My Notes from the June 2013 Hall County GOP Meeting

Speaker: Doug Collins, 9^th district Congressman:

• Recent scandals are popping out like candy from a Pez dispenser
• Immigration bill in the House will look nothing like what’s coming from the Senate
• “If Obamacare starts next January, we’ll probably never get rid of it.”
• Congress was not fully briefed on NSA program (in other words, Obama lied)
• Very close to having a vote on the Fair Tax in Ways and Means Committee (for the first time ever!)
• A Flat Tax is also on the table (there’s a little more support for a Flat Tax than the Fair Tax)
• Georgia 9^th is the number two strongest GOP district in the country

 

Speaker: Kris Yardley, Hall County GOP chairman

• Truth has gone out the window in this administration
• GOP needs to hone its message: American Communist Party has over 2 million email contacts—National Republican Party has less than 150,000
• GOP needs to halt internal fighting—sometimes simply agreeing to disagree while focusing on the real battle

Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason
www.trevorgrantthomas.com

The Boy Scout's Next Capitulation

To encourage his demonic protégé, Screwtape explained to Wormwood, “It does not matter how small the sins are, provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into the Nothing…Indeed, the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.”

With the Boy Scouts of America’s (B.S.A.) decision to allow young gays into their ranks, another signpost warning against the sin of homosexuality has been removed.

In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts had the Constitutional right to exclude gay members. This was because, as the Court concluded, opposition to homosexuality is part of the organization’s “expressive message.” Part of the Scout Oath states that Scouts will keep themselves “physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.” The Majority opinion in the 2000 ruling noted that the Scouts “teach that homosexual conduct is not morally straight,” and that it does “not want to promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior.”

In his dissent of the 2000 Supreme Court decision, Justice John Paul Stevens declared, “it is plain as the light of day that neither one of these principles—‘morally straight’ and ‘clean’ [a reference to the Scout Law]—says the slightest thing about homosexuality.” It seems that the Boy Scouts have now surrendered that “expressive message” and agree with such an abhorrent and morally ignorant conclusion.

As Al Mohler warned prior to the B.S.A. vote, surrendering this core conviction “is both a legal and moral disaster.” For example, with their “expressive message” now compromised, how now can the Scouts argue legally to prevent the inclusion of homosexual leaders? The 2000 case against the B.S.A. was brought by an assistant Scoutmaster of a New Jersey troop, James Dale.

In 1990, while a student at Rutgers University, Dale gave an interview to a local paper that revealed he was gay. B.S.A. officials got wind of Dale’s interview and expelled him from his position in the Scouts. On the advice of counsel, Dale wrote to the Boy Scouts asking why he was expelled. The B.S.A. replied that they “specifically forbid membership to homosexuals.” Thus the B.S.A. has now lost the whole crux of their argument that led to the 2000 ruling.

What’s more, as so often is the case when one begins to ignore moral absolutes, the Boy Scouts have opened themselves up to further moral erosion. After decades of battles leading to, among other things, the reversal of laws against sodomy, broad cultural acceptance, and marital rights, the homosexual agenda has (tragically) made significant progress. Now we get to face the ascension of another perversion that has long been “married” to the homosexual movement: transgenderism.

One of the most significant events that launched the homosexual movement occurred in 1973. That was the year that the American Psychiatric Association (APA), by a vote of 5,834 to 3,810, removed homosexuality as a disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). About two weeks ago the fifth edition of the DSM was published. Guess what was not in it? That’s right: gender identity disorder.

It was removed last year because, as the Associated Press recently put it, “a growing faction of medical experts who no longer see this as something to be fixed.” Not that the APA has a great track record when it comes to what needs “to be fixed.” As I referenced a few weeks ago, much of the DSM is simply made-up nonsense to (try to) help us make sense of what is evil. However, just as with homosexuality, by a simple vote, the APA lets us know what we no longer need to consider evil.

The Associated Press reveals, “Some experts predict that views on gender will evolve in much the same way they have for sexual orientation…Today, the gender spectrum includes those who are transgender, who see themselves as the opposite gender, and those who are gender variant, or gender nonconforming, whose gender is more ‘fluid.’ For kids, it means they identify part of themselves as boy and part as girl.”

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have granted legal rights to “transgender” people. In Colorado, the parents of a 6-year-old boy, who now, supposedly, wants to be a girl, are suing their school district for not allowing him to use the girls’ bathroom. Radical Massachusetts laws are requiring schools to allow students who “identify” as the opposite sex to use whichever bathroom, locker room, and sports teams they choose.

In addition, the Massachusetts law (ironically!) allows no tolerance for students who are uncomfortable with the transgender directives. They are to be “re-educated,” says pro-family advocate Brian Camenker.

Thus, how long will it be before the Boy Scouts are again in court? This time it will be a couple (probably same-sex) who wants their young girl—who has decided that she wants to be a boy—in the name of “tolerance” to be able to join the Boy Scouts. However, the fight won’t last 23 years in this case. After all, the next moral compromise will be easier than the previous one.

Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com

My Guest Appearance on Silvio Canto's Talk Radio Show:

Boy Scouts & the state of modern liberalism 05/28 by Silvio Canto Jr | Blog Talk Radio

Living With Liberalism: Gays, Graduations, and Swedish Meatheads

One doesn’t have to look far to witness the disaster that is modern liberalism. Sadly, leading the debauchery is the Boy Scouts of America. For over 100 years the Scouts have operated under the oath: “On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.” That oath has now been rendered meaningless and the Boy Scouts, as we knew it, is dead.

Yesterday, in historic infamy, over 1,400 members of the Boy Scouts national council voted (by a 61% to 39% margin) to allow openly homosexual boys into its ranks. As USA Today noted, “Since 1991 the Scouts have barred openly gay individuals from participating in Scouting because it was decided that being gay was incompatible with being ‘morally straight.’” So now, all of a sudden being “morally straight” doesn’t necessarily mean being sexually straight.

As is so typical with liberalism, whenever there’s a moral standard you want to change, just be persistent, loud, and threatening. It only took about 22 years with the Boy Scouts.

Persistent liberalism has worn down Dekalb County (in Georgia). For years now, atheist organizations have sought to get high school graduations out of area churches. In 2010, a federal judge ruled (based on a lawsuit brought against a Connecticut high school) that holding high school graduation ceremonies at a church was unconstitutional, and ordered the Enfield (CT) school board to find an alternative venue.

In recent years schools in Georgia have faced boycotts from atheist students and threats from atheist organizations for holding graduations in churches. This year, Dekalb County GA decided that the fight wasn’t worth it. They have decided to pull all graduations out of local churches. This is in spite of the fact that alternative venues are often not as convenient or as equipped to hold such events.

Then there is Sweden. For days now Sweden has suffered nighttime riots at the hands of unruly youths. The young thugs have set dozens of fires, targeting many cars and even a school. As reported by RT.com news, “Community leaders insist that a main reason for the violence is the high rate of unemployment in immigrant communities, particularly in the suburb of Husby near central Stockholm, one of the worst affected by the nighttime violence.”

Using very sound liberal logic, Swedish Democrats MP Kent Ekeroth stated, “In Sweden you’ve got welfare, access to the educational system – up to university level, you got access to public transport, libraries, healthcare – to everything. And still they feel that they [immigrants] need to riot through stones and Molotov cocktails. It’s ridiculous and a bad excuse.”

Apparently it has escaped many Swedes that, when you promote a culture of entitlement, those on the receiving end are likely to erupt when they don’t get everything they expect. Ingrid Carlqvist, editor in chief of the Swedish Dispatch International concluded, “The problem is not from the Swedish government or from the Swedish people. The last 20 years or so, we have seen so many immigrants coming to Sweden that really don’t like Sweden. They do not want to integrate, they do not want to live in [Swedish] society: Working, paying taxes and so on.”

In a moment of mental clarity, Carlqvist added, “The people come here now because they know that Sweden will give them money for nothing. They don’t have to work, they don’t have to pay taxes – they can just stay here and get a lot of money. That is really a problem.” Yes it is! Carlqvist is correct, however, the environment that has produced this “money for nothing” culture is a result of the liberal policies favored by the Swedish people and their politicians. Thus, the Swedes bear the responsibility for creating such a liberal haven.

Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com

What Gave Us Gosnell

The surest way for sin to prosper is for a culture to stop calling it sin. Given the rapidly decaying culture in the U.S., I could proceed in a myriad of directions following such a conclusion. However, in America the foremost example of the rotten fruit born of neglected sin is Kermit Gosnell.

In case you missed it—which is very likely, given the way the mainstream media had to be dragged kicking and screaming into covering Gosnell’s trial (after Gosnell’s guilt was pronounced, 56 days since the trial began, ABC News finally broke its silence!)—Gosnell was found guilty of, among hundreds of other things, first degree murder in the cases of three babies born alive after botched abortions.

If you’ve paid any attention at all, you know the gruesome details: “snipped” necks, frozen body parts, tiny arms and legs stored in jars, and so on. For decades, while earning millions of dollars, Gosnell and his associates butchered women and children alike.

No one should be surprised that the culture in America produced a Kermit Gosnell. After decades of lies from the abortion industry and its willing cohorts within the liberal media and Democrat party (along with “pro-choice” Republicans like Governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania—where Gosnell performed his butchery), millions of Americans were led to believe that, after sperm fertilizes egg, what grows inside a woman’s body was not a life, but a “choice.” Such blatant disregard for sound morality, sound science, and plain common sense produced Gosnell’s “House of Horrors.”

After weeks of a trial that revealed a shocking callousness for both the born and the unborn and after 10 days of jury deliberations, during which speculation of the verdict abounded, there was plenty of time for all of America to see the truth when it comes to abortion and the ghastly practices that occur in abortion clinics. Yet following the announcement of Gosnell’s guilt, like a toddler with his fingers in his ears, abortion apologists such as The New York Times continued with their propaganda.

Before being caught, called out, and subsequently editing its online article, six times The Times referred to Gosnell’s young victims as “fetuses.” Early in the article The Times noted, “The verdict came after a five-week trial in which the prosecution and the defense battled over whether the fetuses Dr. Gosnell was charged with killing were alive when they were removed from their mothers.”

In March of this year, a representative from Planned Parenthood (PP) Florida testified before the Florida legislature. The legislators were considering a bill that would require abortionists to provide medical care to a child born alive as a result of an abortion attempt. In a rare moment of candor from the culture of death (to borrow from Al Mohler), the PP representative endorsed the position under which Gosnell himself operated: the “right” to kill a baby born alive.

Stunned, Rep. Jim Boyd wanted clarification. “So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Boyd. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?” PP lobbyist Alisa Snow replied, “We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”

Writing for Salon.com early this year, pro-abortionist Mary Elizabeth Williams declared that it is time for the abortion industry and its supporters to stop playing games when it comes to life. “So what if abortion ends a life,” she concludes. She explains: “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.”

Given such a climate, it is unsurprising that Gosnell’s attorney blamed the verdict on the “baby factor.” He did not elaborate as to his meaning, but given the perverted sense of life that many in our culture have developed, there is little surprise that the lawyer for an abortionist would choose to slander the use of the word “baby” when it comes not only to describing the unborn, but even children outside the womb.

Words matter. In a recent interview for The Atlantic, psychotherapist Gary Greenberg notes the many problems with modern psychiatry. Mostly he points out how, through the very political and subjective Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, modern psychiatry has attempted to gain medical relevance. In this process, Greenberg notes we have eliminated the moral aspect behind certain behaviors. He rightly concludes, “This society is very wary of using the term ‘evil.’” Not being able to call evil “evil” is how we end up with Kermit Gosnell.

Also, in this case (as with every such abortion) distance (mere inches) matters. As pointed out on The Hill, “The murder case against Gosnell rests entirely on the location of the victim (in inches, mind you) at the time of death, not in the fact that the victim was killed. The main difference between Gosnell and other abortion doctors is that he couldn’t get the job done before the baby came out. He tried doing it like his peers at Planned Parenthood—the industry leader which is worthy of half a billion dollars annually in tax-payer funds.”

Further illustrating America’s moral decay, when it comes to protecting children who survive an abortion, no less than the man most recently elected (twice!) President of the U.S., Barack Hussein Obama himself, advocated a position that differs little from Gosnell’s. As World Net Daily put it, “Fundamental to Gosnell’s argument was that severing the spinal cord of a baby who survived an abortion was not infanticide.”

In 2001, the Illinois legislature took up a bill that was patterned after the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA). Then state senator Obama voted against the bill in committee. On the floor of the Illinois Senate, he later gave the only speech against the bill, saying, “I mean, it—it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.”

In 2003, even after a “neutrality clause” was added to the Illinois bill that made it virtually identical to the federal BAIPA that unanimously passed both houses of the U.S. Congress and was signed into law by President Bush, Obama chaired an Illinois Senate committee and led the Democrats on that committee to kill the amended bill.

What can one conclude about a nation that elects such a man its leader? For one thing, as I already noted, the fact that a Kermit Gosnell exists should come as no surprise to any American. Secondly, until this nation sees abortion for what it really is, the next Kermit Gosnell is just around the corner.

Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason
www.trevorgrantthomas.com

Boycott Mike Lupica?

Ah yes, where better to get insightful and intelligent social commentary than from George Costanza’s favorite sports writer. ESPN’s Mike Lupica just couldn’t help himself when it came to the recent NRA convention in Houston. In his column yesterday  he managed to insult not only NRA members, Sarah Palin, and Wayne LaPierre, but millions of gun-loving Americans as well.

Sounding as if he were describing himself, Lupica writes that the NRA convention attendees are “mean, dumb” and “angry.” He painted those who cheered the comments of Sarah Palin as “phonies” and said that all Palin did was “turn herself out for the craziest and creepiest gun lovers on the planet.”

Lupica assailed Governor Palin’s supposed “spectacular lack of talent [that] has made her virtually unemployable on television.” He attacked LaPierre as “nothing more than a cheap, dangerous demagogue, constantly trying to act as if he and an association that represents an amazingly small percentage of gun owners in this country are the ones who represent the heart and soul of America…LaPierre isn’t a patriot, he’s a pimp.”

Lost in his own hypocrisy, Lupica laments the “politicizing” of recent American tragedies in Boston and Newtown. Yet in mid-January of this year, a Lupica piece urging action on gun-control legislation contained, in the title of the piece no-less, the phrase “for the families of Newtown, before the moment is lost.”

At the top of the fold on Drudge today is a headline pondering whether Rush Limbaugh is going to depart WABC. Much of the speculation about Rush’s future is due to an incident last year where he, on air, called Sandra Fluke a “slut” because of her efforts speaking before the U.S. Congress in favor of mandated health coverage for birth control.

The liberal media went nuts and pressed advertisers to drop his show. According to the New York Daily News (where Lupica is also employed), several hundred—including Sears, Geico, John Deere, Netflix, and Capital One—complied. Rush’s people claim that the advertisers that left were replaced. Nevertheless, there is some tension here.

Now here’s the real question. Will advertisers for the sporting giant that is ESPN get the same kind of pressure over Lupica’s comments—which insult millions—as did Rush’s advertisers? Will there be calls for ESPN to fire Lupica?

Is calling someone a slut worse than calling them “mean, dumb, phony pimps?” I mean, how much difference is there between a slut and a pimp? I guess the liberal media will let us know.

 

Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason
www.trevorgrantthomas.com

Radical Christianity vs. Radical Islam

Finally, Bill Maher got something right. Following the Boston bombings, Maher responded to Brian Levy, the director of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University in San Bernardino (a great example of needed reforms in public higher education), “[T]here's only one faith, for example, that kills you or wants to kill you if you draw a bad cartoon of the prophet. There’s only one faith that kills you or wants to kill you if you renounce the faith.”

There you have it. Even a flaming atheist can recognize the difference between a religion of peace and one full of bloodlust. The Tsarnaevs are just the most recent example of the tragic bitter fruit produced by radical Islamists. To further Maher’s point, consider and contrast the efforts of radical Islamists with those of radical Christians.

Just what is a “radical Christian”? Some might call them (with apologies to DC Talk) “Jesus Freaks.” Examples are all around us and most are virtually unknown outside of their home towns (mainly because they don’t make the news by killing other people). They plant churches, feed the poor, heal the sick; they open orphanages and pregnancy resource centers; they visit prisoners and deliver the oppressed; in other words, they have sold themselves out to be the hands and feet of the One they worship.

Some popular examples would include men like the late Jim Elliot, who served and evangelized the Quechua Indians, even though it cost him his life. Countless Christians have forsaken the comforts of Western civilization to go and fulfill the call of Christ. In other words, Christianity exports its radicals to bring life and hope, while much of Islam does so to bring death and despair.

Radical Christian and Habitat for Humanity founder Millard Fuller and his wife Linda started an organization “that has helped build or repair more than 600,000 houses and served more than 3 million people around the world.” The organization began in 1968, and the Fullers moved to Mbandaka, Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) in 1973 to spread their mission of affordable housing to developing countries.

Meanwhile, Muslims in Pakistan recently burned nearly 200 Christian homes over the alleged blasphemy against Muhammad by a Christian sanitation worker. Coptic Christians continue to suffer under the “reforms” taking place in Egypt. The Coptic minority have been murdered and seen their homes, businesses, and churches looted and burned.

Radical Christians build hospitals. Radical Muslims seek to fill them up. Christians have led the world in caring for the sick and dying among us. As Virginia Health Information notes, “Some of the earliest hospitals existed in ancient Rome in 100 BC as important centers for the emergency care of sick and wounded soldiers. With the spread of Christianity, hospitals grew as part of the church's mission and became part of the community as they tended to health care not only for soldiers but also for all who needed it.”

The first hospital in North America, the Hospital de Jesus Nazareno, was founded by Cortés. The first hospital in the U.S, Pennsylvania Hospital, was founded by a Quaker, Dr. Thomas Bond (with the aid of Benjamin Franklin). The Catholic Church alone operates over 1,100 hospitals and long-term health care facilities in the U.S. What’s more, a 2010 study revealed that Christian hospitals in the U.S. outperform all others.

Radical Christians build schools. The world’s first university, birthed in 1088, was The University of Bologna in Italy. It was founded to teach canon (church) law. The second oldest university, The University of Paris, grew out of the cathedral schools of Notre-Dame and soon became a great center for Christian orthodox studies. Dr. Alvin J. Schmidt, in his book Under the Influence: How Christianity Transformed Civilization, points out that every college established in colonial America, except the University of Pennsylvania, was founded by some denomination of Christianity. He adds that, preceding the Civil War, 92 percent of the 182 colleges and universities in the U.S. were established by some branch of the church.

Radical Muslims attack young girls who merely want an education. In 2012 Taliban forces in Afghanistan were responsible for what was described as “an intentional act to poison schoolgirls.” More than 150 girls in northeastern Afghanistan suffered in the attack. “Every day [in fact, just the other day], you hear that somebody's thrown acid at a girl's face ... or they poison their water,” bemoaned the founder of a girls school outside Kabul.

According to the U.N., there were nearly 200 attacks on schools and hospitals in Afghanistan in 2011. In addition, radical Islamists also attack administrators who don’t conform to their ideas of what constitutes a proper education. According to Reuters, “Radical Muslims burst into a Tunisian school…and assaulted [nearly killing] its chief after he barred entry to a teenage girl wearing a niqab.”

Car bombs detonated by Muslim radicals have killed dozens in Somalia and Nigeria this year alone. Just last month, Muslim suicide bombers in Pakistan and Syria killed well over 100 people. Whether it’s bombing, burning, beheading, hacking, poisoning, or shooting, the list of Muslim violence is long and obscene.

Of course, the proper Christian response to such violence is never revenge. (However, justice is another matter.) As we look to be salt and light to those outside of Christianity—whether they be violent, mocking, or merely apathetic—we must never forget that Christ came, not to destroy lives, but to save them. This is why, when it comes to comparing radical Christians to radical Islamists, there is no comparison.



Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason
www.trevorgrantthomas.com

How the Founders Would View Same-Sex Marriage

In the ongoing debate on the definition of marriage, I have made it clear more than once that both sides are making a moral argument, and it is futile for anyone to decry the “legislating of morality.” I have also made it clear that, whether the issue is marriage or homosexuality, and whether one appeals to Scripture, Natural Law, or science, the morally superior position lies with the conservative Christian views on these matters.

 

When I ask a liberal upon what moral authority he relies when he reaches his pro-homosexual/same-sex marriage conclusions, inevitably the answer is the U.S. Constitution. No doubt, throughout our history, in order to further the pagan liberal agenda, liberal jurists have “interpreted” the U.S. Constitution nearly beyond recognition.

 

Thus, displays of the Ten Commandments on public property are ruled to violate the Constitution, while businesses peddling pornography are seen to be protected by it. When ruling on a matter pertaining to the Constitution, courts ultimately will rely on the words and deeds (though often rather selectively) of our Founders as evidence to the correct interpretation of the words of the Constitution.

 

One would have to have been raised by squirrels (or be a cast member of an MTV reality program) to be an adult in the U.S. and not at least have heard of the “Separation of Church and State.” In declaring government religious (mainly Christian) expression unconstitutional, the courts refer to the First Amendment, and they interpret that amendment through the words of Thomas Jefferson in a letter that he penned to the Danbury Baptists, which declared “a wall of separation between Church and State.”

 

For over 70 years, time and again U.S. courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have referenced Jefferson’s “Wall” in order to restrict religious (almost exclusively Christian) expression in America. Thus, as we weigh and debate marriage in the U.S., it would be an ironic travesty not to consider the words and deeds of our Founders as we draw our legal conclusions.

 

I submit (with sad and stunning trepidation that such a submission is even necessary) that not one single Founder would give the notion that marriage is anything other than the union of one man and one woman more than a half-second’s thought before (rightly) concluding that such an idea is either a terrible joke or spoken by a lunatic.

 

First of all, forget marriage; the idea that homosexuality should be considered normal and acceptable behavior would be deemed a wicked and ridiculous conclusion by our Founders. Under British law, sodomy was a capital crime. Sir William Blackstone, as I noted recently, was a favorite English jurist of our Founders, and his Commentaries on the Laws of England served as the basis of legal jurisprudence in America.

 

As David Barton remarks, “In addressing sodomy (homosexuality), [Blackstone] found the subject so reprehensible that he was ashamed even to discuss it.” Nevertheless, Blackstone declared:

 

“What has been here observed…the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished….I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy]…A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: …(where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments).

 

“THIS the voice of nature and of reason, and the express law of God, determine to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance, long before the Jewish dispensation, by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven: so that this is an universal, not merely a provincial, precept.”

 

Following the same moral precepts, each of the original 13 colonies treated homosexuality as a serious criminal offense. Jefferson himself authored such a law for the state of Virginia, prescribing that the punishment for sodomy was to be castration. (You think modern courts will look to this for guidance?)

 

New York’s law read, “That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead.”

 

Connecticut’s law read, “That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death.” Georgia’s law (surprisingly—at least for today’s liberals) did not call for the death penalty, but stated, “Sodomy . . . shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th[is] detestable crime.”

 

General George Washington dealt, at least once, directly with the issue of homosexual behavior in the Continental Army. A lieutenant Enslin was tried and convicted of attempting to commit sodomy with John Monhort, a soldier. The ruling declares, “His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return.”

 

Liberals should not bother with the “but the Founders supported slavery” argument. First of all, many Founders did not support slavery, and it was hotly debated at our founding and beyond. (Also, it should be noted that it was Bible-believing Christians who led the abolition movement.) This is certainly not the case when it comes to homosexual behavior. Secondly, one can’t appeal to the Founders only when it is convenient.

 

It is also noteworthy that the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (the Fourteenth Amendment being ratified in 1868) did nothing to prevent all 50 U.S. states, including each state that entered the union after 1868, from enacting laws against homosexual behavior. As recently as 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state in the U.S.

 

In other words, for nearly 200 years and without any Constitutional conflictions or any serious debate, homosexual behavior in America was seen as immoral and therefore illegal. Thus, we see that the Founders do nothing but support the traditional (biblical) view of marriage.

 

Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.

www.trevorgrantthomas.com

The Pagan Roots of Same-Sex Marriage (Yesterday's Pagans are Today's Liberals!)

In order to understand properly how we’ve gotten where we are when it comes to marriage and the homosexual agenda, one must first understand that this drastic change from long-held attitudes towards sexuality and family is not as sudden as it appears. Our obsession with sex and the attacks on the City of God (as Augustine put it) did not begin with the 1960s sexual revolution in America.

For millennia human beings have sought to shed the tenets of our Creator and go our own way. This is especially true when it comes to our sexuality. Much of the history of ancient Israel, as described by the Old Testament, included the struggle of the Jewish people with idolatry, false gods, and sexual immorality. Chief among these false gods which often drew Israel away from the God of Abraham was Baal.

Baal was the proper name for the most significant god in the Canaanite pantheon. When the judges ruled Israel, there were altars to Baal in Palestine. During the notorious reign of Ahab and Jezebel the worship of Baal was prolific. In spite of the warnings from the prophets (including the dramatic demonstration on Mt. Carmel by Elijah), the struggle between Baalism and the worship of God continued for centuries.

The worship of Baal included offering of incense and sacrifice—including human sacrifice. However, Baal worship was chiefly marked by fertility rites. It was believed that Baal made the land, animals, and humans fertile. In other words, Baal was seen as the god of “sacred sexuality.” To encourage the god to carry out these functions, worshippers would perform lewd sexual acts. Baal temples were filled with male and female prostitutes for such purposes.

The female consort to Baal was Ashtoreth. This goddess was also associated with sexuality and fertility. The worship of Ashtoreth also included obscene sex acts. Israel forsook the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and served “Baal and the Ashtoreths.” (Judges 2:11-23).

A third rival to the one true God was Molech (or Molek), the god of the Ammonites. The worship of Molech included the fire sacrifice of infant children. Ashtoreth is also seen as the female consort to Molech. Dr. Jeffrey Satinover describes the relationship between the “virgin-whore who copulates and conceives, but does not give birth (Ashtoreth) [and] the god to whom the unwanted offspring of these practices were sacrificed (Molech).”

In the Old Testament, 2 Kings records Josiah, the king of Israel, ordering the destruction of “all the articles made for Baal and Asherah (Ashtoreth)…He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes…[and] the quarters where women did weaving for Asherah.” Josiah also “desecrated Topheth…so no one could use it to sacrifice their son or daughter in the fire to Molek.”

With the rise of abortion (in lieu of sacrificing unwanted children at the altar of a heathen god, we do it in the hygienic atmosphere of a clinic), adultery, divorce, fornication, homosexuality, pornography, prostitution (especially the child sex trade), and so on, modern American culture makes the misled ancient Israelites look rather righteous. The same philosophy that led Israel astray is well at work in the U.S.: paganism.

Occultist, bisexual, and habitual drug user Aleister Crowley described the creed of paganism well: “Do What Thou Wilt.” As Satinover notes, whether expressed openly or tacitly working behind the scenes (with many individuals completely unaware of the philosophy to which they’ve surrendered), pagan principles are quickly coming to dominate our public morality.

The great lure of paganism is that the moral demands are few. Such demands are decided by each individual, and thus we have the chaos that stems from moral relativism. What was once deemed immoral, shameful, and even illegal is now a matter of “civil rights.” Abortion is declared a “right;” marriage is a “right” and thus is defined however it suits an individual; pornography is a matter of “rights,” and on and on.

And once a moral standard is successfully moved away from the truth, the next group that finds itself outside of the standard will look again to move it. Thus we get abortion apologists, such as Planned Parenthood official Alisa Snow who recently testified before the Florida legislature, who can’t even bring themselves to defend an infant born alive as the result of a botched abortion.

Such conclusions are unsurprising, when, as I noted last year, prestigious publications such as the Journal of Medical Ethics, give extreme pagan thought credibility by running articles like “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” which tragically argues that newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life.”

Such fluid morality is also how we go from the decriminalization of sodomy to demands for same-sex marriage. Summing up the pagan position in the current debate over marriage, writing for the Huffington Post, Max Londberg of the University of Oregon asks, “[I]f you love someone enough to tie the knot, then who the expletive is to say you can't do so?”

Also, in 2011 Andrew Viveros was hailed (by the Mainstream Media) as the “first transgender student in the United States to be crowned prom queen at a public school.” Despite being born a boy and having male reproductive organs, Viveros wants to be a girl. Full of pagan pride, and perfectly articulating the pagan creed, Viveros boldly declared, “It's OK to be who you are, it's OK to do what you want to do.”

In other words, the modern pagan has changed little in over 3,000 years. As the book of Judges also records about the ancient Israelites, “everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”

Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.

www.trevorgrantthomas.com

BET is Part of the Problem

Black Entertainment Television (BET) founder Bob Johnson recently angrily lamented the black unemployment rate in the U.S. “This country would never tolerate white unemployment at 14 and 15 percent… somebody’s going to have to pay— 34 million African-Americans are not going to leave this country…Somebody’s going to have to pay for them. Somebody’s going to have to take care of them, and if somebody’s going to have to take care of them that money’s got to come from somebody. And whoever’s paying for it is going to be upset about it, and they’re going to start looking for somebody to blame,” said Johnson.

Johnson recently (late February) commissioned a poll of just over one-thousand black Americans. In spite of lingering high black unemployment, blacks have an overwhelmingly (91%) favorable opinion of President Obama. Though the poll does not ask about democrats in general, blacks, as they have now for decades, continue to vote almost exclusively for democrats.

In other words, in spite of constantly trailing other groups in virtually every economic metric, blacks continue to support a political party and its liberal policies that have significantly contributed to perpetuating poverty within the black community and across the U.S. in general.

The poll also revealed that half of black Americans blamed high black unemployment on the failures of the American education system. While it is good to see blacks acknowledging the failures of America’s public school system, it seems that too many—Bob Johnson included—are blind to the most significant problem within black America: the breakdown of the family.

Today an obscene number—72%—of black children are born to unwed mothers. “The single biggest predictor of poverty is family structure,” wrote Gary Palmer of the Alabama Policy Institute. According to Census data, marriage drops the probability of child poverty by 82%.

Yet what does Bob Johnson’s network glorify and promote? (Though no longer owner or CEO of BET, Johnson is heavily responsible for making BET what it is today.) BET’s programming is replete with sexual, profane, and violent content. BET music videos are especially degrading to women. What’s worse, much of this content is aimed at children and teenagers. Bombarded with such imagery, what are many young black men going to replicate as they mature into adulthood? This is especially true if they don’t have a father in the home to teach (and model for) them the truth.

BET could help fill this void, or, even better, help reduce it. Instead, they are part of the problem.

Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com