Sunday, July 29, 2012
6:02 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Rahm Emanuel, former Chief of Staff in the Obama Administration and currently mayor of Chicago, seems to have his needle stuck declaring that certain things do not mesh with Chicago values. He is one of three mayors who, as of this writing, have said that Chick-Fil-A's owners' stance on gay marriage is incompatible with Chicago values, and he is currently supporting an alderman's decision to block a new Chick-Fil-A restaurant in his district. So, evidently, 97 jobs, a local franchisee, and southern hospitality for all is not consistent with their values simply because the corporation holds to 5,000-year-old beliefs on marriage that are consistent with every single in-context reading of the Bible that has ever been done.
Another thing that seems to be contrary to Chicago values is gang violence… that involves children. “We've got two gangbangers, one standing next to a kid. Get away from that kid. Take your stuff away to the alley…. It's all about values….” Lest I be accused of taking this out of context, he was interviewed and asked to clarify, and he confirmed the above as his meaning. So, the gang stuff needs to happen in the alleys. Interesting.
So, Rahm, how about this? We're a week removed from 12 killed and 58 wounded in Aurora, Colorado. But, if you take the two weekends before that, how's Chicago doing? 11 dead, 75 wounded. Aurora was an isolated incident; these are your bi-weekly statistics! What sort of values are those? Are the ones that happened in an alley between rival gangs OK?
If I were from Chicago, I would be outraged; surely these are not the values of most Chicagoans. Your inability to call evil for what it is cannot be termed a “value,” and neither can your ability to call good evil.
UPDATE: After I drafted this, but before it posted, Rahm clarified his remarks - as with the president's clarification of his remarks, and Rahm's clarification of the gang violence remarks, the clarification is little if any better than the original statement. The “blocking” of the restaurant was never from the mayor, but from an alderman.)
Thursday, May 10, 2012
8:45 am
Daniel J. Summers
This is long, and it's just part one; strap in.
Today, our president announced that, in a 180-degree turn from his previous statements, he now favors “gay marriage.” There are several things about this entire situation that boggle the mind about this, and most of them come back to the inescapable fact that few other religions would permit such bigotry against them. For the vast majority of opponents to same-sex marriage, their opposition is not rooted in hate, but in their religious beliefs. The insistence of these activists to literally re-define marriage is what makes this most distasteful. In future parts, I'll also deal with the fact that they are not honest in their arguments; they cannot be, or they will have to cede what they feel are their strongest points. Finally, I have an opinion (bet you didn't see that coming, huh?) of how I believe government can both respect religion and get the vast majority of what the “gay marriage” activists want; that will be part 3.
Imagine, if you will, that our founding fathers were Jews rather than Christians and Deists. They set up our government to honor Passover above any and all other days, requiring that employers give Jewish employees time off from sundown to sundown on Passover, provided they attend the special services at the temple. This worked well for over 200 years, as some people got a day off each year, and other's didn't. It didn't occur to them to mind; this is just the way it's always been. There's a program out there for which they don't qualify, but it didn't bother them, the same way that it didn't bother them that they weren't eligible for food stamps because their income was too high.
Then, one day, the Protestant population started wondering why they didn't have this same protection - “Why can't I demand a free day off a year, just because I don't hold to that ancient, antiquated religion?” They go to the government and say “Hey, this doesn't seem fair - why can't we get a free day off each year?” The government says, “Well, what do you have in mind?” The people reply “Passover should be for all! We want a Protestant Passover, except without that temple requirement; we just want a free day off like them!” The government promptly laughs them out of its offices.
These Protestants aren't done yet, though. Prestigious universities have been teaching Protestantism as an equally valid alternative to Judaism for many years, and now these university-educated people are educating an increasing number of the nation's children. They decide to lay the groundwork by starting to normalize Protestantism. They find some inspiring stories about Protestants throughout history; they speculate that others may have been &“closet” Protestants, even though they never really said for sure. Finally, they follow this up with people who were “unfairly” treated simply because they were Protestant. If it's one thing kids understand, it's "that's not FAIR!", and this plan has wildly-successful results. The reasons given tend to evolve as well; in the beginning, it's fear; a few years later, it's bigotry; a few years after that, it's just hate.
Finally, this so-called Protestant Passover movement really starts to have some legs. Politicians are asked their view of this, even when the nation is facing far more pressing issues. The Jews are livid about the government defining a “Protestant Passover” that confers all the rights of the free-day-off Passover, but is celebrated by people who have no clue what it is they're celebrating, and without the worship requirement (which was the original reason behind the law in the first place). They would base their complaints on the free exercise of religion, and they would be told to stop hating.
You see where I'm going with this. There is absolutely no way our fictional government would even consider something so ludicrous as Protestant Passover; but, with two generations of conditioning by partial parties, now it doesn't seem ludicrous. I believe this is the point we have reached in our nation today; those who are for “gay marriage” cannot fathom any motivation other than hate in their opposition, no matter how little sense this makes. (“But wait,” you say, “wouldn't the original Passover law constitute an establishment of religion?” One could make that argument; come back for part 3, my friend.)
The word “marriage” means something to the Christian faith. Through the several Scriptures that follow, we survey some of the verses that establish marriage as having special significance; this is my proof that the “gay marriage” push is offensive to Christianity. We'll start with two verses that are central to this argument.
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
These two verses establish the sufficiency and completeness of Scripture. Either it's all true, or none of it is; I hold to the former view. What was written was written, and the omission of what was not written is also significant. We also see that the purpose of Scripture is to equip man through teaching (education), reproof (some versions translate this “rebuke”), correction (a change of course), and training (“here is how you do it”). This means that, although Jesus has come and fulfilled the law, reading the law still has value; it gives us insight into how God thinks. Studying how God dealt with people and nations can show us His patience, mercy, and judgment all at the same time.
I think that this is where many of the Christians who identify themselves on the “pro” side of this argument go astray. They focus on one verse or passage, to the exclusion of all others. They may give special emphasis to the words of Jesus - most Bibles do, by putting His words in red! However, these verses tell us that all Scriptures is profitable. If Jesus said something, Paul echoed it, and Peter explained it, Peter's explanation is not “one of many interpretations” of Jesus' words; it is the explanation that God has preserved in His Word!
With that being said, let's take a look first at some pro-marriage verses. From the very beginning, God created male and female (yes, “Adam and Eve” not “Adam and Steve”), and near the end of Genesis 2, we read
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Genesis 2:24
Later, Solomon has this advice for his son:
Let your fountain be blessed,
and rejoice in the wife of your youth,
a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight;
be intoxicated always in her love.
Proverbs 5:18-19
(Am I the only one noticing that not only are they supposed to be husband and wife, but they're supposed to keep the fire burning? Ever read the book Song of Solomon? Yowza!)
Now, sure, those are both Old Testament. But, when Jesus quotes these words (and not in the “It has been said...but I say” way)…
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?...”
Matthew 19:4-5
...well, that would seem to make them doubly-important in my book. Paul, who was one of the last people to see Jesus, found himself in the position of educating new believers who came from a background of hedonism. We'll deal with the "don't"s here in a bit, but let's look at how he summarizes his instructions on roles in marriage.
However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
Ephesians 5:33
Husband with masculine pronoun, wife with a feminine pronoun - it's almost like there's a secret message there. No, I kid; it's no secret at all. Keep in mind this was written in Greek, when the Greek culture had just recently begun to fade. There was certainly plenty of homosexuality and pederasty in Greece; if there had been something positive to say about either of these things, Paul had the perfect opportunity. However, he had a different take.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Romans 1:26-27
(Could that last part be talking about venereal disease or AIDS? Probably shouldn't go there; this is already long enough as it is.)
Paul is not a lone wolf on this; the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the prohibitions in the Levitical law on not only homosexuality, but also bestiality, incest, and adultery are consistent with this. Incidentally, these laws are given as a group, lending a certain “they're all the same sin” feel to that list. Non-marital sexual activity was prohibited.
Marriage was the first institution established by God, followed closely by the family. The reason our government issues marriage licenses in the first place is a carry-over from the Church of England (more on that in part 3). It is significant in the Christian faith. The fact that it has been abused and devalued by Christians and non-Christians alike does not change that. In fact, let's go ahead and get that red herring out of the way here. Remember above, where Jesus quoted the Old Testament? Let's pull that passage over here in with a bit more context.
And Pharisees came up to Him and tested Him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?”
He answered, “Have you not read that He Who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”
He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so….”
Matthew 19:3-8
Here, Jesus not only recognizes the institution of marriage, He reinforces it, tearing down an “out” that Moses had permitted, and had been a part of their law ever since. Now, I personally believe that it's a good thing that divorcees aren't shunned; Jesus doesn't indicate that divorce is better or worse than any other sin, but He does call it out as sin. If sin is forgiven and forsaken, my reading of Scripture tells me that's good enough for God, and if it's good enough for Him, it's good enough for me. However, the modern church has swung too far away from shunning to the point that divorce is common and accepted; it makes the argument for the sanctity of marriage weaker, especially in the eyes of the non-believing world. However, it does nothing to dilute the words of Jesus here.
Marriage is significant to the Christian faith. I believe I've demonstrated above that “gay marriage” is an oxymoron; how do you have “prohibited-activity sacred-institution”? Just as Muslims would fight a move to classify pulled pork as a halal dish, or Catholics would not want to receive a Big Mac as the Eucharist, Christians who oppose “;gay marriage” are simply defending their faith. Redefining a word that currently denotes the first institution ordained by God should be met with strong resistance by all Christians. Maybe this assault is what we need to recognize how far we've drifted from what the Word says should be the way. Forget about the sins of the past; we should determine what God says, then stand for it.
(This is part 1 of a 3-part series. The other parts will be linked here as they are published. The other parts will remain in my head.)
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
8:10 pm
Daniel J. Summers
(Disclaimer: The President, as Commander in Chief, can set whatever policies he desires. Congress, as the body that creates law, can create whatever laws its members want. Nothing you may read below is targeted at any particular officeholder; it is my analysis of this policy. Furthermore, this analysis represents my personal analysis, and should not be construed to be official policy of any governmental entity. Feel free to comment; however, any comments that are derogatory to me personally or groups in general, either here or on Facebook, will be deleted without comment - stick with the issues or stay silent.)
Well, it looks like Wednesday is the day. What has passed Congress, and will be signed by the President, repeals the 1993 law mandating that homosexuals could serve in the military, provided they did not reveal their sexual orientation. This doesn't mean that tomorrow is the military's “coming out” day or anything; it simply means that the 1993 law is gone. It appears, though, that there is significant political pressure from the top down to somehow integrate a path to allow openly gay servicemembers in the United States military. I have a problem with this. Well, I actually have several problems with this.
1. Open shower bays must be replaced.
The reason male and female military members do not shower together is self-evident. While there are many things military members are asked to sacrifice, the indignity of showering with someone who considers you a potential sexual partner has not been one of those sacrifices. If this goes through, that changes. I would think that military spouses would be all over this for that very reason. Maybe they are, but nobody has asked them. I don't know if female members feel this way, but I know that this male does. The way the male mind thinks about sex cannot be discounted; as one of the three major drives of humans, it cannot be ignored. Men are more forward, and are more apt to make passes at the object of their desire. Putting heterosexuals in this position is something the military should not do. It happens - I can attest from personal experience. However, I have yet to have that experience as a military member.
Open dorm bays present similar problems, but not nearly the magnitude of the showers. The entire living condition thing should be addressed, but IMO, the showers are the biggest deal.
2. Homosexuality, like it or not, is a security risk.
Part of being in the military requires a security clearance. The existence of anything over which one could be blackmailed (excessive debt, arrests, etc.) is a huge red flag. Even gays who are “out” may not be completely out - there may be people that they have refrained from telling (for whatever reason - doesn't really matter). Even with openly homosexual military members allowed, there may be closeted gays, due to the social stigma. This is something over which they can be blackmailed. Allowing known security risks to appease a social agenda is not a choice that a nation that's serious about it's survival makes. (Of course, this is the same government that's staged the largest “security theater” in history - but I digress.)
3. Homosexuals have a higher incidence of HIV than heterosexuals.
A politically-incorrect truth, but truth nonetheless. The military teaches first aid as a part of normal pre-deployment training, and it's quite useful. In addition to all the other battlefield risks, now we would be exposing servicemembers to the potential of acquiring HIV in the course of saving their buddy's life. Either that, or HIV becomes a non-deployable condition - and, if you're not deployable, today's military doesn't want you. However, there are rules in place preventing dismissal due to medical conditions - how's that lawsuit going to go, the first time a gay military member is discharged for contracting HIV?
4. The military is not a place for social experimentation.
Using the military for social experiments is certainly popular. To what other group of people can you give moderately-nonsensical orders, and have them do their best to carry them out? However, this argument remains, in spite of how many are tried before. It doesn't matter to me how many other nations allow openly gay members - isn't the United States military supposed to be better than all the other militaries in the world? Doing something just because some other military does it is ridiculous; when it doesn't pertain to something that will actually help us win wars, it's doubly so. I do not, for the life of me, understand the left's fascination with Europe. We've kicked the butt of every European country we've fought! Why are we trying to emulate them?
But back to the social experiment. I am absolutely convinced that this is a back door (pardon the pun) for gay marriage. Why? Because it's a slippery slope (and, despite those who scoff at slippery slopes, they do exist, and this is a big one). Gay servicemembers will want dependent privileges for their significant others. They can do this either by recognizing a same-sex “spouse”, or by allowing servicemembers to designate a person to receive benefits in lieu of a spouse (let's call them ILOS). If it's the former, there's a whole “The military does it!” chorus; if it's the latter, that will lead to even more expense, with uncertainty for the ILOS. Either way, it's a losing proposition.
5. Military service is a privilege, not a right.
There are many reasons someone may be disqualified from military service - why is homosexuality different? Over 10 times the number who have been discharged for homosexuality, on average, are discharged due to weight. For non-combat positions, who cares? Obviously, the military does - you can be the best at your job, but if you can't meet this standard, they'll be happy to have you as a contractor. Military standards have been developed over centuries, and represent what is necessary to defend our nation. I have yet to see the warfighting case for allowing openly gay servicemembers. The military isn't fair; fair doesn't win wars.
6. Many people find homosexuality morally abhorrent.
I guess I'm just all kinds of politically incorrect on this one. However, I know I speak for myself and lots of other people when I say that I do not want my children around homosexual couples. Am I going to have to keep them from the bowling alley, the commissary, the exchange? Where does a military member's right to free exercise of religion end and another's right to free expression begin? Furthermore, I can tell you that just like I can't make somebody a Christian by taking them to church, you will not change my mind on this, even if I'm assigned to an otherwise-gay organization. I have this quaint belief that words mean things, and when my God calls it an abomination, I'm pretty clear about what He means.
Going into this without addressing these (and other) concerns would be foolhardy at best. Even with these concerns addressed, this is simply not a priority, not important, and will not help us defend this nation. The lawsuits alone will wreak havoc on the military. The military knows what sort of people it needs to accomplish its mission, and it should be free to define those parameters without regard to whose feelings get hurt. Since when is the military supposed to care about feelings, anyway?
So where does this leave us? Remember, as I said above under #4, the military will do their best to carry out the orders and still do their job. That's how we roll. I hope these speed bumps don't slow our rolling too much.