Decadence, Morality, and Homosexuality

Also posted here and here.

Someone really has to start keeping me from reading my local newspaper's main section. I'm fine as long as I restrict myself to the sports section, the comics, and the features. But when I delve into the opinion columns and the readers' letters, I likely won't come out without being fired up.

Most of the time, I write a response in my head, and that is enough to satisfy me. But, today, I decided to actually write a rebuttal. I'll post it here and a couple of other places, then perhaps submit it to my newspaper.

First, the original letter:

...America has become decadent.
It has become decadent when the personal, private and harmless activities of two consenting adults are grounds for immorality.
It has become decadent when one faith out of millions blelives that it has a monopoly on whom we may love.
It has become decadent when citizens believe their faith should override all others, ignoring the freedom of thought upon which this country was built.
And it has become decadent when fools cannot follow the teachings of their own religion: "Judge not, lest ye be judged" -- Matthew 7:1.

~Mr. C. Payton

Did that get you riled up? Here's my response:

~~
I suppose that the scathing "decadent" contributor on July 22 believes that his morality (if you can even call it that) should rule the day, for all legislation comes from a foundation of morality. He seems to feel very strongly on the issue of right and wrong, yet he gives no basis for his determinations. Is he depending on the "divine" wisdom or omniscience of his own mind? If so, that's "just his opinion or preference, just truth for him," as a relativist might say, and he might as well keep it to himself. Otherwise, he is the one exhibiting arrogance when he dares to pound the gavel on an issue with the arm of his own conjecture.

He certainly is not consulting the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," as the Founders did, for he skewers reliance on God and turns a blind eye to the obvious, common-sense, self-evident realization of that which is natural and that which is not. Our ancestors would go so far as to call homosexuality a "crime against nature."

We've reached an astounding level of illogic in this country when it is considered decadence to hold yourself and society to a standard of decent behavior, while following your own selfish passions no matter where they lead is deemed what? Virtue?

I fail to see where Christians are suppressing freedom of thought. I do see gay activists trying to restrict freedom of speech, the press, religion, and conscience through overreaching "hate speech" legislation, as well as employee "non-discrimination" measures. Not to mention how they endeavor to revolutionize the definition of marriage and family for everyone.

There's an erroneous notion prevalent today that to be a tolerant person means to be a political pushover for your opponents. Now, while this is a very advantageous concept for those opposing you, it is utterly ridiculous, and I will not yield to it.

Matthew 7:1 is a condemnation of hypocrisy and a caution to pride in oneself, not a prohibition on biblical discretion. Just read the following verses to see what I mean. We are to be careful when judging others, but it is irrational to claim that we aren't even allowed to judge conduct, especially when the Bible is so clear on a specific matter. Or else, there's no point to a law system and much of the Bible--Old Testament and New--is negated.
~~

Here are two things which I would like to point out but chose not to include in the letter, for the sake of its length and flow:

1.) The original writer makes the faulty assumption that something is not immoral if it is "personal, private, and harmless." First of all, he's taking the liberty to define morality for himself, as I alluded in my response. The "private and harmless" concept, from the biblical commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself," may form the basis for much of our civil justice system, but it does not decide what morality is and is not.

2.) He also makes the mistake of assuming that the sanctioning of homosexuality by our government would not have far-reaching effects on our society.

A Couple Updates on Marriage

Just wanted to update you all on a couple of marriage issues:

1.) The number of co-sponsors of the marriage amendment resolutions in the House and Senate continues to creep upwards...very, very slowly. In the House, new representatives lent their signatures to the measure for the first time in almost three weeks, bringing the total to 89. In the Senate, the number jumped from 11 to 16, but has been static for the past few days.

By the way, does anyone else think it is a shame that the House and Senate is split nearly down the middle between Republicans and Democrats, and yet the co-sponsors of these respective bills don't reach even close to 50% of the members of these two houses? Not to mention the Democrats who have joined in on this fight, pushing the Republican percentage even lower. It just serves as a reminder, all Republicans are not made in the same mold.

The Republican Leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, responded to two of my e-mails by saying that he supported and co-sponsored a similar bill in 2006, and will support this one when the "full Senate has a chance to vote on it." Perhaps the Senator should consider that he should, as the Minority Leader, lead on this issue, not follow or merely be a "yea" in the Senate rabble. Maybe I should contact him again and convey those sentiments.

There's no telling how many other congressmen and senators feel the same way: they plan to sit out until (and if) it comes to a vote; then they will cast their vote in favor of marriage, family, and morality.

That's why it's pivotal that the citizenry involve themselves. Perhaps, if a representative is contacted by enough of his constituents, he'll be energized and emboldened to stop sitting on his hands, and to start using them to co-sponsor the federal marriage amendment. Go to Traditional Wedlock to find helpful links.

2.) Good news! Homosexual "marriage" activists in California failed in an attempted lawsuit to get California's marriage amendment off the ballot. Now, perhaps the Democratic process can play itself out.

A Journey Worth Taking on a Summer Afternoon

Journey to the Center of the Earth -- 3D

Starring: Brendan Fraser, Josh Hutcherson

Plot Synopsis: A disrespected scientist and his teenage nephew take a trek to Iceland to investigate a previously unknown seismic sensor, which could lead to a great discovery or even information about the scientist's brother's (and nephew's dad's) mysterious disappearance. Hiring a mountain guide to lead them, they stumble onto (or should I say into) more than anyone could have expected (unless, of course, you've seen the movie's trailers or commercials).

Objectionable Material: Fortunately, there's not much to list under this heading. At one point, the young nephew uses a recently discovered scientific term as a euphemism of the s-word. And some may consider the female mountain guide's apparel to be less than appropriate at times, but that's about it. The main character does make a reference to "millions of years" when discussing a bird that had supposedly been extinct for that long. Of course, this is a science fiction movie, so why not allude to the most popular science fiction of all?

Analysis: The best part about this movie may be the fact that it doesn't take itself too seriously. In the parts that it does, I found myself pulling out of the story mentally, thinking "this is corny." Specifically, I'm referring to any part in which Trevor (Brendan Fraser) and Hannah--the mountain guide--tried to converse in an overly passionate, intense way. The movie is much more in its element when the expeditioners are falling endlessly and screaming their lungs out, only to momentarily fall silent. After a few seconds, Trevor yells, "We're still falling!!!" Or, while in the act of running from a T-Rex, Shawn (Josh Hutcherson) asks Trevor, "Haven't you ever seen a dinosaur before?" To which Trevor replies, "Not with skin on it!" The sarcasm and humor is at its best in situations where you'd never expect someone to be sarcastic or funny. The other area in which the movie finds its niche is in intense moments broken by humor or setting up a humorous conclusion to the scene.

If you're going to see this movie, you have to see it in 3D, as long as that doesn't make you nauseous. Without the third dimension, I think that some moments in the film would seem run-of-the-mill or even pointless and time-wasting (in terms of pacing). With the third dimension, something as ordinary as blowing on a dandelion (granted, a gigantic dandelion), becomes an almost magical experience. A yo-yo becomes a thrill-machine. And the whole movie, including the parts without explicitly 3D material, feels unusual.

This movie isn't going to make it into my Top 10, Top 20, or perhaps even Top 50 list (if I ever took the time to make that long of a list). But if you want to see a quality, entertaining movie that doesn't require ear-muffs, blindfolds, or stomach pumps, Journey to the Center of the Earth--3D is a solid choice.

Happy Independence Day!!!

As so happens with my knack for great timing and preparation, I have prepared nothing eloquent to post about my country on this, its birthday. But I still wanted to express my adoration for my country, in spite of its faults, because of its merits. Today, I encourage you to ponder the sacrifice of those who paid the price for the freedom which we now enjoy, in some form similar to the way our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ paid our debt so that we could be free, set so by the truth.

Enjoy your freedom today, and if you see a military serviceman or woman, go ahead and thank him/her. While you're at it, thank God for the grace He's shed on this country, and pray for all the more. Not that we deserve it. Not that we expect it. But that we so desperately need it.

Happy 4th!!!!

What's On Your Radio?

I rarely post things just for fun, encouragement, and fellowship, and I think that's a problem. I also don't provide you with good opportunities to interact, besides the chance for some of you to express your disdain for me and some of you to take up arms by my side.

So, today, I want to tell you about a few of my favorite songs at present. Here goes:

Song of Hope
By: Robbie Seay Band

Stay Strong
By: Newsboys

You Are Everything
By: Matthew West

Let It Fade
By: Jeremy Camp

We Need Each Other
By: Sanctus Real

Washed by the Water
By: Needtobreathe


That's a good playlist to invigorate and inspire you to go out as a member of the body of Christ, to get up and dust yourself off, to come out stronger from your trials, to persevere, to leave your old life behind.

Tell me what you're listening to these days!!!!

p.s. To hear thirty-second snippets of these songs and/or to have the opportunity to download them for 94 cents a piece (plus state sales tax), you can visit Walmart Music Downloads.

86 in the House; 9 in the Senate

The number of cosponsors for H.J.RES. 89, calling for a federal marriage amendment, continues to creep upwards. Marilyn Musgrave from Colorado became a cosponsor on Thursday, bringing the total to 86.

In closely related news, Senator Wicker of Mississippi has introduced a similar bill in the Senate. It currently has 9 cosponsors.

For action instructions, please visit Traditional Wedlock.org.

In WWCP news, I've been considering how I might transition this blog from an Election '08 effort to a more general Christian conservative site. My main dilemma is that my URL, "http://christianpresident," makes a simple name change problematic, while changing the URL or creating a whole new blog would cause other issues (such as informing all those who have linked or visited here). Anyways, just wanted to let you know that I've been pondering over such measures.

Clearing the Air

First of all, let me say that it is flattering that, as one commenter on another site (self-described as that of a "godless liberal") put it, my latest poll required "immediate attention." I am not sure why he (and those who followed his lead) felt it was so important, but I found it interesting nonetheless.

Secondly, on the same site, someone mentioned that the lack of comments on the last post meant that I had rejected all of them, due to my guidelines at the conclusion of my last post. Well, to be honest, only two people tried to get comments through, and I posted both of theirs. Honestly, folks, my blog is not all that popular when a post isn't being voted up on Real Clear Politics.

Thirdly, another commenter mentioned that her stand for "individual rights" must be "intellectually dull" to me. No, not at all. I didn't intend to insult anyone's sensibilities who opposes my view. But this is exactly the type of groundless reframing of the debate that I was expressing my distaste for. So, since I'm for traditional marriage, I'm obviously a hateful bigot, and she's obviously a great beacon for freedom and rights. That's not self-evident truth; that's political propaganda.

It's funny; on her blog, she pointed out that she decided not to comment because of the end of my last post. Apparently, she couldn't think of a worthwhile comment that didn't include calling me a bigot or a hater.

She goes on to insinuate that my vision of a "God-fearing democracy" would leave people of all other faiths and beliefs "without representation." What I want to know is, what doesn't she understand about the word democracy? What doesn't she understand about, "All men are created equal, and endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights." But I digress...

In conclusion, she takes a shot at my analysis of Barack Obama's elitist comments about people "clinging" to guns and religion. Allow me to apologize, I did not mean to suggest that all secular humanists are for big government. But I'm not going to retract the point I made in my post.

Finally, I'd like to point out once again that I think that, if anyone takes a comprehensive and coolheaded approach to what I'm saying on this site, they will find that I have thoughtfully and sincerely considered my positions, and they are not a result of bigotry or hatred.

Federal Marriage Amendment 2008

The push for a federal marriage amendment has begun once again. Since May 22, when H.J.RES. 89 (titled "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage") was introduced, 66 U.S. Representatives have co-sponsored it.

To bring it to a vote, we will likely need more than that.

A blog has been set up by a member of the F3 Coalition specifically to address this issue. There, you can find information about the bill, who has signed it, links to articles explaining why we need a Federal Marriage Amendment, and other resources.

Visit it here: 2008 Federal Marriage Amendment.

If you've been a reader of my blog, you know how important this issue is to me. At some point in the future, I'd like to explain my position further. For now, all I will say is what you can you do:

1.) Contact your representative: If your representative has already co-sponsored the bill, thank him/her for doing so. If your representative has not co-sponsored the bill as of yet, contact him/her and urge him/her to do so. (Some of the resources on the FMA blog will help you make your case.)

2.) Get others to contact their representatives: You are one voice to a representative. But you can have the impact of numerous voices, if you can get others to contact their representatives.

3.) Blog about it: The mainstream media will probably ignore this for the most part, either because they want it to die or because they simply care more about other news stories--like the presidential election. Grassroots efforts are essential for this bill to gain steam.

4.) Pray: Is an explanation really needed here?

The chances of getting the required 2/3 majority are probably pretty slim. Last time around, in 2006, pro-family advocates came up 47 short of the necessary tally. However, we must try, try again, using the current demonstration in California of our failure as motivation to push this through with urgency.

Please note: No presumptuous comments accusing me of religious bigotry and hatred will be posted. Those are just so boring and intellectually dull.

"Is There a Door That Doesn't Lead to Prison?"

I apologize for the lack of posting in the past, oh, month. It is the result of a substantial increase in busyness (not to mention nice weather), as well as the need for rejuvenation and reclamation of perspective.

Anyways, we have our two main parties' presumptive nominees, and all I can say is, "What a shame!" Honestly, I wouldn't say that this election is like being between a rock and a hard place, since John McCain's proverbial "hardness" is barely comparable to that of Barack Obama's. In reality, the choice before us is more akin to deciding between eating wood or eating poisoned bread (eloquent, likable, attractive poisoned bread, mind you).

That is, unless there is a third option. I'm reminded of the character Ben Gates--played by Nicolas Cage--in the movie National Treasure. While in federal custody, Gates is told by an FBI agent that there are two doors he can walk through, both of which lead to prison, differentiated only by Gates' level of cooperation and ensuing state of his conscience. Gates asks, "Is there a door that doesn't lead to prison?"

Right now, I'm asking myself, Is there a door that doesn't lead to John McCain or Barack Obama being President?

Unfortunately, at this point in time, I can't say, like Ben Gates does later in the movie, "I've found door number three, and I'm taking it." But there's still time, and who knows what could happen? (I know this answer: God.)

My main problem with voting third party is the nearly inevitable futility of such an endeavor, exemplified by one Libertarian candidate who has a 12-year plan to win the White House in 2020!!! Already it seems that most Republicans have reconciled themselves to John McCain. I don't blame them too much for their short memories; I blame Barack Obama. He's just that liberal, and to substitute Obama's name for the common sentiment about Hillary Clinton, McCain can't unify the Republican party nearly as well as Barack Obama can.

If I wish to register my dissent with McCain and the GOP, I will vote third-party or write in a candidate's name. That will likely only happen if McCain slaps me in the face with his VP pick. Keep these names in mind: Giulani, Liebermann, Romney. If he goes in any of those directions, you'll know the direction in which I'll be gravitating. (I'm not making any promises or predictions, just posting probabilities.)

Just in case anyone is wondering, I absolutely will not be voting for Obama in order to kick the Republicans out of office and back into true conservatism. As tempting as that sounds, I couldn't bring myself to vote for a radically anti-life, pro-homosexual, anti-gun, wealth redistributing liberal like Obama, even if I do vote for a third-party candidate (which some might consider "half a vote for Obama.")

In conclusion, I'd like to say once again that we must not forget about the congressional and senatorial battles this fall. For, regardless of who wins the presidency, the agenda of the next four years will largely be determined by who is in control of Congress.

Republican Hoosiers and Tar Heels Echo Pennsylvanians' Sentiments

Originally posted here and here.

Digg this.

Even with many of the pundits auditioning for the role of the “Fat Lady” and Hillary Clinton riling up her supporters by promising to continue the fight after her crushing defeat in North Carolina and narrow victory in Indiana, the loudest clangor in John McCain’s ears is probably the echo reverberating from Pennsylvania throughout Indiana and North Carolina.

Despite being the presumptive nominee for over two months now, the Arizona Senator failed to rack up even three quarters of the vote in North Carolina after having experienced the same letdown in Pennsylvania on April 22. McCain barely scraped up three quarters of the vote in Indiana.

In Indiana, John McCain collected 77% of the vote in form of over 319,000 votes tallied. Mike Huckabee, who suspended his bid for the nomination on March 4, came in second with over 41,000 (10%), while Ron Paul garnered upwards of 31,000 (8%) and Mitt Romney, who’s been out of the race for a month longer than Huckabee, managed 19,000 plus (5%).

In North Carolina, 381,000 and a handful more (74%) pulled the lever for McCain, while over 62,000 (12%) did so for Huckabee and another some 37,000 (7%) for Paul. More than 20,000 (4%) recorded that they had no preference. Romney wasn’t on the ballot, so many of those “no preference” votes are probably his, like those on the Democratic side were for Barack Obama and John Edwards in Michigan, where Hillary Clinton and the ever-competitive Dennis Kucinich were the only names on the ballot.

The point here is this: McCain has spent two months with almost no competition on the Republican side. He’s got less than six months left before the general election, and there are hundreds of thousands of voters who, for one reason or the other, consider it appropriate and necessary to cast their vote for a Republican not named McCain.

Of course, this doesn’t even account for those voters who may be “biting the bullet” and voting for McCain in the primaries for the sake of party unity, yet aren’t too excited about it and don’t plan to fight for him.

McCain has a little time and one monumental decision which will determine whether he can bring all these wandering sheep back into the fold. That momentous choice, of course, is that of his running mate. The question is this: Will any conservative do? Or does it need to be Mike Huckabee? Or does it need to be anyone but the former presidential candidates? Or are these voters gone no matter what?

I don't have the answer to those questions. But it should be noted that few politicians have as strong and as well-known of reputations on issues such as life, marriage, the Second Amendment, and the Fair Tax as Huckabee has, not to mention his appeal to middle-class voters and Christian conservatives.

Tell me what you think.