Blogs - The President's Desk
Next entry »
« Previous entry
March 16, 2010
‘Open’ Gays in the Military
Note: This piece originally appeared on worldnetdaily.com on March 12, 2010.
Over forty-five years ago I was on the lecture circuit with Frank L. Kluckhohn. He had just finished writing a book entitled The Naked Rise of Communism (1962). Frank was an extraordinary gentleman whose career included being a correspondent for The New York Times, an advisor to the Secretary of Defense in the Truman administration (1948), and holding a position in John Foster Dulles’ State Department during the Eisenhower years. This is background material to an important point I want to make about our current policies regarding gays in the military.
One of Frank’s responsibilities in the Truman administration was to uncover and remove homosexuals from positions of influence in the Department of Defense for “security reasons.”
It turns out that nearly all the major security risks (those who betrayed the United States to the Soviet Union, Communist China, etc.) also had homosexual connections. It seems that spies and homosexuality went together like Mary and her little lamb.
This was true not only in the U.S. but also in England. For example, several members of the secret society at Cambridge University known as the “Cambridge Apostles” did in fact turn on their own country to become Soviet spies, some of whom were known to be homosexuals. This list includes Guy Burgess, Donald MacLean, Kim Philby, Michael Straight, Anthony Blunt, Leonard Long, and John Asbury, among others.
President Harry Truman is one man who condoned neither homosexual activity (sodomy, fisting, rimming, etc.) nor communist spies in the U.S. government! He instructed both the State Department and Defense Department to identify homosexuals in government positions and dismiss them.
This is where Frank Kluckhohn comes on the scene. This became his assignment! What I learned from him would make a great book in itself, but his death in 1970 in an auto accident makes this impossible.
The one thing I distinctly remember Frank telling me about his job is the homosexual practice of colonization. Frank explained that after he would identify one homosexual, he would merely trace the person responsible for placing him in that particular department, and before long he would discover another homosexual. It seems that homosexuals would settle into a position and then use their position to hire fellow homosexuals into the same department or even move them into a higher position until the department was completely colonized.
Under President Truman, hundreds of homosexuals were removed from government departments because of their propensity for becoming Soviet/Chinese spies and betraying their own country.
How times have changed! A recent president, Bill Clinton, and our current president, Barack Obama, are brazenly pro-homosexual and are willing to do everything in their power to sodomize the finest military in all of human history — and this not for military reasons, but for social and political reasons.
Interestingly, neither Clinton nor Obama served in the military, and Clinton somehow cleverly avoided the draft.
Obama’s administration is economically, socially, and politically under the influence of John Maynard Keynes, who was a member of the Cambridge Apostles and a flaming homosexual. His “lover” Lytton Strachey referred to him as “a liberal, a sodomite, an atheist, and a statistician.” Keynes himself was heavily involved with Harry Dexter White (of U.S. Treasury fame), a Soviet/Chinese spy.
Now it’s 2010, and President Obama, a man steeped in radical leftwing politics and a kind of Students-for-a-Democratic-Society-Commander-in-Chief, wants to allow “open” homosexuals in the United States military. Open homosexuality would have to include the GLBTQ gamut — gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer! Lambda Legal and the ACLU will insist on it. On March 8, 2010, Senator Joe Lieberman proposed a bill “legalizing bisexual behavior in the U.S. Military.”
Allowing “gays in the military,” therefore, is misleading. Once gays are openly recruited and accepted in the military, their “cousins” will follow suit (lesbian, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, intersexual, queer, etc.). Such a scenario would even make Julius Caesar, who was bisexual, blush. Among soldiers, he was known as “every woman’s husband and every man’s wife” (Taylor Caldwell, A Pillar of Iron, p. 697).
The United Sates is currently involved in two wars. Is the President out to destroy our military? Can any thinking American wish to see an “open” cross-dressing homosexual Army general trying to gain the trust of his troops (or for that matter, the nation)? Have we as a nation fallen so far that we need to apologize to Sodom?
If the military becomes colonized as the State and Defense Departments were once colonized, homosexuals will indeed end up being generals and admirals. Just imagine a quota system in place that required 10 percent of officers be homosexual (similar to the demand that 10 percent of teachers and counselors in schools be gay to reflect the gay population — although the truth is that less than 2 percent of the population is gay). Trust me — if the military opens its arms to homosexuals, they will quickly become a protected class! The Gill Foundation will see to it.
If the truth were known the Gill Foundation’s finger prints are all over the “gays” in the military issue. The Weekly Standard (July 21, 2008) article by Fred Barnes entitled “The Colorado Model” would more than back up such a hunch. And if any reader has the stomach to see what this will ultimately entail I suggest a quick read of Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams’ The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party. It will not take one long to translate the historical homosexuality of the Nazi Party into the forthcoming homosexuality of the Democratic Party USA. The Gill Foundation and its sister homosexual foundations along with the president’s homosexual czar, Kevin Jennings, are seeing to that as I write!
American will not just be slouching toward Gomorrah, but residing in it!
There is a bit of unpleasant irony unfolding here. Nancy Pelosi and the House Ethics Committee were willing to cashier a member of her own party for “openly” practicing his homosexuality. Yet she voted to allow homosexuals to serve in the military and openly profess their homosexuality. I guess it’s acceptable to practice their tricks in the military, but not in the halls of Congress! A previous generation would call this hypocrisy. We call it relativism.
But the heartache for Christians, who believe that homosexuality is a sin, unnatural, immoral, unhealthy, and an insult to the God who made us male and female, is that homosexuality will not just be tolerated in the military, but promoted at every turn. Military chaplains will be instructed to ignore Genesis 19 and Romans 1. Military officers will lose their position for speaking out against homosexuality.
If you say you don’t believe it could happen, you’re living in a fool’s paradise. Let’s not forget that Obama appointed Kevin Jennings, a flaming homosexual, as his “safe schools czar.” Talk about letting the fox into the chicken coop! What Jennings is keeping kids safe from is any criticism of homosexuality in the public schools, which are literally teaching it as a safe, natural, and moral lifestyle.
Citizen magazine (February 2010, p.7) carried a story by Karen England regarding an Alameda, California, elementary school that was developing a K–5th grade homosexual curriculum that parents would not be allowed to opt out of. This follows acceptance of the now familiar children’s books The King and King, Heather Has Two Mommies, Daddy’s Roommate, and Gloria Goes to Gay Pride. What is less familiar is a book of essays called Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue about Sexualities and Schooling with an introduction by Jennings. If Obama and Jennings are not shy about sodomizing public education, why would they be shy about sodomizing the military!
The problem would be 100 percent more pronounced in the military. Homosexuality would not just be tolerated, but advocated and promoted. Anyone who would even whisper a criticism of it would be forced out, demoted, or tried in court for sexual harassment or even hate crimes.
Why can’t thinking people see this coming?
John R. Guardiano says in an article entitled “The Intolerance and Bigotry of Openly Gay Military Service” that “the gay lobby demands not just tolerance of lesbians and homosexuals, but explicit affirmation of the same. Consequently, the gay lobby will litigate against religious believers [Kevin Jennings hates Christians, for example] and cultural traditionalists who do not acquiesce to its agenda.”
Guardiano also points out that “the litigious nature of American society almost will require that these issues be fought out in the courts, where cultural traditionalists and religious believers have very few allies.”
He concludes that “as a practical matter, the hierarchical nature of the military tends to suppress free thought and intellectual dissent.”
We don’t really have to speculate about what this censorship will look like because it’s already happening.
Two days after President Obama promised in his State of the Union address on January 27, 2010, to dump the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, the president of the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins (a former Marine), was disinvited to speak at a prayer luncheon at Andrews Air Force Base.
According to Guardiano, the reason for the disinvite came from the military itself — “Perkins had spoken out in support of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ . . . and this, he was told, made his views ‘incompatible for military members [who] serve our elected officials and our Commander-in-Chief.’”
The Washington Times explained the situation this way: “The [Air Force] Chaplain’s Office retracted Mr. Perkins’ invitation after his recent public comments made many who planned to attend the event uncomfortable, the Andrews base public affairs office said in a statement issued late Thursday, [February 25].”
Perkins issued the following response: “As one who took the oath to protect our freedoms, I am disappointed that I’ve been denied the opportunity to speak to members of the military, in a non-political way, solely because I exercised my free speech rights in a different forum. It’s ironic that this blacklisting should occur because I called for the retention and enforcement of a valid federal statute. Unfortunately, this is just a precursor of things to come in a post- ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ military. This legislation would more than open the armed forces to homosexuals; it would lead to a zero-tolerance policy toward anyone who disapproves of homosexuality. Military chaplains would bear the heaviest burden. Would their sermons be censored to prevent them from preaching on biblical passages which describe homosexual conduct as a sin?”
The answer, unfortunately, is obvious.
And we haven’t even addressed the innumerable diseases the practice of homosexuality perpetuates. Many of them are unpronounceable (i.e., cryptosporidium, chlamydia trachomatis, ciardia lamblia, isospora belli, microsporidia), but deadly just the same. AIDS, gonorrhea, syphilis, and anal cancer come immediately to mind in the pronounceable category. It is said that an army’s greatest enemy is disease. If this is true, how will overturning the current policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” make our armed forces into healthier, better fighting units?
Nor have we yet addressed the issue of moral force. Like police officers and firefighters, those in military uniform represent a powerful moral force around the world. Americans abroad, including missionaries, would much rather be rescued by a U.S. military force than a United Nations force. Haitians who survived their massive earthquake would rather see the U.S. Military on the ground than any U.N. force. We’ve heard stories of police officers and fire fighters being forced to march in “gay” parades or lose their jobs. What’s to prevent military personnel from being forced into similar situations?
I believe the Commandant of the Marine Corps hit the nail on the head in his address to Congress: “My personal opinion is that unless we can strip away the emotion, the agendas, and the politics and ask whether we somehow enhance the war fighting capabilities of the United States Marine Corps by allowing homosexuals to openly serve, then we haven’t addressed this issue from the correct perspective.”
I don’t think the gay mafia (mostly anti-military radical leftists who seek to use this issue to make their lifestyle respectable and saleable) has yet explained fully what “open” means in this context. In fact, their sexual practices can’t be discussed in the open! The Bible designates them as abominable. Any television station that dared to broadcast such perversion would lose its license for doing it! Every civilization (except Sparta, Sodom, and Gomorrah) has recognized this and sought to marginalize such activity for fear of corrupting their youth and destroying the heterosexual community. Have we forgotten what happened to Socrates or most recently the failings of the clergy relating to pederasty?
What the United States Armed Forces are asking for is their own demise! Shame on you Robert Gates! What our nation is asking for is its own demise! Shame on you President Barak Obama! Since Kevin “queering elementary education” Jennings is already in charge of making our public schools safe for homosexuality, why not appoint another czar just like him to be in charge of making the military safe for ”open” sodomy?
However, if we’re really interested in the truth, a comprehensive poll conducted by the Military Times found that just “27% of military men and only 17% of Marines favor open homosexuality within their ranks.” It’s not just “religious believers and cultural traditionalists” who are opposed to open homosexuality in the military.
“Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad” (Quem Deus vult perdere, dementat prius).
Thank you, Euripides, for the commentary!
- Posted at 08:53 am by David A. Noebel
- Join the Discussion (24)
March 17, 2010 // 03:54 pm // #
Wow, thank you so very much for posting this information up here. I am 18 years old and am a senior in high school. Most of my teachers are anti-war, far left winged, etc, and although they’re good teachers, it’s hard to find a balance between what they say and what is taught to me in the christian household that I live in. Sometimes it really helps to have an opinion coming from a totally different source, which in this case, it did. Thanks so much again for posting this info. It really opened my eyes to some major issues I had not though about before.
~ Molly
March 19, 2010 // 04:13 pm // #
“Doc”
Another great article! Thanks for taking the time to provide a forthright history and list of conerns and consequences over what has and will happen when we “go-gay” in the military. Talk about destroying morale in the world’s greatest fighting force the world has ever seen! There needs to be as much of an outcry against this by our clergy as there is against govt run death care by our general citizenry. However, I will not hold my breath until our churches get involved as they mostly see such involvement as outside the perview of their calling. This is an erroneous view of their mandate to be ambassadors of Christ and His Kingdom as ambassadors are to always speak out on behalf of the people they represent. For some reason the majority of our nation’s clergy want to see if the silence the clergy of Germany practiced under Nazism might work any better than it did then.
Are there any additional places you could get this article published while we can still both write and read the truth on this topic?
Bob
March 22, 2010 // 06:15 am // #
Doc~
Thank you for your insight, courage, and commitment to Christ as well as rationality! I praise God for Summit Ministries… and continue to use it’s resources to help in my ministry with Campus Crusade at NCSU. Homosexuality is one of the biggest issues/questions students are asking about and wrestling with today. Please continue speaking the truth and praying for them!
~Michelle
April 01, 2010 // 05:03 pm // #
I have been a life/health underwriter for over 30 years so i work with the facts…one does not have to look only to moral or religious implications of this lifestyle….read the CDC’s reality check…...this is where the fight must be waged…as a public health disaster…..
C D C F A C T S H E E T
1
MARCH 2010
HIV and AIDS among Gay and Bisexual Men
Gay and bisexual men — referred to in CDC surveillance systems as men who have sex with men (MSM)1 — of all races continue to be the risk group most severely affected by HIV. Additionally, this is the only risk group in the U.S. in which the annual number of new HIV infections is increasing. There is an urgent need to expand access to proven HIV prevention interventions for gay and bisexual men, as well as to develop new approaches to fight HIV in this population.
A Snapshot
t MSM account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated 532,000 total persons).
t MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).
t While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).
t MSM is the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.
1 The term men who have sex with men is used in CDC surveillance systems. It indicates the behaviors that transmit HIV infection, rather than how individuals self-identify in terms of their sexuality.Black MSM White MSM Black Heterosexual Women Black Female IDUs Hispanic Heterosexual Women White Heterosexual Women Black Male IDUs Hispanic MSM Black Heterosexual Men 13,230 10,130 5,360 7,340 3,290 2,310 2,010 1,910 1,470 number of new hiv infections subpopulation 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000 Estimates of New HIV Infections, 2006, by Race/Ethnicity, Risk Group, and Gender for the Most Affected U.S. Subpopulations* *Subpopulations representing 2 percent or less of the overall U.S. epidemic are not reflected in this chart. Gay and bisexual men of all races and black heterosexuals account for the greatest number of new HIV infections in the United States. C D C F A C T S H E E T 2 MARCH 2010
t According to the latest estimates, white MSM represent a greater number of new HIV infections than any other population, followed closely by black MSM — who are one of the most disproportionately affected subgroups in the U.S.
t The primary ages at which MSM become infected differ by race:
• Young Black MSM: Most new infections among black MSM occur among young black MSM. In fact, there are more new HIV infections among young black MSM (aged 13–29) than among any other age and racial group of MSM. The number of new infections among black MSM in this age group is roughly twice that of their white and Hispanic counterparts (5,220 infections in blacks vs. 3,330 among whites and 2,300 among Hispanics).
• White MSM in their 30s and 40s: Most new infections among white MSM occur among those aged 30–39 (4,670), followed by those aged 40–49 (3,740).
• Young Hispanic MSM: Among Hispanic MSM, most new infections occur in the youngest (13–29) age group (2,300), though a substantial number of new HIV infections also occur among those aged 30–39 (1,870).
t A study of MSM in five U.S. cities found extremely high levels of infection among MSM, and many of those infected did not know it.
• Overall, one in four MSM participating in the study was infected. Black MSM were twice as likely to be infected with HIV than other MSM.
• Among all of those who were infected, about half were unaware of their HIV status. Results were particularly alarming for black MSM and young MSM, with more than two-thirds of infected black MSM, and nearly 80 percent of infected young MSM (aged 18–24), unaware that they were infected.
t AIDS continues to claim the lives of too many MSM. Since the beginning of the epidemic, more than 274,000 MSM with AIDS have died.White Black Hispanic†13–29 30–39 40–49 >50 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 – Estimated Number* of New HIV Infections in Men Who Have Sex with Men, by Race/Ethnicity and Age Group, United States, 2006 * Incidence estimates are adjusted for reporting delays and reclassification of cases reported without a known risk factor for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) but not for underreporting † Non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks are referred to as white and black, respectively. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity might be of any race Note: The “I” bars denote the data range for each confidence interval C D C F A C T S H E E T 3 MARCH 2010
Complex Factors Increase Risk
t High prevalence of HIV: The high prevalence of HIV among gay and bisexual men means MSM face a greater risk of being exposed to infection with each sexual encounter, especially as they get older. For young black MSM, partnering with older black men (among whom HIV prevalence is high) may also lead to increased risk.
t Lack of knowledge of HIV status: Studies show that individuals who know they are infected take steps to protect their partners. Yet many MSM are unaware of their status and may unknowingly be transmitting the virus to others. Additionally, some MSM may make false assumptions or have inaccurate information about their partner’s HIV status. It is critical to ensure that sexually active MSM get tested for HIV at least annually, or more frequently as needed.
t Complacency about risk: Among young MSM in particular, complacency about HIV may play a key role in HIV risk, since these men did not personally experience the severity of the early AIDS epidemic. Additional challenges for many MSM include maintaining consistently safe behaviors over time, underestimating personal risk, and the false belief that because of treatment advances, HIV is no longer a serious health threat. We must reach each generation of MSM and develop programs that can help MSM remain uninfected throughout the course of their lives.
t Social discrimination and cultural issues: For some MSM, social and economic factors, including homophobia, stigma, and lack of access to health care may increase risk behaviors or be a barrier to receiving HIV prevention services.
t Substance abuse: Some MSM use alcohol and illegal drugs, contributing to increased risk for HIV infection and other STDs. Substance use can increase the risk for HIV transmission through risky sexual behaviors while under the influence and through sharing needles or other injection equipment.
HIV: Protect Yourself
Be smart about HIV. Here’s what you can do to reduce your risk of infection:
Get the facts — Arm yourself with basic information: Are you at risk? How is HIV spread? How can you protect yourself?
Take control — You have the facts; now protect yourself and your loved ones. There are three essential ways to reduce your risk:
1. Don’t have sex (i.e., anal, vaginal or oral)
2. Only have sex (i.e., anal, vaginal or oral) if you’re in a mutually monogamous relationship with a partner you know is not infected
3. Use a condom every time you have anal, vaginal or oral sex. (Correct and consistent use of the male latex condom is highly effective in reducing HIV transmission.)
Put yourself to the test — Knowing your HIV status is a critical step toward stopping HIV transmission, because if you know you are infected, you can take steps to protect your
partners. Also, if you are infected, the sooner you find out, the sooner you can receive life-extending treatment. In fact, CDC recommends that everyone between the ages of 13 and 64 be tested for HIV. Because other STDs can play a role in the acquisition of HIV, knowing whether you are infected with either is critical in reducing your risk for infection. Call 1-800-CDC-INFO or visit http://www.hivtest.org to find HIV and STD testing locations near you. Start talking — Talk to everyone you know about HIV – friends and family, coworkers and neighbors, at work and at places of worship. Have ongoing and open discussions with your partners about HIV testing and risk behaviors. Talking openly about HIV can reduce the stigma that keeps too many from seeking the testing, prevention and treatment services, and support they need. HIV doesn’t have to become part of your life. Each of us can and must be part of the solution. Visit http://www.actagainstaids.org for more information about HIV and what you can do to stop HIV.
If you are a member of the news media and need more information, please visit http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom or contact the News Media Line at CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (404-639-8895 or .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)).
April 01, 2010 // 05:44 pm // #
A homosexual in a Christian organization approached our son with strong sexual advances. A lawyer has told me that i may not give this information to the Christian organization that this person works for without expecting serious legal repercussions. Still I think the leader of this organization should know that one of their staff is battling homosexual lust, probably from former lifestyle. Any ideas on how I can proceed with this??
Jane
April 27, 2010 // 02:36 pm // #
MIND Over Glands
The defenders of homosexuality continue the oxymoron contradiction of attempting to use the mind to justify the rule of carnal glands.
Thinking Americans still don’t give ‘a tinkers-sham’ what homosexuals do with their body-parts. An individual or a society which is by law and tradition committed to the natural human hierarchy of mind over body will not, however, ever sanction glandular rule over the human mind.
Undisciplined human desire can induce distorted perception.The disturbed personality or inverted character can be considered to be cognitively confused. This description is confirmed by the work of English psychoanalyst Money-Kyrle, who indicates that it is more accurate to recognize
such a condition as the result of distorted perception.
Neurosis, psychosis, stunting of growth, etc., are all, from this perspective, cognitive diseases contaminating not only perception but thinking, learning, remembering, valuing, and
decision- and choice-making.
Money-Kyrle affirms that scientific truth is not attained by a trendy self-serving fashion, confession of inadequacy, abdication, or collective majority-vote. There is no excuse for
professional ignorance willfully maintained.
By definition, a standard that is flexible is not a standard at all. The human mind requires a standard of comparison that is invariable. A criterion must be greater than the value measured
in order to supply value-meaning in a predictable direction of survival and progression. The mind thus equipped is enabled to maintain a natural dominion over the body and its appetites. The very survival of the body itself, therefore, depends upon this maintained intellectual authority. Romans 8:6
Our posterity cannot respect what it does not perceive, and it cannot perceive that which has been abandoned or inverted to an appetite of physical expediency by the equivocal person.
With confidence in the laws of human nature, we can know that in the clash between carnality and intellect, the ‘man of the mind’ will always prevail.
That is nature and GOD’s way and intent all along.
“No one is smarter than their criteria.” selah jfb
Jim Baxter
Teacher - 30 years
pointman/follower of The Lion of Judah + + +
Carrollton, TX
semper fidelis
Sgt. USMC
WWII & Korean War
April 28, 2010 // 06:11 am // #
Q: “Can government validate what nature does not?”
The priority of ideas and behavior is what this disagreement is all about. The rule of the mind - or its submission to carnal, unnatural priorities, appetites, choices, and behavior - and their unhealthy consequences.
Nature, itself, invalidates homosexual actions for there is neither mechanistic justification nor optional validation by consent under the laws of nature. [Often referred to by some as “a Darwinian dead-end.”] To state otherwise is to give a perverse and simpleton voice to glands - not to powers of reason and its implicit tools of criteria and standards; tools which equip the human family with the ability to measure and anticipate consequences and thereby avoid some choices and choose others conducive to the healthy results of survival and progression.
The rule of the glands prioritizes such appetites at the expense of the kingdom of the mind and its inevitable recession as evidenced in every society of history past.
Should a branch of government attempt to validate what nature itself does not? Does “government criteria” equip us with the wisdom of vision for future generations? Lacking standards and their enablement, can we recognize - with foresight - the regression of our environment as thinking/choicemaking beings? Nature and History say, “No.” Instead, we will become throw-back creatures of an insatiable, grunting, lascivious, and unnatural conduct.
Can anyone doubt that homosexuals, even in defining themselves primarily by their sexual appetite, reveal an unbalanced obsession with the carnal rather than the mental? Such desires can and do distort perception and judgment; principles and standards have minor or non- meaning for a those whose decisions are dominated by physical appetites triggered by glandular secretions—not ideas.
In homosexuality, civilization rightly sees the threat of an anti-standards, anti-mind, anti-survival perversion of human nature. Seen against the background of history and nature, terms like “deviant,’ “perverse,” “weird,” and “aberrant,” are not epithets, then, but appropriate descriptions of homosexual behavior. Calling a homosexual “gay” is, in fact, an inhumane act, for it substitutes a platitude for the first requirement of healing such psychological cripples: objective recognition of their condition.
Additionally, many of today’s psychiatrists have unscientifically finalized and capitulated to an illness they have ignorantly misunderstood; mis-applying a public confession of inadequacy and accomodation for sound diagnosis, treatment, relief and cure. Recall that “True science knows No Final Answers - only on-going questions.”
Human experience is a kingdom of the mind and standards are its tools of measure and foresight. The public has the right and the obligation to set those standards and and to reject the abnormal and aberrant in the interest of posterity. On the larger loom of history, the struggle we are engaged in is but one more between the thoughtfully rational and civilized and the carnal barbarian. Nature is speaking with its constant and authoritative voice. Our temporary elected representatives would do well to pay attention.
We will, as citizens, teachers, and parents, continue to be attentive to that voice and maintain our transcendent support to ‘the man of the mind’—and of the spirit.
nO ONE IS SMARTER THAN THEIR CRITERIA. selah
April 28, 2010 // 01:48 pm // #
Hi all,
I’m a Bible-believing Christian, but I am having a hard time understanding why gay/lesbian marriage should be illegal. YES, homosexuality is wrong. Yes, it is an insult to God. Yes, it is a sinful lifestyle. However, our country is supposed to be a free-religion country, and although homosexuality is wrong, that does not mean that non-believers accept this. Our government should not be involved in marriage, period! If we can force our faith on those who do have not accepted Christ (yet!), then in coming years, the gay lobby may be able to force their lifestyle on us! Since we have ignored the first amendment by passing laws against homosexual marriage, the more radical gays and lesbians may be able to do the same in the future! Any thoughts or comments appreciated.
May 05, 2010 // 10:09 am // #
I just read Mr. Noebel’s article entitled Willow Creek’s delusion about ‘social justice’. I’m alittle confused. The bastion of conservative thought, The Heritage Program has a program called Seek Social Justice that aims to teach conservatives how to do social justice. My question is. Is social justice right, or wrong? Is it left or right? Is it red letter Christians or The Heritage Foundation? Or is it really as it seems to be, a biblical command found in over 300 verses in the Old and New testaments?
May 17, 2010 // 03:29 pm // #
Jim Baxter,
The idea that there is any difference between carnal and mental and that somehow the carnal impairs the mental is ridiculous. We perceive all sensations through our mind. Therefore limiting what we allow ourselves to sense can only limit the amount of information going to our mind and limit the amount of things we can think about and therefore limit our knowledge.
The carnal and the mental further each other, do not harm each other. You can learn from what you pick up in your senses, it gives you more to think about, and more to learn, not less.
This is an oppressive idea that gained traction and support by rulers since ancient times because it made the population easier to control. If through law or even just taboo people are limited in what senses they are allowed to engage they are limited in thought too. The same regimes that preached a false distinction between “carnal” and “mental” also clamped down on any dissent, so even while they praised “mental” or “spiritual” pleasures and activities they also limited those and even tried to tie views they didn’t like to “carnality”.
This false dichotomy also keeps “rebels” who embrace carnality thinking that “mental” indulgences are elitist, so many refuse to engage their mind. This limits the understanding that can be gained from the senses, and also keeps the more rebellious in society from thinking of ways to take positive action to change society, instead tending them to prefer to seek isolation.
At the same time those showing high intellect are taught from a young age that “carnal” indulgences are for the stupid and so this limits them so that the rulers can mold and use their intelligence to further their own interests. This way they keep the more carnal and more intellectual members of society from putting their heads together and sharing what they know because this would undermine their power.
Since the two are ultimately the same the most carnal and the most intellectual can never be brainwashed in this way. Pursuing the one far enough always leads to the conclusion that the other is complementary instead of limiting.
The reason “homosexuality” has become more acceptable over time is because people meet homosexuals and realize that people who indulge this “carnal” pleasure are not any stupider or less mentally fit than anyone else. The ruling class is slowly trying to save itself from having its charade exposed. People realizing that this “carnal” thing is not destructive of mental things will question the entire division of “carnal” and “mental” unless at least some elements of the ruling class put forth the idea that “homosexuality” is “different” from the other carnal pleasures.
May 18, 2010 // 04:06 am // #
Parts of a person’s body have a sequential value and purpose - they are different. They are not the same.
Mind is the proper instrument for the use of criteria - not ‘feelings’ of the body. The body has limited resource to anticipate consequences of choices - and no better than its pre-chosen criteria. Lacking ruling mind and criteria, the body produces mediocrity and worse.
And always; the need for self-justification.
“The carnal mind is death.” Romans 8
No one is smarter than their criteria. jfb
May 18, 2010 // 08:56 am // #
@Jim Baxter
following your train of thought, is buttsex between a husband and wife biblically moral?
May 18, 2010 // 12:13 pm // #
“Experience keeps a dear school, but
fools will learn in no other.”
- Benjamin Franklin
No one is smarter than their criteria.” jfb
May 18, 2010 // 12:15 pm // #
so does that mean I have to experience buttsex to know that answer?
May 24, 2010 // 07:18 am // #
As Ben said, it all depends on whether the choicemaker is a fool or not.
Obviously, you lack criteria that rises higher than pubic hair.
No one is smarter than their criteria.
May 24, 2010 // 10:09 pm // #
Luckily, I’m flexible enough to taste my criteria.
August 12, 2010 // 08:39 am // #
Claiming that open homosexuality will destroy the strong moral backbone of our military is a fair opinion if there was a moral backbone left to speak of!
We’ve heard stories of soldiers shooting at “haji” from their trucks with no regard for their possible innocence.
We’ve seen homevideos of soldiers, who are high on military prescribed psychoactives and whatever illegal substances can be scrounged up, barging into houses with women and children, harassing and acting like jackasses.
We would be naive ignore that all sorts of strictly immoral HETEROsexual activity is PROBABLY going on as diseases are passed around. (As a socially acceptable sexual orientation its more probable that this will go on than homosexual sex will)
We’ve heard of men who’ve come back from combat unable to see any sort of redemptive reason for us to be at war. In need of psychatric help and counseling they are often abandoned by their former superiors and self-medicate with illegal drugs and get into all kinds of trouble.
I’ll even mention the Abu-Ghraib travesty… lest we forget.
Those who interpret the Bible to condemn homosexuality have done so honestly and convincingly. But just because they think homosexuality is evil doesn’t mean it will be the greatest evil to face the military.
I am, sadly, very able to believe the voices of soldiers and ex-soldiers speaking to the evil disregard for innocent lives that many of their peers have displayed in these two wars. Far less feasible is some cross dressing, grotesque, caricature of a homosexual rising to the rank of general and sabotaging our hopes abroad.
Maybe there will be some high ranking gay servicepeople some day…. do we really have to hold the archaic concern that they will be squealing, foppish, and irrational? Certainly not!
Will they be nymphomaniac, unrestrained, petri dishes of STD’s??? NO!
Aren’t there other things to worry about here?
September 02, 2010 // 04:37 am // #
It may become the same extreme as with women and black people. Give them an inch and they’ll take a whole ell.
September 02, 2010 // 10:14 pm // #
Many colleges have started fast tracks courses on internet and in many colleges. Even they are actually human being it just that they express themselves in public which is against
October 12, 2010 // 12:30 am // #
Thank you so very much for posting…Sometimes it really helps to have an opinion coming from a totally different source, To some extent it really opened my eyes to some major issues…
October 12, 2010 // 06:55 am // #
You can justify anything in the Bible by picking and choosing scripture to support your side of an argument. You crazy people continue to justify yourselves using the old testament, how about upholding some of these crazy laws aye? You can defend anything with the right Scripture.
Examples of Crazy Shit in the Bible:
Deuteronomy 22:28-30 “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”
Leviticus 21:9 “And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.”
Exodus 21:7-8 “And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he doesn’t designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her.”
“Ephesians 5:22-2: Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”
Slavery:
“Leviticus 25:44-45: Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.”
“Exodus 21:20-21: If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”
Colossians 3:22 “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.”
Exodus 21:28 “If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible.”
and
Exodus 21:29 “If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death.”
and
Exodus 21:32 “If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned. (but not to death)”
You can defend anything with the right Scripture.
Crazy shit, huh?
October 12, 2010 // 09:18 am // #
Bryan Buchan,
Your “crazy **** ” has more to do with a lack of understanding of the Bible than anything else.
Let’s see what Jesus, Himself, says about marriage: “... at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one.” (Mark 10:6-8)
March 31, 2011 // 04:19 am // #
I think it’s totally fine that gays keep everything open. Life is suppose to be about freedom and if gays want to come out, it’s completely fine.
July 08, 2011 // 02:21 pm // #
The Gospel sets people free, the freedom in Christ is key, It is a heart problem indeed, the natural order dictates the solution from the early days of creation.
Separation of State and Church or Church and State could be the culprit here but even denominations now permit the happening in certain churches. A good dose of the Love of Jesus and common sense should reign supreme. The constitution give the right to speak but there is a higher law in the New Covenant given us by Jesus.