Having a Gay Old Time

I was pleasantly surprised recently to find that an overwhelming majority of my Composition students agreed with a peer's proposal that abortion rights should be severely curtailed because abortion is murder. I allow the students to choose the topic for their final essay, and it has not been uncommon for abortion to appear among their choices. The significance of yesterday's discussion was the number of these late generation Y'ers who did not believe abortion is just a clinical process some women are justified in choosing. I expected them to be fully marinated in the feminist soup of women's rights, but found them to be delightedly pro-life.

A couple years ago, Gallup reported that Americans were more pro-life than pro-choice. The margin in that poll was 51% lifers to 42% choicers. It marked the first time pro-lifers came out ahead, and the trend seems to be steady. A more recent poll measured the gap by party and then further by religious tendencies and showed a remarkable correlation. We are doing a good job refuting the feminist argument within a significant slice of the population.

There is another topic that always comes up for discussion with my students: gay marriage. In this case conservatives appear to be losing the battle. Gallup released a poll last year trumpeting "For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage." 53% to 45% Americans favor same-sex marriage with the same rights as "traditional" marriage. Granted, the results show that most of the increase in favorable positions came from Democrats and Independents; Republican opinion has remained virtually unchanged.

Back to my admittedly biased classroom; I did not poll them, but I sensed that if I had, most would have favored allowing gay marriage. Those who did speak agreed with the three students who proposed that gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states. And why not? "Love is love," as one proposal put it, and the benefits of marriage should not be denied to anyone who professes love for another regardless of gender. The other two proposals were based on the perceived discrimination against same-sex couples. This line of reasoning also garnered acceptance in the classroom. I asked if marriage rights should be granted to a man and his daughter or a man and his beloved sheep. The response (after extreme expressions of distaste) was resoundingly negative. I suggested that a man may love his daughter/sheep or whatever enough to want to marry her/it; doesn't the law discriminate against him as well. The silence was deafening, but they looked like I had fed them lemons.

So where are believers in this debate? We cannot quote Leviticus or Romans to argue against gay marriage in a pluralistic republic. Regardless, I believe there are still sound arguments against a homosexual lifestyle which do not rest on Biblical injunction.  I believe we should plot a course similar to the one Right to Life took with its sonogram displays. If we show people the real consequences of their choices, they can make better decisions. A fascinating article by the Family Research Council details the multitude of health issues present in the homosexual population. The most poignant is the undeniable fact that life expectancy is cut short by twenty years on average. Let's trumpet that from our billboards.

The Apostle Paul said that he would be willing to use any means necessary to win the lost to Christ. Let's use the same reasoning to influence behavior. With national health care looming on the horizon, there is a golden opportunity to use the liberals' arguments against them. If smoking is bad because it raises health costs and shortens life span, let's put homosexuality in the same category. The straight majority should not be expected to pay the exorbitant costs of treatment for aids or STI'S brought on by lifestyle choices. (This argument works even if Obamacare is repealed because we all pay for this kind of thing one way or another.)

Believers should lobby their local school boards to stop presenting the homosexual lifestyle as merely an alternative without consequences. Faced with information like that presented in the FRC article, I believe many could be convinced to change the policy of tolerance and open acceptance of homosexuality to one of warning and dissuasion. Homosexual behavior is a choice; report after report after report refutes the idea that it is genetic or otherwise biologically caused. If there are people who are genuinely confused about their gender identity, we owe the whole truth to them. Homosexuality is a deadly lifestyle, not because Leviticus says so but because science says so. It wouldn't be the first time science and the Bible were in agreement.

What Price Peace?

When I first heard the statement, it shocked me. After a moment's thought, it frightened me. An apologist for the welfare state opined on Fox News this morning that we have to continue the unemployment benefit extensions and the expansion of food stamps so that we don't end up with riots like Greece. Really? Americans will turn to violent revolt if we don't give them what they want. Has it really come to that?

As Rome slouched toward collapse twenty centuries ago, one contemporary commentator moaned that her citizens were being bribed with "bread and circuses." The comment I heard this morning sounds eerily similar. In her column posted last year on the Bloomberg web site, "The Danger of Living on Bread and Circuses,"  Alice Schroeder said, "Drowning a country in vicarious debauchery may be a lousy way to sustain a civilization. Still, there is something to be said for Half Pint Brawlers and its ilk. TV-watching keeps people at home, instead of marching in the streets."

There must be other less costly, more righteous ways to keep people from "marching in the streets." Certainly there are better ways to spend one's time than watching anything television has to offer. In fact, I suspect that modern entertainment does more to incite marching in the streets than to curtail it. The glorification of wealth, power and sex which dominates all forms of entertainment only whets the appetite of already hungry people.

A 2009 study cited by Schroeder claimed that people over 15 spent 58% of their leisure time in front of either a TV or a computer. My guess is that the majority of those TV hours were not on the History Channel and the Internet time was not spent taking free online college courses. Entertainment, games and social networking consume vast quantities of most Americans' time. Given such a diet filled with "vicarious debauchery," it is not surprising that a mood of unrest might be abroad among the people.

And so because my conservative values preclude any thought of censorship of the circuses, I can only agitate for self-discipline. I struggle with it myself, but I recommend the Apostle Paul's attitude of being content no matter the circumstances. I wonder if I am being utterly foolish to think that the only healthy way to keep Americans from marching in the streets is to encourage healthy habits at home: reading the Bible instead of watching WWF Smackdown; playing Monopoly instead of Grand Theft Auto; taking an invigorating walk through the nature center instead of spending an inebriating evening at the sports bar.

God help me; I think I may have turned into a crazy old geezer. Now I am frightened again; this time I fear that a conservative, biblical lifestyle, which is the answer to almost all society's problems, begins to sound ridiculous. Maybe we had better increase the food stamps.

Character Counts

A story on Fox this morning asks if watching what students do outside of school is reaching beyond the schools' legitimate interests. Todd Hess, the head of the Indiana principals' association explained the rationale behind the law which grants schools permission to consider student behavior outside of school. He said relevant behaviors would have to cause "interference with school purposes" or be necessary to "protect those that [sic] are in the school."  Cyber bullying was cited as an example of a behavior which might cross over from outside to inside school. The interviewer asked whether drinking or drug use might come under scrutiny by the school. Hess remarked that those activities were illegal, leaving the impression that other agencies (the police?) were responsible to monitor them.

It is unclear what the producers at Fox were pushing in this piece, but the headline over the video on the web site asks if the Indiana law is overreaching. Usually when media types ask questions like that, they are answering in the affirmative even if they don't say it explicitly. I have to ask myself why a conservative outlet like Fox would be asking such a question. I wonder if they were just trying to look "fair and balanced" by presenting the law as overreaching, or whether there is a drift among the east coast conservatives driven by the raging tide of political correctness.

It is clear why progressives would be opposed to such a policy. A law that allows school officials to consider private behavior infringes on privacy rights. Progressives are all about protecting those rights and even making some up where necessary: privacy rights like the privacy of the womb which allows a mother to snuff out the life of the little person growing there; privacy rights like those enjoined by President Clinton when his amorous affairs were being investigated; privacy rights like those granted to prisoners which afford them amenities generally associated with luxury hotels. It may even be this kind of thinking that causes the main stream media to overlook the extravagant getaways of the first family and cabinet level tax cheats and congressional nest featherers.

But in virtually every instance of see-no-evil ignorance of private behavior, someone in the public sphere is being affected. Returning to the academic setting, it is plain that situations which begin off campus infect the atmosphere on campus necessarily. The Facebook bully creates a dynamic that affects in-school relationships. When Johnny gets drunk on Friday night, he will often take his school buddies with him when he misses the curve at high speed and destroys their lives. The entire campus will be affected the next Monday. When Susie has unprotected sex (perhaps with a drunken Johnny,) her pregnancy cannot be separated from her school experience. In most cases, she will be separated from her school.

While they claim to be defenders of individual freedom, progressives don't really like freedom because free people seldom conform to the progressive agenda. Free people will drive SUV's and use 100 watt incandescent bulbs. Free people will reject the government subsidized electric car and CFL light bulb. Ignore for the moment that the politically correct choices will cost many multiples of the item they replace. When the government decides what is best for its citizens, the government must mandate much of what would otherwise be private choice. This situation puts the lie to the entire choice argument.

And choice is what makes us what we are. Barring divine intervention, humans are nothing more than the cumulative result of the choices made from day to day. Therefore, character is the result of choices made on campus and off. Kudos to Indiana for writing into law a common sense principle for principals. This suggests to me that someone in Indiana has decided that character building is an important part of the education process. Or maybe I am too optimistic; maybe it just means that they were taking another step towards governing every action so that their Utopian society can finally emerge. I hope it is the former.

Victory in Afghanistan

I think it is time to declare victory in Afghanistan and come home. This is not a veiled endorsement of Ron Paul for President; this is a reality check. This is a recognition that we cannot fight evil in every region of the globe. This is a lesson in priorities; national security begins at home and works outward, not the other way around. While I agree with the globalists that our national interests do extend beyond our borders, I also believe that the health of the homeland comes first. If we must make choices, I suggest we get our own house in order before we work on someone else's. So I suggest we declare victory and come home.

We need to declare victory over pride. We are losing the war in Afghanistan. It hurts our national pride to lose a war: think Vietnam. The conflict in Afghanistan has been going on for centuries and it will continue until Jesus returns. They thrive on tribal conflict; hatred is part of their character. This is not an endorsement; it is a statement of fact. No amount of American shed blood will douse the flames of this inferno. Read Mitchner's Caravan; it will open your eyes.

We need to delcare victory over hubris. We cannot be the world's police force. As much as we would like to end evil in this age, it cannot be done. Jesus said it would not end until his return. There is a battle raging in a realm that F-16's and M-16's cannot touch. There is an ugly corrolary to this that we seldom think about. We have never fought evil everywhere; we have always chosen our battles: think Rawanda or Darfur. The calculation behind where we choose to fight may itself be steeped in evil.

We need to declare victory over delusions of grandeur. We are no longer a super power. I do not mean that we are not the most powerful force on the planet. Even in our weakened state we can still claim to be king of the hill (as if that matters off the playground.) But we used to think if we tore open our shirt, a big red "S" could be revealed. We thought we could stop all the bullets without injury. This new kind of warfare, terrorism, is the Kryptonite to our superpower. When 19 radicals with box cutters can bring us to our knees, we need to rethink what it means to defend ourselves.

We need to declare victory over deficit spending. We cannot continue mortgaging our children's future. Our budget says the pipe dream of making the whole world safe for democracy is foolish. Does no one see the irony in borrowing from China to fight a war against tyranny, while China is one of the most tyrannical states in the world? In the face of our crumbling highways, toppling bridges, antiquated power grid, bankrupt schools and twenty percent unemployment, borrowing trillions to help uncooperative Afghans seems ludricous.

It is laudable that we want to save other people from vicious tyrants. The Apostle Paul does say that God ordained civil rule to punish evil doers. But what we are doing now makes neither civic nor biblical good sense. If believers want to change the world, the instructions to accomplish that task are in the Instruction Manual. We need to make disciples of the nations. The only peace on earth we can hope for is that which comes from the King of Peace ruling the hearts of his people. Wherever that happens, victory is assured.

Why Not Mitt?

I am going to do something that is politically incorrect. If you read this blog regularly, you are not surprised. If you just stumbled into this space, you may be shocked. I am going to discuss Mitt Romney's religion. That shouldn't be any problem; conservative politicians are regular victims of abusive inspection by the secular media, religion being a favorite target. For some reason however, Romney's Mormonism is a non-subject with the possible exception that it is mentioned as a detraction to some conservative Christian voters.

The media had no problem mocking, denigrating and making fun of both Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush concerning their explicit Christian beliefs. Rick Perry was blasted for saying out loud what many of us are thinking about the Obama administration's war on religion. The treatment of Rick Santorum's overt religiosity is admittedly less virulent, but he is only recently being taken seriously as a potential nominee. Perhaps his day is yet to come.

What is it about Mormonism that makes it hard to talk about. Maybe people just don't know what to  make of it. Many believers count Mormons among the other flocks with such names as Lutheran, Presbyterian, or Catholic. I personally believe it is a Christian-based cult as opposed to a sect of Christianity.  The fact is that Mormons are theologically too far off center to be included in the mainstream of orthodox Christianity, like Jehovah's Witnesses or Branch Davidians or the practitioners of Christian Science or hundreds of other groups who take snatches of the Bible and transform them into cultic beliefs that deny basic truths which are sine qua non of true Christianity.

What does any of this have to do with Mitt Romney's suitability as President of the United States? Just this: if he can't see the obvious logical fallacies in his religious beliefs, what other areas of his vision may be equally blind. I realize that many modern non-believers have a similar attitude toward all of us who hold our faith dear. The difference with Mormonism is that it was clearly invented by a charlatan back in the middle of the 19th century. Most of the distinctives of Mormonism can be traced back to the spurious revelations claimed by Joseph Smith which soon after proved to be completely fabricated.

I must seriously consider that my faith is viewed in a similar light by those who do not subscribe to it. After all, I sincerely believe that a man came to earth and claimed to be God, after which he was executed by the legitimate secular authorities and buried. Then he came back to life to validate his claims of divinity. This all sounds very much like science fiction except that there are a hundred logical reasons why it is all believable. None of it has ever been convincingly disproved; in fact, many people who set out to disprove it end up believers.

In contrast, Joseph Smith's version of things has been soundly refuted. I have to wonder why Mitt Romney can't see that. I am left thinking that he doesn't really believe it. I think it may be like his one-time belief in a woman's right to choose, or his belief that a single-payer government health care system was the answer to Massachusettes' health care woes. This may be just me, but I think it may be why the multi-millionaire is wearing blue jeans with his dress shirts at campaign appearances. He wants to look like one of us, no matter how ridiculous it may look.

So while it is outside of our political calculation in this pluralistic representative democracy whether our President is a Mormon (or Catholic or whatever,) it is legitimate to question the intellectual integrity of all candidates for the office. As much as I would like our next President to be a Bible-bred, orthodox Christian living his faith in genuine openness and humility, I know I may have to settle for less in the lesser-of-two-evils world of two party politics in America. But I still struggle with the concept of the leader of the free world actually believing in something like spiritual underwear.

Coveting the One Percent

Wanting something more than we have must be hard wired in the human psyche. That seems to be the crux of the dilemma which faced our proto-parents back in Paradise. One might think they had everything they could possibly need, the place having been designed by the One who knew them best. Apparently there is some longing so elemental in human nature that even perfection isn't good enough, so Adam reached for the one thing he was told he couldn't have.

Wanting what we don't have has an evil twin called coveting: wanting what someone else has. This is a significant enough problem to bear mention in the ten biggies that Moses brought down from Sinai. Again, the One who knows us best forbids that which has the capacity to hurt us worst. Maybe it is because I see this so clearly in my own heart, but this particular commandment doesn't seem to get the notice granted to the others. Murder, adultery, stealing, lying, all get frequent mention; there are even laws against them in most modern societies. I am not aware of any civil ordinance against coveting.

It looks as though President Obama is aware of this situation. A major plank in his campaign platform would appear to be, "Thou shalt covet the one percent." This is ironic on so many levels as to be ludicrous. Firstly, I would say he is part of the one percent; not only his annual household income, but the perks of his office transport him to the height of privilege and wealth. Not many people can count a customized 747 as their personal, regular means of transportation.

The second level of irony is that without the support of the one percent, neither Obama nor anyone else would become President. Like it or not, it takes great wealth to run for the highest office in America. If a candidate does not possess it himself (eg. Forbes or Romney) he must raise it from those who do. Related closely to this situation is the economy in general. Without the participation of people of means, there will be no expansion, no job growth, no getting out of recession (in spite of opinions to the contrary that government can spend us to prosperity.)

The final irony in President Obama's strategy is more philosophical. The Campaigner-in-chief has recently decided to throw the cloak of Christianity over his policy decisions. (See my last blog.) Not even the most virulent progressives would advocate murdering opponents or outright stealing their campaign funds or lying to advance their cause. (Okay, maybe little lies.) But no one blinks when being encouraged to break the tenth commandment and covet the one percent.

It has been instructive to watch the left deal with the Occupy movement. Here are the ultimate coveters; these people epitomize the rage against inequality, the raw human desire to have what someone else has. I suspect that more politicians would support the Occupy movement publicly except that they look so, dare I say, sinful. If it weren't for the rape, murder and mayhem, those people in the parks would be perfect poster children for Obama's cause.

Lest I begin to gloat, I must admit that part of what bothers me about Mitt Romney is his great wealth. (There are other real concerns which I will address at another time.) According to his recently released tax returns, if he received a daily paycheck in 2010,  he would have been paid over $59,000 every day. My immediate response to that (after holy cow!) is not something I wish to print here. My Biblical response must be one of gladness for the man's good fortune. I can commend him for his generous gifts to charity. What I cannot do is covet his wealth. The new covenant did not repeal the tenth command in the old covenant.

Let us not get caught up in the politics of envy as some are calling it. Coveting is still a sin. Jesus promised that the poor would always be with us. That implies that wealth inequality is part of the human condition, just like the tendency to want more than we have. If you are reading this you are among the wealthy compared to most of the world. Learn with me the secret revealed by the Apostle Paul to be content in whatever state we may find ourselves. After all, "Godliness with contentment is great gain."

Political Christianity

Headline: Barak Obama Claims He is a Christian. This will come as a surprise to many who have assumed he is either a closet Muslim or a practical agnostic. Others will be surprised that he was willing to be identified with such a mistrusted, disenfranchised group of radicals. He made the surprising statement at the National Prayer breakfast. What is not surprising was the reason he chose to associate himself with Christianity. He says Jesus would be in favor of his tax proposals.

Ouch! Here we go again with another politician trying to baptize some program with the waters of religious propriety. In this case, Obama has done what so many liberal politicians have done in the past: equate government programs with the Biblical call to charity. That is not just bad politics in my opinion, it is also bad theology. The Bible never suggests that it is the role of government to spread the gospel or provide for the poor. The only function of government authorized by Scripture is that of maintaining civil order. Period.

Jesus did say that his followers should abide by the righteous requirements of human government: render unto Caesar. The Apostle Paul expanded by adding "taxes to whom taxes are due." The requirement to care for the underprivileged and infirm is placed squarely in the realm of the church, that is to say in the hands of individual Christians, not human government. Though he may have over-reached in his admonition, Senator Orin Hatch did well to remind President Obama that claiming Biblical endorsement of party politics is either supreme arrogance or pitiful ignorance.

The political right is not immune from similar flights of hubris. There have been statements which made me wince because of the implication that some aspect of the conservative agenda would garner Jesus' favor. There are issues which do have biblical support for one side or the other. The protection of the unborn is one clear example. First Amendment protection of religious expression is another. But clear-cut cases are limited in number. Once the politician veers into free trade regulations or actions of the military or interstate commerce or income tax rates, the Bible should be used as a secondary resource rather than policy validation manual.

The Crusades during the Middle Ages provide a perfect example of misapplication of Scripture to political affairs. The justification of slavery in the United States by misguided Bible interpreters is another. Prayers were lifted from both sides of the trenches in two world wars that God might look favorably on their military efforts. I know it was a thoroughly anti-capitalist, unchristian movie, but Avatar had a scene where help from the supreme being was requested, and the theological commentary was, "She doesn't take sides; she just maintains the balance." I cannot find a Scripture to support it, but that is how I imagine God must look at our political struggles. He is not on the right or the left politically; he is on the above -- it is an entirely different perspective.

I am not saying that Christianity has no role in the larger civil society. I am saying that the role is entirely personal. The outworking of that personal faith shapes how policy is formed. Communities will be influenced for good or ill by the faith commitments of members. If you have been reading here for very long, you know that I regularly agitate for Christian involvement in the political process. What I don't do is assert a one to one correlation between the Bible and the policies of any person or party. When the Bible speaks, we can speak; when the Bible is silent, we should exercise a bit more humility than our President did this morning.