One of the big issues being debated today is marriage, specifically the desire of homosexual community to be able to enter the same arrangement. The institution of marriage is defined as: “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.” The homosexual community wants to change this definition based on discrimination and perhaps a desire to feel accepted. However, marriage has always been defined as an institution between man and women.
Marriage and its definition are also sacred to many religious communities. They see that its definition can never be changed, because its very foundation is the basis for the genesis of a family, procreation, and the rearing of children. The attempt by the homosexual community to hijack the definition and change it, will always be challenged by the religious community, because the religious community disagrees not only with homosexuality as a practice, but also the attempt to change marriage’s definition is seen as an outside attack upon their beliefs.
I do not understand homosexuality, plain and simple. I know the Bible speaks against it, but I also live under a government today that accepts its practice. We are a government that tries to not dictate religious views.
I am empathetic to the homosexual community with regards to the state. If the state says homosexuality if not against the law, then perhaps the state should make provisions for what they have created.
Also, consider two spinsters that live together for several years. They have pooled their resources, bought a house together, and maintain a tight financial interdependence. Whether they are engaging in sex or not, it doesn’t matter. They are in their own right a family unit. The same is true with homosexual couples. Given that the state has said “it’s OK”, then the state needs to create similar contracts and tax mechanisms for homosexual couples.
However, the homosexual community has an obligation to create its own social institutional name for their type of relationship and not hijack the heterosexual community’s term: marriage. Doing so is an attempt to impose their will on the heterosexual community.
I challenge the homosexual community to create their own term for their relationship. It’s not hard and in fact very much respectful to those who don’t believe the way they do. Continuing to try and make the term marriage apply to both heterosexual arrangements and homosexual ones can only be seen by the heterosexual community as attempt to dictate the homosexual community’s view upon their lives, their institutions, and their religion.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Thoughts from “Expelled”, The Scientist, Religion, and the State
I recently watched the movie “Expelled”. This movie is about systematic removal of teaching alternative views to evolution from public schools. Ben Stein presents a good case. Preaching evolution in government institutions goes beyond political correctness, science, and our first amendment.
The present day governmental line is that we cannot teach other forms of human origins other than evolution, because it would violate the constitution. The government would then be adopting a religious stance.
However, the constitutional framers were believers of a deity, but were careful not to cater to one denomination or faith. Things like “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness….” should be a clue. I reference that famous quote from the Declaration of Independence not because it shows our forefathers were creationists, but rather they were believers in God.
What has changed is the “separation of church and state” argument (which by the way is not in the constitution, but rather an evolved interpretation that has recently been twisted by those who are atheists). The removal of a concept of God from our learning institutions has in fact forced the government to violate our first amendment right by adopting a very specific state religion, atheism.
Here is my proof.
Scientist and author, Richard Dawkins, was one of the scientists offering an opposing view (pro-evolution) in the movie “Expelled”. He is a professed atheist. His approach to God is that you cannot prove God exists. His conclusion therefore is that God doesn’t exist. I have a problem with this biased way of scientific logic. The scientist must always be agnostic when approaching the concept of God. If one cannot offer proof to a hypothesis, it simply means that the proof may not be measurable at that time or an experiment has yet to be devised to offer proof. So, to say that there is no God actually takes faith, faith that no experiment or data can be produced that God exists.
I ask Mr. Dawkins and all atheists. Show me proof there is no God. They can’t. As a deist and scientist one cannot make the logic mistake the atheists do by claiming the antithesis to their conclusion using the same data; since you cannot prove God doesn’t exist, then God exists.
Therefore, when examining the debate of the existence of God and more specifically the application of Dawkin's logic, atheism and theism both require faith (some would argue in that the deist usually expresses that they have had some sort of encounter with God providing them with personal proof).
We should be asking our government; why have you violated the first amendment by adopting atheism as the state religion and expunging the concept of God from our institutions? Don’t the first amendment words cry out this present day constitutional violation, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"?
By removing creation (or maybe more generally panspermia) from the classroom as other hypotheses as to our origin, the state violates the first part of the first amendment by establishing atheism (or minimally advocating it). They violate the following amendment statement by prohibiting through law the "free exercise thereof" by refusing to allow the deist the freedom of debate.
The present day governmental line is that we cannot teach other forms of human origins other than evolution, because it would violate the constitution. The government would then be adopting a religious stance.
However, the constitutional framers were believers of a deity, but were careful not to cater to one denomination or faith. Things like “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness….” should be a clue. I reference that famous quote from the Declaration of Independence not because it shows our forefathers were creationists, but rather they were believers in God.
What has changed is the “separation of church and state” argument (which by the way is not in the constitution, but rather an evolved interpretation that has recently been twisted by those who are atheists). The removal of a concept of God from our learning institutions has in fact forced the government to violate our first amendment right by adopting a very specific state religion, atheism.
Here is my proof.
Scientist and author, Richard Dawkins, was one of the scientists offering an opposing view (pro-evolution) in the movie “Expelled”. He is a professed atheist. His approach to God is that you cannot prove God exists. His conclusion therefore is that God doesn’t exist. I have a problem with this biased way of scientific logic. The scientist must always be agnostic when approaching the concept of God. If one cannot offer proof to a hypothesis, it simply means that the proof may not be measurable at that time or an experiment has yet to be devised to offer proof. So, to say that there is no God actually takes faith, faith that no experiment or data can be produced that God exists.
I ask Mr. Dawkins and all atheists. Show me proof there is no God. They can’t. As a deist and scientist one cannot make the logic mistake the atheists do by claiming the antithesis to their conclusion using the same data; since you cannot prove God doesn’t exist, then God exists.
Therefore, when examining the debate of the existence of God and more specifically the application of Dawkin's logic, atheism and theism both require faith (some would argue in that the deist usually expresses that they have had some sort of encounter with God providing them with personal proof).
We should be asking our government; why have you violated the first amendment by adopting atheism as the state religion and expunging the concept of God from our institutions? Don’t the first amendment words cry out this present day constitutional violation, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"?
By removing creation (or maybe more generally panspermia) from the classroom as other hypotheses as to our origin, the state violates the first part of the first amendment by establishing atheism (or minimally advocating it). They violate the following amendment statement by prohibiting through law the "free exercise thereof" by refusing to allow the deist the freedom of debate.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Non-religion Based Case Against Abortion
Biology teaches us that once an egg and sperm unite, a new and UNIQUE life is created. So, prematurely terminating that life (for any reason) denies that life of its right to continue to exist.
Our constitution (until recently) guarantees us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This "rights list" is obviously in order of priority: life (continued existence), liberty (freedom within that existence), and pursuit of happiness (the ability to acquire and maintain quality of life). It makes sense, it's moral, and it is well-ordered.
If the state permits abortion or declares it legal, it must violate the constitution in that it makes the pursuit of happiness more important than life itself.
Our constitution (until recently) guarantees us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This "rights list" is obviously in order of priority: life (continued existence), liberty (freedom within that existence), and pursuit of happiness (the ability to acquire and maintain quality of life). It makes sense, it's moral, and it is well-ordered.
If the state permits abortion or declares it legal, it must violate the constitution in that it makes the pursuit of happiness more important than life itself.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Scoring the Progress in Afghanistan and Iraq
Almost every day we hear news of the 'progress' of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Like today, the news spoke of 10 French military killed and attacks on the US troops. Countless times I have heard that 3 US were killed today or 5 were wounded, etc. Has anyone ever noticed they don't say how many enemy were killed or what the real outcome was?
It is like reading football scores (and standings) on Monday morning:
Dallas 3 New York
Green Bay 14 Detroit
New England 31 Buffalo
You only get half-truths and those 'truths' are meant to mislead.
It is like reading football scores (and standings) on Monday morning:
Dallas 3 New York
Green Bay 14 Detroit
New England 31 Buffalo
You only get half-truths and those 'truths' are meant to mislead.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Minimum Belief to be Called Christian
Originally posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007
I must preface my thoughts by saying that logically, I have to believe in absolutes. There are either absolutes, or there are not. Believing that “There are no absolutes” is itself an absolute statement and humorously self-negating. Therefore, there must be this truth out there. Most intuitively perceive in the spiritual side of man (perhaps the use of the word paranormal fis more accurate for some) but can’t quite grasp it. We spend our lives getting glimpses of shadows cast by some ‘Light Source’. Most have a hunger and curiosity concerning the ‘Who’ that is creating this light. That is why we have many religions, faiths, and denominations. It is important that people understand that there are very earnest people seeking God.
In today’s postmodern world, it seems any and every belief is acceptable, except of course orthodoxy. There are many ways to salvation they say. Generally, if you live a good life and say your prayers, you go to Heaven no matter what you do or believe. What is strange is that it is today’s “Christian” who says these things. Some are seminarians, and I know many “Christian“ clergy as well that believe this to include the leader of my church, the Episcopal Church (TEC).
The uninitiated may not see this as a big issue. After all, if one believes that if you do “good” what’s the problem? The problem is what Christ himself said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me.” In fact, this is the crux of Christianity. Salvation is through Christ and Christ alone. Not that there is anything wrong with doing good, but Christ states He and more importantly He alone is the way to God. If one believes in other ways, that is fine, but it is not a Christian belief. Why then did Christ die and rise again? If there are other ways, why did he do so? Like my wife Naomi asked, What does that say about the Christian martyrs? Their faith was in Christ and Christ alone.
I am a Christian, Anglican, and Episcopalian. Our current Presiding Bishop does not seem to espouse Christianity. Rather her approach to religion is like choosing a line at a supermarket; any line will get you 'checked out' when in fact there should be convictions about the line she chose. Her beliefs, as I discern through her statements, concerning Christ are similar then to the Muslims, Jews, and other faiths that believe Christ was a good guy, prophet, teacher, Rabbi, but not the Messiah, THE Savior of the world.
For me, having her leading my denomination is like a Jew or Muslin receiving pork in their temple or mosque respectively.
I must preface my thoughts by saying that logically, I have to believe in absolutes. There are either absolutes, or there are not. Believing that “There are no absolutes” is itself an absolute statement and humorously self-negating. Therefore, there must be this truth out there. Most intuitively perceive in the spiritual side of man (perhaps the use of the word paranormal fis more accurate for some) but can’t quite grasp it. We spend our lives getting glimpses of shadows cast by some ‘Light Source’. Most have a hunger and curiosity concerning the ‘Who’ that is creating this light. That is why we have many religions, faiths, and denominations. It is important that people understand that there are very earnest people seeking God.
In today’s postmodern world, it seems any and every belief is acceptable, except of course orthodoxy. There are many ways to salvation they say. Generally, if you live a good life and say your prayers, you go to Heaven no matter what you do or believe. What is strange is that it is today’s “Christian” who says these things. Some are seminarians, and I know many “Christian“ clergy as well that believe this to include the leader of my church, the Episcopal Church (TEC).
The uninitiated may not see this as a big issue. After all, if one believes that if you do “good” what’s the problem? The problem is what Christ himself said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me.” In fact, this is the crux of Christianity. Salvation is through Christ and Christ alone. Not that there is anything wrong with doing good, but Christ states He and more importantly He alone is the way to God. If one believes in other ways, that is fine, but it is not a Christian belief. Why then did Christ die and rise again? If there are other ways, why did he do so? Like my wife Naomi asked, What does that say about the Christian martyrs? Their faith was in Christ and Christ alone.
I am a Christian, Anglican, and Episcopalian. Our current Presiding Bishop does not seem to espouse Christianity. Rather her approach to religion is like choosing a line at a supermarket; any line will get you 'checked out' when in fact there should be convictions about the line she chose. Her beliefs, as I discern through her statements, concerning Christ are similar then to the Muslims, Jews, and other faiths that believe Christ was a good guy, prophet, teacher, Rabbi, but not the Messiah, THE Savior of the world.
For me, having her leading my denomination is like a Jew or Muslin receiving pork in their temple or mosque respectively.
Israel and Hezbollah
Originally posted on Saturday, August 05, 2006
A peace treaty between Palestine (whoever that is), Israel, Lebanon, and Syria has brought nothing to the area. Hezbollah used the opportunity to move weapons into the southern Lebanon area in preparation to attack Israel while Israel was removing squatters from the Israeli-occupied areas. There was alot Israeli emotion behind adhering to this treaty and when all was said and done, Israel lived up to its part. However, other anti-Israel political and terrorist organizations would or could not allow for it.
Citizens from both the Gaza strip and Lebanon CROSSSED the border and kipnapped Israeli citizens. Paramilitary organizations (also known as terrorists) started bombing (using rockets) Israel indiscriminately. These organizations wanted to use the "prisoners" as leverage to further barter with Israel for the release of prisoners Israel had captured prior to the treaty.
From Israel's perspective, what good is a peace treaty or "cease-fire" when those who sign it continually show no intergrity? Any agreement is AND WILL ALWAYS BE worthless. From Israel's perspective, they get nothing but temporary peace until the other side decides to wage war again.
The war is between two peoples with the following motives: Israel - the desire to exist, Radical Islam - Jews to be exterminated. Make no mistake about it. These are and have been their respective goals since 1948 as witnessed through their leaders and literature.
The only way that Israel can find a lasting peace is to eliminate the threat of those who desire their destruction.
Who is more just? Those who seek to merely exist in peace or those who seek genocide for their enemy?
A peace treaty between Palestine (whoever that is), Israel, Lebanon, and Syria has brought nothing to the area. Hezbollah used the opportunity to move weapons into the southern Lebanon area in preparation to attack Israel while Israel was removing squatters from the Israeli-occupied areas. There was alot Israeli emotion behind adhering to this treaty and when all was said and done, Israel lived up to its part. However, other anti-Israel political and terrorist organizations would or could not allow for it.
Citizens from both the Gaza strip and Lebanon CROSSSED the border and kipnapped Israeli citizens. Paramilitary organizations (also known as terrorists) started bombing (using rockets) Israel indiscriminately. These organizations wanted to use the "prisoners" as leverage to further barter with Israel for the release of prisoners Israel had captured prior to the treaty.
From Israel's perspective, what good is a peace treaty or "cease-fire" when those who sign it continually show no intergrity? Any agreement is AND WILL ALWAYS BE worthless. From Israel's perspective, they get nothing but temporary peace until the other side decides to wage war again.
The war is between two peoples with the following motives: Israel - the desire to exist, Radical Islam - Jews to be exterminated. Make no mistake about it. These are and have been their respective goals since 1948 as witnessed through their leaders and literature.
The only way that Israel can find a lasting peace is to eliminate the threat of those who desire their destruction.
Who is more just? Those who seek to merely exist in peace or those who seek genocide for their enemy?
Texas Gerrymandering
Originally Tuesday, October 18, 2005
One of the reasons that Tom DeLay has been targeted by a rabid democrat DA in Travis County is that DeLay was proactive Texas redistricting so that more republican US House members could be elected. This effort so angered Texas democrat congressmen that they left the state instead of being in session. They left the state to avoid being apprehended by the Texas Rangers.
This certainly sounds like a brave and righteous act until you consider some of the facts. Until recently, the Texas state congress has been controlled by the democrats. Having that control, they established the US congressional districts in favor of their own party. They claimed the republicans wanted to gerrymander the districts so as to give them more representatives. That is all true. But has anyone asked the question why? Did any news network question that the state of Texas was gerrmandered in favor of the democrats? No.
First of all, an unbiased judge would have to admit that if any party gets say 55% of the vote for congressmen, they should get approximately 55% of the representatives all things being equal. Texas has 32 seats in the house, so if democrat candidates recieve 55% of the vote, they should expect approximately 18 seats (32 X .55) in the US house and visa versa for any other party.
If you go to the Texas voting records of 2002, you will find that approximately 55% of all votes for Texas US house seats went to republican candidates. However, based on democrat gerrymandering of Texas state districts, the republicans only got 15 seats (47%). There is an 8% discrepency between the percentage that voted for republicans and what the party actually recieved in representatives to the US Senate, an advantage of 3 representatives, a 20% descrepency.
So, based on voting records and the democrat gerrymandered districts, one can see that the republicans had valid complaints about how the state had previously been gerrymandered.
One of the reasons that Tom DeLay has been targeted by a rabid democrat DA in Travis County is that DeLay was proactive Texas redistricting so that more republican US House members could be elected. This effort so angered Texas democrat congressmen that they left the state instead of being in session. They left the state to avoid being apprehended by the Texas Rangers.
This certainly sounds like a brave and righteous act until you consider some of the facts. Until recently, the Texas state congress has been controlled by the democrats. Having that control, they established the US congressional districts in favor of their own party. They claimed the republicans wanted to gerrymander the districts so as to give them more representatives. That is all true. But has anyone asked the question why? Did any news network question that the state of Texas was gerrmandered in favor of the democrats? No.
First of all, an unbiased judge would have to admit that if any party gets say 55% of the vote for congressmen, they should get approximately 55% of the representatives all things being equal. Texas has 32 seats in the house, so if democrat candidates recieve 55% of the vote, they should expect approximately 18 seats (32 X .55) in the US house and visa versa for any other party.
If you go to the Texas voting records of 2002, you will find that approximately 55% of all votes for Texas US house seats went to republican candidates. However, based on democrat gerrymandering of Texas state districts, the republicans only got 15 seats (47%). There is an 8% discrepency between the percentage that voted for republicans and what the party actually recieved in representatives to the US Senate, an advantage of 3 representatives, a 20% descrepency.
So, based on voting records and the democrat gerrymandered districts, one can see that the republicans had valid complaints about how the state had previously been gerrymandered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
