Paul. 

There’s a lot of political mumbo-jumbo that went on, but here’s the big points: Paul Ryan brought up the fact that Iran has enough materials to make four atomic bombs (ya know, those things that can blow up huge cities and send up mushroom clouds?  Yeah, those things).  Biden responded by saying they have no weapon.  Biden said that Romney and Paul don’t care about social security, yet Paul Ryan says that they want to give the younger adults which will have social security control over how it happens.  Obama and Biden want to pull troops completely out of the Middle East in 2014.  If I’m looking at this from a political point of view, Paul Ryan looks pretty good.  But that’s not my ultimate conclusion.

The first thing I noticed in the debate, all political conversation aside, was Biden sporting a Joker-esque smile during every minute of Paul Ryan’s speech, attempted to make him look like a moron.  It soon escalated.  Joe Biden began interrupting him.  Constantly. 82 times in 40 minutes, as a matter of fact. At this point, I am really wishing I was there with a cattle-prod to remind Biden that it isn’t his turn.  So you can understand how truly incredible it is that Paul Ryan kept his cool the entire time.  Biden showed Ryan no respect at all.  Zero respect. And yet Ryan keeps his cool and doesn’t interrupt Biden, even with the moderator (hint, hint) allows Biden to constantly cut him off and interrupt him without comment.  The closest Paul Ryan ever came to responding to that was saying he thinks it would be “better if we stopped interrupting each other.”  A.k.a., “Biden, please shut up and let me talk.”  Needless to say, his self-control and composure was impressive.  Still, I did particularly enjoy Paul Ryan's jab, "The vice president well knows, things don’t always come out of your mouth the right way."  He's gotcha there, kitty.

Another note: I have known that Mitt Romney was and still is a successful businessman for a while now.  I have known virtually nothing about Mitt Romney in regards to how he spends his money.  I have still heard absolutely nothing from the man himself.  But Paul Ryan brings up a case when Mitt Romney paid for a neighbor’s children to go to college because they had fallen on hard times.  He also mentioned that Mitt Romney gave 30% of his income to charity (which he mentions is more than himself and Joe Biden combined).  Notably, this is the one statement the entire night that Joe Biden did not challenge.  Instead he said, “I don’t doubt his generosity.” 

Given the testaments to Mitt Romney’s generosity, the polite and respectful composure of Paul Ryan, and the stand not only on the political issues but the pro-life and pro-traditional marriage stands of the Romney-Ryan campaign, I’d say its safe to say that Romney has my vote right now.  We finally have a shot at an administration of integrity.  Let’s not throw this opportunity out the window.

Breaking News: Crime-Lord Mitt Romney Places Bounty on Angelic Big Bird

A while back, I heard one of my favorite jokes that I think I may ever have heard: “Look at the word ‘politics’.  ‘Poly’ means many and ‘ticks’ are blood-sucking creatures.  Coincidence?  I think not.”  I chuckled quite a bit.  Although I do care about the influence that government has not just on the economy but on society and culture (a.k.a. what influences our freedoms and values) as a whole, I am not a fan of the politics game.  But something has happened recently that I simply do not have the patience to overlook. 

In Mitt Romney’s campaign, he has been advocating (in word, at least) some pretty major spending cuts. Among those he has mentioned is PBS, which he has said with the disclaimer “even though I love big bird.”  Now, if you want to talk about whether or not PBS should be cut out or not, that’s fine but that’s not what I’m getting at, because there’s another layer to this.  This week President Barack Obama released a new attack ad.  But this one didn’t have to do with the economy, homosexuality, abortion, foreign affairs, or any other relevant issue.  No, it instead said this: "Bernie Madoff. Ken Lay. Dennis Kozlowski. Criminals. Gluttons of greed.  And the evil genius who towered over them?  One man has the guts to speak his name.”  Enter Mitt Romney speaking Big Bird’s name.  My first reaction was that this is pretty ridiculous, and really says that Obama has nothing to criticize if he’s stooping that low.  But wait.  It gets better.  Sesame Workshop never approved the ad.  The producers of the show released a statement on Tuesday, saying they had asked the President to remove the ad. 

This is an outrageous smokescreen, guys.  Mitt Romney may not have dishonest foreign policies or errant economic plans, but he’s so purely evil that he would like to roast alive that kind yellow bird that wants to teach your children?  Am I exaggerating a bit?  Good, you get the point. 

Now I have a bit of an intellectual dilemma.  Romans 13:1 tells me that I’m supposed to be subject to the governing authorities.  Exodus 22:28 told the Hebrews that they were not to revile a leader.  I might also add that the oh-so-virtuous Nero was in power at the time that Romans was written.  So, I know that God wants me to respect the rulers of the land in which I live (America), but how can I respect a man that does something underhanded like this (there are reasons to not respect Romney also, by the way).  I don’t know a black-and-white answer that can be given.  This I do know, though: I have a very unique opportunity being an American citizen.  I have the power, along with my fellow citizens, to influence who will be running this country for the next four years.  When you step back and think about it, especially compared to the dictator-controlled nations of the Middle-East, to put it succinctly: that’s pretty cool. 

I’m not saying that Mitt Romney has earned my vote.  Time may reveal that he isn’t any better.  But this I do know: I refuse to vote for a man who stoops so low to attack his opponent for something so outrageously irrelevant.  I encourage you to see this for what it truly is: a smokescreen.  Don’t fall for it.