Sex Gone Wild

Planned Parenthood has a mission. They want to remove every barrier that stands between us and a laissez faire culture of sexual freedom. Planned Parenthood desires to completely divorce sex from every moral, religious, and biological principle you can think of. This includes the government having the ability to grant your child the right to have sex.

Sexual Rights: an IPPF declaration, presents itself under the slogan "from choice, a world of possibilities." Or in other words, anything that I can do with my body sexually should be allowed without restraint. Sex is an inalienable right, with no respect to cultural norms or the moral law. This proposed new world "must take steps to promote the modification of social and cultural practices based on stereotyped roles of women or men or on the idea of superiority or inferiority of sexes, genders or gender expressions" (p. 16; hereafter just the page number).

Why?

Because "human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" (16). Not granted by God, mind you, but the State. These rights "are an evolving set of entitlements" (32) and therefore apply to children in relation to the "capacity of the child" (16). These rights include "sexual and reproductive health, without formal or informal barriers such as marriage qualifications, conditions related to HIV status, or discriminatory gender norms, stereotypes and prejudices that exclude or restrict the participation of persons based on ideas of gender and sexual propriety" (17).

Therefore, the State shall work to make sex outside of marriage, sexual relations with HIV, and any other currently frowned upon sexual practice as no longer taboo. If I think it's morally wrong for my wife to have sex with another man, or even my fifteen year old son to have sex with his soccer coach then I am restricting their sexual freedom. Society is changing and evolving and if the State deems that my son has the capacity to have sexual freedom, then even as his father it is not my place to tell him to do otherwise. If I wanted to dictate what my daughter could and could not wear this would be a violation of her right to express her "identity or personhood through speech, deportment, dress, bodily characteristics, [and] choice of name" (19). It would be illegal and morally wrong for me to tell my daughter to watch her tongue, restrict her from having breast implants, or preventing a name change from Cristina to Christopher. Indeed, we as a society must work to allow all persons everywhere the right to live their sexual "dreams and fantasies free from fear, shame, guilt, false beliefs and other impediments to the free expression of their desires, with full regard for the rights of others" (19).

These dreams, fantasies, and expressions are not to be restricted by any "dominant cultural beliefs or political ideology, or discriminatory notions of public order, public morality, public health or public security" (19). If I wanted to have sex in public then it would be a violation of my sexual rights to have any laws or picketing against it. Planned Parenthood wishes to make it legal and normative for humanity to partake in public sex, nudity, and masturbation.

This libido liberator wants to separate our sexuality from nature itself. If I one day decide that I want to be a woman, then I can do so on a whim and society has to accept that change in my personal autonomy. "All persons have the right to be recognized before the law and to sexual freedom, which encompasses the opportunity for individuals to have control and decide freely on matters related to sexuality" and this includes "self-defined gender identity" (18). Once the government changes all of my paperwork I am then, in the State's eyes, a woman. This would mean that I would no longer be changing or showering in the men's locker room.

This list of principles and their implications go on and on. Health insurance could not be denied to anyone regardless of their sexual practices; humanity could not be burdened with having their sexual freedom condemned to a pregnancy, spouse, or family; sexual predators could not be denied jobs because of their past; and parents could have no say in their child's sex education and experimentation.

Sex would be before all. The Alpha and Omega. The organism (or should I say orgasm) through which we live, move, and have our being.

This is Planned Parenthood's attempt of salvation through sex. Man is a religious creature by nature and he demands something to worship. He searches the landscape constantly for the means to free him from the despair that stalks him. Sex is not that savior, and unconstrained it will lead to the death of man. The Christian worldview realizes this. We're not prudes we just see sex as sacred--like a diamond behind glass. There are barriers and constraints that must be placed upon it to keep it safe. And really, it keeps sex from becoming mild. In a way, it keeps sex wild.

I would urge you to find the true Savior and Liberator Jesus Christ. Don't look to me, or a religion to find Him in. Go to Him directly and listen to Him through His Word--the Bible. The world we live in is going to come crumbling down and it's going to happen quickly if this manifesto ever gains footing in America.

Don't get caught with your pants down when it does.

Two-Thousand Pages of Tyranny

The latest bill on healthcare is two-thousand pages.

Two-thousand pages.

Two.

Thousand.

Pages.

I have right now in my hand a copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The first declares the reasons for why we separated from Great Britain, and the second provides the framework for how the federal government would relate to the people. Do you know how many pages both of these documents are? Twenty seven.

Twenty seven!

See this Bible here?



That's my favorite Bible. It's The Apologetics Study Bible. It doesn't mean to apologize for the Bible and to banish it from society like many liberals would like for me to do. Apologetics comes from the Greek word apologia, which means to present a defense. When you give your apologia you are giving your reasons for your faith. Why do I believe in Christianity? Why, I believe in it for reasons X, Y, and Z.

This Bible contains over 130 articles on every topic you can think of and how it relates to Christianity. Everything from the existence of God, to a Biblical view of human sexuality, to the basics of the laws of logic. In addition to that it has responses to cults twisting the meaning of Scripture, biographies on major Christian apologists, charts, graphs, maps, commentary, room to take notes, and everything else you can think of. Oh, and that's not including the Bible itself. You know, the sixty-six books through which God decided to tell man everything that he needed to know about life, the universe, and everything.

Do you know how many pages it is?

Two-thousand pages!

It's taken Nancy Pelosi the same amount of space to formulate something about healthcare that it's taken God and every major living Christian apologist to reveal the origin, meaning, morality, and destiny of every human that has ever lived.

Well... I guess that's not fair. Those Bibles do have really tiny print. So I'll double it to four-thousand pages. Now it has only taken Pelosi half as long as God and just over 70 times longer than the founders.

Alright, so that's the first half of the blog title, what about the second? Long books aren't tyranny after all.

What does liberty mean? I think a fair definition is a state of affairs where I get to make decisions for my own well-being. That would mean tyranny would be the opposite--someone else makes the decisions for my own well-being without my personal consent.

However, we live in a democracy and I don't get to always have my way. The will of the people gets the go ahead through those who represent us. But I still get a platform to make my personal case (my apologia if you will) and elect individuals who will look out for my interests and listen to what I have to say.

I think we would all agree that to make a respectable case for something you would have to understand the issue at hand. If I want to make a case for Christianity against position X then it would only be fair that I understand both Christianity and position X to fairly represent my opposition.

This is what I wanted to do when all this healthcare business got underway. I wanted to sit down and read it for myself. I heard one side screaming about death panels or something and the opposition demanded that they quit lying about the panels of death. "Well, forget about the he said, she said," I thought, "let's get to the heart of the matter."

So I sat down at my computer, downloaded the document, and began to read it. That's when my brain said, "why, why do you hate me so?" I couldn't understand a damn word of it. Not only that, but it referenced a hundred other documents that didn't make any sense at all. Against the cries of agony emanating from my brain I pushed onward, but then my computer gave out and told me there was no way in hell it could run all these PDF files at once and demanded I go back to watching Charlie the Unicorn on YouTube. Not only would it be easier on my computer, but my brain could actually comprehend it as well.

Seriously, sit down and try to read the healthcare bill. I'm not a genius, nor am I an idiot, but I believe my reading comprehension skills are on par with the average American. I cannot deduce anything about the bill besides maybe that Nancy Pelosi promises that she loves me and wants to be my second mother.

Have you read the documents that founded this nation? You might need to reference a dictionary from the time, but it's nothing that a normal person can't understand.

And you know, if the average American cannot understand it, then it's not written for the people--it's written for a group of dictators who want to push something down your throat without you being able to voice your opinion on it.

And that, my friends, is tyranny. Two-thousand pages of it.

I do not care if you are for socialized healthcare or not, it's something we all need to be concerned about. If you want homosexuality to be recognized by the government, if you want abortion to be allowed without restriction, if you want to be able to legally fling poo at Christians, then you go about doing it through the will of the people. What you do not do is try to shove your power trips through the system and overthrow our republic.

I'd Kill For Better Looking Skin

We can now add one more bullet to the long list of reasons for abortion: abortions must remain a legal right because it allows us to be beautiful. That's right. Abortions are necessary so we can have better looking skin. Neocutis has used the skin tissue from an aborted baby to develop a new line of lotion. Don't worry about the moral aspect--it was only a "one-time medical termination." Only one child had to lose their life for the rest of us to add to our arsenal against wrinkles. After all, wouldn't you kill one person for the betterment of millions? Sometimes certain people just have to die so we can bring in the new utopian dream.

Alright, fine, the child wasn't aborted for the purpose of using its tissue in a skin cream. It was donated after the fact, but the logic behind the reasoning can still be seen creeping behind their phrasing. It was only a one-time event out of the millions of babies that are born a year and it will have lasting results. Besides, "no additional fetal biopsies will ever be required."

For now, at least--in this field.

Do you see how we can play with words to make a case for any ideal we want to justify? It's not murdering a child, it's not even an abortion, it's a one-time medical termination. Hell, why not just make that the new norm to refer to an abortion. Are you going to choose to have that one-time medical termination? Are you pro-one time medical termination, or are you anti-one time medical termination? It adds a nice sound to it all. "For a mere one-time medical termination you can have better looking skin." "Great! I'll take three."

Where do the perverted definitions and rationalizations stop?

They don't stop.

Remember that one time you wanted to do that one thing that you knew you really shouldn't do. Remember how your brain allowed you to rationalize a reason to do it anyway? Yea, I have that problem too.

What's the safeguard against these abhorrent justifications? Where do we turn? The only answer I can think of has become politically incorrect and society seems to be turning to the government to fix its problems. Hopefully history proves itself wrong before we move from killing one person for better looking skin to killing millions for some other dream.

But hey, at least we'll look good doing it.

Come What May

A call came the other night. An acquaintance of mine who I view very much as a mentor was having a breakdown. A feeling of absolute despair had been creeping up over them for the last couple months and it threatened to eat them alive. While not suicidal, they voiced very strongly that they were terrified of where the feeling might lead them. They were looking to me for peace of mind.

I quickly ran outside with my cell phone to where I could have ample pacing room and told God that if he ever thought it might be fun to talk through me that now would be pretty good timing.

I'm not sure if He humored the request.

I guess the conversation went well. Their voice and capability to talk dramatically changed for the better over the hour. At the end they thanked me, I told them to call back anytime, and I offered the rest of the story up to God. Come what may.

Come what may.

For me the statement is one of great comfort or of great despair.

Either there is a God and life, the universe, and everything is in His hands; or there is no God and life, the universe, and everything is destined to ultimately die in heat death after being bounced around by impersonal forces and random chance.

Come what may.

The context changes everything.

Nothing haunts man more than the reality of death, which logically leads into purpose and meaning. What's it all for, and why does any of it matter? Is there a difference if I choose to end my life now, or if I die naturally at the age of 80? If there is no God, then there is no difference. If the entire purpose of man is to wiggle along for as long as he can before he dies, then whatever we do in this life--whether we model our life after Hitler or Mother Teresa--is completely the same. It all amounts to nothing, and no life lived is better than another. Absolute obliteration will be the outcome of man's pursuits regardless of the paths chosen.

It's my contention that only God, and specifically the Christian God, provides man a worldview in which he can live. Only Christianity satisfactorily answers man's deepest questions on the the issues of origins, meaning, morality, and destiny; only Christ can deliver the fulfillment that man craves--He alone is the perpetual novelty.

When I look at atheism it only stares back at me with a performance of dancers and actors without a backdrop. The show of life ends in an anticlimactic fashion. There is no resolution, no cheering, and no standing ovation. The answer for the atheist in times of confusion is ultimately the silence of an indifferent universe.

I dare not speak for you though, you'll have to evaluate your own life and its purpose. If you can find lasting happiness and meaning in a finite and fleeting world, then you're a much bigger dreamer of dreams than I.

Poetic Advice

so

if you want to change society
if you want to change the world
if you want to change a man
and see sanctity unfurled

then

never try to change the world
never try to change society
never try to change a man
but in lieu your own propriety

and

all the difference in society
all the difference in a man
all the difference in the world
will have only just began

but

society has no power
the world only corporal clod
and man can only reflect
such change glistened but from God

†

Kicking Grandma in the Face

A few months ago buses began rolling ads through the streets of London arguing that people should be good for goodness sake, forget about that God guy. Now the ads are coming to New York City with the slogan, "A million New Yorkers are good without God -- Are you?"

Am I? Nope.

Suppose I just got off the subway and I saw someone's grandmother attempting to cross the street after buying groceries. Should I help her across the street or roundhouse kick her to the face and steal her groceries? Which would be the correct moral option here?

Now think about this for a second. We have two actions to choose from. We shall call roundhouse kicking her to the face A for Awesome, and helping her across the street B for Boring. It's completely possible for me to choose either one. Which is morally right though? A or B?

What's the standard that I'm going to appeal to figure out which one is good? Where's the moral measuring device?

Is it the actions themselves? Morality refers to what ought to be. The actions are merely what could take place. You cannot infer whether something is good or bad by merely observing what took place. Nature is what takes place and nature has no moral properties. We need something beyond what is or might be.

Suppose I refer to myself. Morality is how I personally feel about A and B. Suppose I saw grandma buy a Klondike Bar, and, you know, what would I do for a Klondike Bar? Well, I'd friggin' roundhouse kick grandma to the face, that's what. It's morally good for me to choose A because that's how I feel about it.

I guess, then, Hitler was just as morally good as Mother Teresa. The same goes with Martin Luther King and the KKK. They merely had different personal feelings on humanity and civil rights. Erm.. but that can't be right. We need something beyond nature and personal opinion.

Ah, the culture, it must be the culture. Whatever the culture at the time decides is morally right. Grandma seems like a nice lady, and I think there's some law somewhere saying we shouldn't roundhouse kick nice ladies in the face, so that must be the right option.

But what if there was some society somewhere that decided once you became a grandmother instead of birthday presents everyone would roundhouse kick you in the face? If we came across it how could we attempt to tell them that they should only do that if grandma was about to eat the last Klondike Bar? We couldn't do anything about it! The society currently held that A was morally right and thus any attempts to reform culture is arguing against the status quo and therefore morally wrong. So unless Martin Luther King and homosexual activists are necessarily morally wrong, then we also need something beyond society.

What could be beyond the natural world, myself, and society that sets the standard for what's right and wrong? I guess for the atheists it would be nothing. And therefore, for them, there is no grounding for what's right and what's wrong.

My suggestion, then, is to remove the moral category from their ads until they find some basis for morality without God. The new ad sans the ethical dimension reads, "A million New Yorkers are without God--Are you?"

Am I? Nope.

How good of them to advertise for God like that. The ACLU better crack down before they go about offending someone.

Firing Blanks with Gun Control

Apparently there's a problem with guns in America. Or at least that's what a bunch of people keep screaming about. If we can make laws about smoking in restaurants then why not restrict being allowed to carry a gun? After all, smoking slowly kills a person over the course of their life whereas guns have the potential to end a life instantly. If we are going to outlaw smoking for health reasons, then surely guns should follow as well.

It's a dumb argument. Guns aren't killing people, people are killing people. If guns are outlawed then criminals are still going to have guns and be a lot more confident when it comes time to do their dirty work.

That's not the point, though. At least, that's not my point.

Legislation against guns completely misses the mark. If I were to decide to wake up tomorrow morning and go on a rampage with a gun it wouldn't be the guns fault, it wouldn't be my body's fault, nor would it be my trigger finger's fault--it would be my fault.

This is why the founders of this nation made clear that without religion and morality being taught the nation would never be successful. This was for two reasons. First, if there is no God, then there is really no such thing as morality. Morality would be left in the eye of the beholder. And second, they believed that man had a natural proclivity towards sin.

Fast forwards a couple hundred years and we are within a culture pushing God and religion out of the public square. As a result there is no such thing as morality and man is thought to not require salvation from above. The paradigm shift has lead us to what we see today. A culture which will try its best to not call evil out for what it is, while begging for the government to save them from their obvious moral malady. A society where we can walk from one class and argue that good and evil do not exist, and then (ironically) decry in another those who actually call out evil in all its forms. But then this community goes home and the contradiction can be held no longer. Televisions are turned on, newspapers are opened, and something in the heart cries out that things are not how they should be. There really might be such a thing as evil in the world. But that couldn't be from the hearts of men who are basically good. No, it must instead be from our society, from the system. Fix the society, and fix the problems. Ergo, we get ideas like gun control.

Yet, control is not the answer and guns are not the problem. I am the problem. As are you. And the Safety is not of this world.

Applying for a Nobel Peace Prize

Dear Nobel Peace Prize decision making people,

As you may or may not know there is a small battle being waged on the validity of the law of non-contradiction. You know, the law which says that if something is, then it cannot also not be. I cannot exist and not exist at the same time, that would be rather impossible. Not everyone agrees, though. Some people say that attempting to prove the law of non-contradiction is circular logic seeing that one must already have the law of non-contradiction in place if they wish to affirm it. After all, if the conclusion is that the law of non-contradiction is true, then one must have already used the law itself to prove that the law is not false as well. It's bad argumentation to presuppose what you wish to prove.

Way back in history days, as I'm sure you're aware, sometime during the tenth century A.D. a Muslim philosopher named Avicenna came on the scene and made a rather violent argument for the law. He proposed if a philosopher wanted to deny the law of non-contradiction they should be beaten and burned until they admitted that being beaten and burned is not the same as not being beaten and burned.

This is obviously a terrible way to prove the law of non-contradiction, and I'm going to make a case for a better way.

I guess you might be asking what the law of non-contradiction has to do with your Nobel Prizes for peace, physics, medicine and the rest, but I think after a few moments of deliberation it becomes obvious. If you wish to award so-and-so the award for doing such-and-such then it can't also be true that they didn't do such-and such. Surely you can see how you need the law to grant your awards. If I can save the Nobel Prize then I deserve one myself. And further it should be a Peace Prize seeing as that I am saving people everywhere from being beaten and burned until they deny that they are also not being beaten and burned.

Therefore, I am demanding my Nobel Peace Prize for the dilemma this puts you in. If you wish to say that I have proven the law of non-contradiction then you owe me the award for saving both the victims of Avicenna and the Nobel Prize itself. Yet, if you wish to deny that I have proven the law of non-contradiction then it must also be true that I have proven the law (seeing that you need to use the law to deny that I have!). Whatever your response I have earned the prize.

I honestly see no way for you to escape this. You might say that you already believe in the law of non-contradiction, but this is obviously not true as you gave a Nobel Prize to President Obama for doing nothing at all. You must also believe that he has actually done something while seeing that he has done nothing. There is no law of non-contradiction to be found in your reasoning.

I expect my award and million dollars in 6-8 weeks.

Thank you,
CB Riggs

Straightening Out Obama's Human Rights Campaign Speech

This is an area I enter into with much fear and trembling. Not because I believe that I am wrong, but because this is an issue that our "tolerant" society has absolutely no tolerance for. Two years ago, a time when all the cool kids were using MySpace, I posted a short two sentence bulletin informing all my friends that the opportunity to vote on the Florida Marriage Amendment was coming up. That is all I said and nothing more. The next thing I knew some of my fellow co-workers were calling up others and trying to get people to wage a war against me. Blogs were posted on MySpace saying some of the harshest things I have ever heard someone else say about me and all of this because I posted a short quip about an upcoming ballot. My advice is this. If you are offended or even angered about my position then may I suggest that you enter into civilized conversation with me about it. I am open to being shown that I am wrong, but the only way I'm going to be convinced of this is if I see actual reasons why.

Before I get to the blog proper let me reply to one small choice of words used to describe people like me: bigot and homophobe.

Bigotry is when someone holds to a position without justifiable support. They cling to their ideas and ideologies without reason, and they blast those who disagree with fiery rhetoric. I do not believe that is me, as I have my reasons. Whether they are justifiable is another question, but I would hope that in the least they hold meaning and content.

Homophobia is when someone is afraid of homosexuals. This is perhaps the most ridiculous response to being against gay marriage that I have ever heard of in my life. What it really equates to is "shut up." That, my friends, is bigotry. Just think about it. Take arachnophobia for example, the fear of spiders. Is a fear of spiders in any way related to thinking that spiders are morally wrong when they spin their web or crawl along your wall? No, it's merely being afraid of them. Someone could think that spinning webs is morally wrong or morally right, but that would have no effect on if they were afraid of them or not. If people out there are really afraid of homosexuals then the moral feelings on homosexual marriage is not in any way linked to it. And really, if I actually was afraid of homosexuals then I'd want them to be able to skip about in the open shamelessly. I wouldn't want a closet homosexual to sneak up on me, I'd rather them be walking around in rainbow shirts so I could hide in trash cans when I saw them coming. Finally, if I really am a homophobe, then you're a homophobe-phobe. Quit being such a homophobe-phobe.

Anyway, this is going to be in response to President Obama's speech at the Human Rights Campaign. Obviously his speech was not meant to be a formal argument for homosexuality, seeing as today nothing in politics is a formal argument for anything. However, hidden in his speech are different presuppositions and arguments that I wish to reply to. Obama is a master at sounding like he is saying a lot while actually saying nothing at all.

Standing against homosexual marriage is holding to outworn arguments and old attitudes.

This isn't something I would normally reply to, but I think it's how Obama deals with the opposition. When asked about abortion he told us that it's above his pay-grade. When referring to the Bible and homosexual marriage he argued that it wasn't clear. And now when referring to the arguments for being against homosexual marriage they are outworn and old. This is how to sidestep the issue, or in other words say that the opposition does not matter. Is the entity in the womb a human? Obama says it doesn't matter. What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Obama says it doesn't matter. What are the arguments for traditional marriage? Obama says they do not matter. What matters is his ideology. If I were a betting man I would bet that not only is Obama incapable of replying to pro-life, pro-Scripture, pro-marriage positions, but that he could not even begin to represent them.

Can you remember the last time we as a nation had a formal debate on the issues of abortion, Christianity, and homosexuality? I cannot. May I suggest that when the nation is divided on an issue that we all step up and demand the positions to be fleshed out and presented rationally? Why do we have to limit ourselves to politically empty speeches, bumper stickers, and news broadcasts of two people talking over one another? Are Americans not capable of listening to two well-informed speakers and then reaching a rational conclusion on the issue? Do we really have to rely on a select minority making laws and decisions for the rest of the country because they have some moral understanding that we do not?

Homosexual marriage is a civil right.

No one wants to be against a civil right, much like no one wants to be against freedom of choice. You want something to gain support you call it a civil right. You want to kill another person then you call your position pro-choice. A civil right is a right or freedom granted to all persons which cannot be denied. If I ran a country that guaranteed civil rights but then made a law that denied a civil right the only way to argue against it would be to appeal to something which transcends all society. If civil rights are defined by society, then they can be taken away by the same society. In short, civil rights presuppose God which is why the Declaration of Independence grounds them in the Creator. No God, no civil rights.

Now we must ask ourselves what is the role of the government when it comes to civil rights. Once again, according to the Declaration of Independence the role of the government is to secure these rights. When we keep something secure we keep it safe from harm. To secure something does not mean to create it, but to guard it.

Now, what is marriage? Think about this for a moment. What is the actual essence of marriage? What is it that changes about a relationship between two people when they get married? Is it love? No, as you can have love before a marriage. It is commitment? No, as you can be committed before a marriage. I have thought long and hard about this and to me it seems that the only real change that can occur between two people in marriage is if there is some change that comes from God. Every other factor can be in effect in a relationship with or without a marriage. Therefore, it seems that marriage is only meaningful if it comes from God. Without God we are merely using different words to describe a relationship that is fundamentally the same before and after the wedding.

So we have (1) civil rights are granted by God, (2) civil rights are upheld by the government ,and (3) for marriage to be substantively meaningful it must be a change initiated by God.

Can you begin to see how marriage must be, by definition, a religious institution that has nothing to do with the government? It also begins to emerge that if the government were to declare the marriage between a same-sex couple and a heterosexual couple as unequivocal that marriage really does become meaningless. Homosexual marriage is an assault on marriage. Of course, the government might say to itself, "hey, if people aren't getting married and having children then this society isn't going to last" and therefore decides to grant certain benefits to married couples, but the government by no means is the arbiter of marriage.

And therefore, marriage cannot be a civil right seeing as that it is not something we are born with. We are born with the right to live a life where we can succeed, fail, laugh, cry, and enter into loving committed relationships, but marriage is a union granted later in life through God. That is something totally different from a civil right. Civil rights are never added by God, they necessarily follow from being a creation of God.

Not allowing homosexual marriage is reading discrimination into the Constitution.

Too late, it's already there. The definition of discrimination is to make a distinction between two different things. The President must be a natural born citizen. If Joe is born in Florida and Ravi is born in India then Joe is eligible to be President and Ravi is not. When you go to the airport the metal detectors and designed to pick out those carrying potential weapons on the aircraft. The machine is designed to discriminate between those who have metal objects on them and those who do not. There is a distinction, or difference made between the two.

Now, let me take a moment to explain the logic that will be used here as some people miss the point and walk away thinking that I have equated homosexuality with murder. Suppose I wanted to make an argument for abortion and I came out with this:

(1) Women have a right to choose.
(2) Women can choose to have an abortion.
(3) Therefore, women can rightfully choose to have an abortion.

This is logically valid, but is the argument true? Let's change it around a little.

(1) Women have a right to choose.
(2) Women can choose to kill their children.
(3) Therefore, women can rightfully choose to kill their children.

Is this true? Do women have a right to kill their children? Probably not. Therefore, it seems that the only way the first argument is true is if we change the first premise to "(1*) A woman's choice is always morally right", but then it also follows that women can morally kill their own children which is obviously not true! Ergo, the argument for abortion completely ignores the question of if abortion is morally right. Choice has nothing to do with the moral nature of abortion! The nature of the child in the womb does!

Let's visit Obama's argument for gay marriage:

(1) The Constitution does not allow for discrimination.
(2) It is discrimination to not allow same-sex couples to get married.
(3) Therefore, the Constitution demands that we allow same-sex couples to get married.

Is this actually true? Let's change it around a little.

(1) The Constitution does not allow for discrimination.
(2) It is discrimination to send the guilty to jail and let the innocent roam free.
(3) Therefore, the Constitution demands that we do not send criminals to jail (or jail everyone?!).

Another obviously ridiculous conclusion. What went wrong here? Obviously discrimination is not the deciding factor here. What needs to be changed to the argument for homosexual marriage is that not allowing homosexual couples to get married is a morally wrong application of discrimination. Yet, as we have already seen marriage is not something that the state can grant or deny. I can be given a piece of paper or denied a piece of paper, but I cannot be granted or denied by the state something that is given by God.

Therefore, we have reached two conclusions. First, the Constitution already includes discrimination (differentiation), and second, Obama's argument does not answer the question of if or if not homosexual marriage is something that is granted by the state. Which, as we have seen, is not.

Homosexual marriage is a basic equality.

This is represented by that omnipresent yellow equal sign on the backs of cars. When I see this I always wonder exactly what it means. Obviously it's in reference to gay people and how they are equal to straight people, but I am not sure in which way they mean it. Does it mean that gay people can enter into loving relationships just as straight people can? I'm sure they can. Or does it mean that gay people can make committed relationships just like straight people? I'm sure they can as well. In fact, there is nothing preventing gay people from making loving committed relationships to whomever they want right now. The have the equal right to do this just as much as I do. I can make loving committed relationships to my mother, brother, sister, friends, or dog just as much as gay people can.

There are also obvious differences that cannot be equated in any such way. Gay people can't be in a committed homosexual relationship with each other and have heterosexual sex. Nor can two people of the same sex produce a child. I guess they also couldn't argue that only one of them must always cook and clean. So it seems to me that there are certain traits true of heterosexual people that aren't of homosexuals.

So I guess the only thing they can be referring to make it a meaningful statement is that gay people have a right to the benefits that come with marriage just as much as straight people do. Do they? I am not sure. This seems largely a political issue, and I am in no way trained as a politician. Does the government have a interest in granting homosexual relationships with the same benefits that come with marriage? To me it seems absurd to think so. There are issues like hospital visitation and whatnot that might I might bend a knee towards, but the idea that homosexuals necessarily have a moral right to the same benefits just doesn't follow from any notion of equality I can think of. And whichever ones actually do would fall under a civil union, not a marriage for reasons that we have already seen.

Finally, as far as I know, in California there is absolutely no difference between a civil union and a marriage. All the benefits that come with marriage also come with a civil union and still the battle over marriage wages. It's a battle over the definition of the word. And this, it seems, is because people know that when you change the definition of a word you change the definition of the world. Not in any actually meaningful sense, but in the eyes of those who live in the world. It would appear that the demand for equality is actually a demand for acceptance in the eyes of the nation as promulgated through the law. This is not the role of the government as I will argue in the next section.

Hate crime bills must be put into place to protect homosexuals.

Hate crimes would be laws that make hate crimes against homosexual illegal. Why? Because we've all heard the name of Matthew Shepard, the homosexual who was killed for merely being gay. Laws must be passed in order to protect homosexuals from such crimes according to Obama. This idea is completely superfluous--it's already illegal to commit crimes. If someone were to steal my stereo because they wanted it, or if they stole my stereo because I was gay it makes no difference. They stole my stereo, and that is morally wrong. Are homosexuals equals or are they not? If we're equals, as those bumper stickers seem to imply, then there is no reason to grant homosexuals protections that heterosexuals are not granted.

Further, hate is not a crime! If I were to tell you that I hated homosexuals would that be a crime? You might (rightfully) walk away in disgust, but I didn't commit a crime. In America we are allowed to hate and love whomever we please! I can hate gays, blacks, politicians, women, bloggers, Christians, or emo bands all I want, but I am by no means doing something illegal. It's only illegal when I act upon these feelings and commit a crime because of them. In fact, it's also illegal if I were to kill someone out of some sort of twisted love for them.

Let me tell you this, if we as a nation start making hate a crime then we're screwed. Period. You can't begin to make thoughts illegal. That's totalitarianism. The idea of a hate crimes bill should be something that all people should stand against regardless of if your the party that becomes "protected" or not. The government is not there to tell us how to think.

The only reason someone would be for a bill against hate was if they were searching for social acceptance.

Homosexuals are facing the same struggles as African Americans did in the past.

This is obviously true. Homosexuals everywhere are being forced to sit at the back of the bus, only attend certain schools, and not have a say in the voting booth. We can also recall that during the Civil Rights Movement comedians were mocking racists everywhere, television shows all had people acting as blacks and arguing for their so-called equality, and every pop icon in the world led a social movement towards the social acceptance of black people.

"Don't Ask Don't Tell" prevents homosexuals from their right to openly serve for their country.

This is an area I'm not going to say much about, as I'm attempting to make philosophical arguments against homosexual marriage. When it comes to statistics and sociology I am by no means an expert (I'm an expert in nothing), and it always appears that no matter what one study says there is another contradicting it or showing how it's bunk. While studies do impact my reasons, they aren't going to be any part of my actual case as I cannot actually check their validity with absolute certainty. I guess in a certain sense I am forced to pick the ones that already fit my viewpoint unless I spot something wrong in the logic or presuppositions of them.

With that being said I am not sure that this is something that Obama really needs to be focusing on right now. This is a very dangerous time in the history of the world, and major sociological experiments don't appear on the top of the list given the current global climate.

Further, I cannot help but conclude that homosexuality is linked to promiscuity. I do not mean that as a blanket statement as I know not all homosexuals are promiscuous and that all heterosexuals are no where close to being icons of propriety. Yet, when I look at gay pride parades I can't help but notice a bunch of men dancing around in their underwear. Does acting like a weirdo while wearing next to nothing really define what it means to have pride? I guess gay people might be saying that they are so comfortable with their sexuality that they can wear it on their sleeve, but this isn't a decent way for anyone to act. It doesn't matter who you are. And I can't help but feel that if such behavior is characteristic of homosexuality that they really might be a threat to morale on the battlefield.

Another reason that sticks out in my mind for being against gays in the military deals with sexual attraction. When we go to the gym men shower in one room and women in another. I'm sure all the women would be bothered if I just happened to meander into their dressing room. The same would seem to be true if I knew I was being lusted over by a gay man while I was showering. I would assume that living on the battlefield is a very personal and intimate affair and adding sexual attraction to the mix might just be a problem to the success of the mission.

People like me need to compromise on the issue.

This is Obama's big catch phrase. Let's just all find the common ground and get along. I've said it once before and I'll say it once again. On some issues there just is no common ground. When I go to see a movie and I want to see one show and my friend something else we might agree to see something that we both want to see. That's finding a compromise. However if I want to murder people and my friend does not, then there is no compromise here. It doesn't do any good to start screaming, "don't like murder, then don't murder people!" it just tells the people who are against murder to go live in a cave and not worry about society.

This is what Obama's position always equates to. He says that he knows we won't always agree on abortion, but let's just let those people who want to murder their children do so and everyone else who doesn't not do so. That's nothing but the pro-abortion side wrapped up in nice language. It isn't a compromise at all. What the compromise is is that people like me can shut up and sit in my nice little traditionalist box and the rest of the world will do as it pleases. "You can have your religion and morals inside your house and church, we get the real world."

And really, I've already compromised on the issue. I've been forced to. Civil unions are slowly being granted every right that marriages are. Soon there will be absolutely no difference between the two. The only difference will be the word that we use to describe them. And you know, if it isn't a compromise to live in a world where homosexuals get everything they want while all we have left is eight letters thrown together in a particular order, then I don't know else is.

But like I said before, this issue doesn't seem to be about anything but a specific agenda to push homosexuality down the throats of every person living in America.

The Agnostic is the Closet Pansophist

The law of excluded middle states that something either is or it is not. An object cannot be and not be at the same time, we are forced to choose one option or another. For example, God either exists or He does not exist. There is no other option to choose from.

That, I think, leads us to a question for the ages: Does God exist?

There are a few responses that can be said about it. We can respond that God does exist, that God does not exist, or that we cannot know if God exists. The first is theism, the second atheism, and finally we have agnosticism.

The answer I wish to look at is the answer of agnosticism. There are many types of agnosticism. There is the type that says "I just don't know right now", and that is respectable as long as the person is still searching. What I cannot respect is the person who says that they don't know and that it doesn't really matter.

If God exists, then not only did He create everything and continues to sustain it all, but He might also require something of cognizant creatures. I think for the sake of prudence and common sense that this is something that matters above everything else. You get it wrong with God and I don't really know of any place left to turn.

If God does not exist, then that's the end of the story and conversation. There is no point in worrying or thinking about something that doesn't exist. I guess we can write some stories about the gods, but when it comes to our lives we don't base them on objects that don't exist. God's non-existence is of no importance whatsoever.

Therefore, if God exists then it's the most important issue before man, and if God does not exist then the issue doesn't matter at all.

Through the law of excluded middle we can see that there is no other option left before us. The question of God cannot be of moderate importance. The question must be answered by everyone.

There is another breed of agnosticism which argues there is some epistemological barrier between us and God. God is outside of the realm of knowledge; it's something we can't even begin to know because our mind and/or vantage point is not capable of grasping the infinite. This of course is self-defeating. It pulls the rug out from under its own feet. If we cannot know anything about God, then we could not even know that God is unknowable, and therefore knowledge of God is on the table.

And then finally there is the type that argues that knowledge is possible but that no one knows it. This is supposed to be open-minded and tolerant I guess. It comes in the popular form when the agnostic answers "do you really think you know the truth about God?" It makes theists sound like fools. How dare they actually think that they know the truth. Every sensible person should just realize that they don't know if God exists.

The problem here is that this position claims to be even more dogmatic and omniscient than the one which claims that God exists.

Take the teleological argument from DNA. Within every living creature on this earth lies a code written in their DNA. This code predetermines everything about your physical body. Now from this the argument goes that codes only come from a mind. Natural events and impersonal objects do not produce codes or information, only a mind does. Therefore, you were created by a mind and that mind is God. Before someone freaks out please realize that I'm not actually making the case for this argument here, I'm merely using it as an example. For the sake of argument suppose that it's true.

I have to ask, what's so insane about this and believing in God's existence from it?

If the premises are true (I am made of information and information only comes from a mind) then the conclusion (I was made by a Mind) follows.

There is nothing being asserted here that presupposes that I have some special knowledge or vantage point that allows me to see the world as others cannot. I claimed to know two things. That is hardly some special knowledge.

Back to the agnostic. The agnostic claims that no one can actually know if God exists. Yet to make this claim the agnostic has to know every reason for why God exists or does not exist and understand why every single one of them fails. I spend most of my time thinking and reading about the philosophy of religion and I don't know every reason for and against God's existence. Yet, the agnostic somehow does, and more than that, they know the arguments so well that they can see why all of them fail. It doesn't matter when, where, or who the idea sprang from, according to the agnostic, it's wrong and they know exactly why.

That is just not possible.

So let's get back to the question.

The Puzzle Piece of the Nobel Peace Prize

I was sitting in a small coffee shop upon a cruise ship yesterday when my eyes decided to take a quick break from their place in my book and glance towards the television. There they settled upon the words, "Obama wins Nobel prize." In response my brain attempted to declare a civil war against my eyes for deceiving it so, but after a few moments my eyes made their case that things were so and my brain did what it could to process the information. My brain quietly made me stand up, clutch the shirt around my chest, rip it from my body, and use the scraps to violently break everything in the room. Apologizing to my hands my brain then gave me back control and I quietly excused myself from the room, went down to my cabin, and finished my book.

Upon making landfall I scoured the internet for the rationale behind such a decision and was forced to fight another rampage when reading that it was for what Obama could accomplish with his vision. Not for what he did, but for what he could do. Well, if this is the logic that allows us to give out a Nobel Peace Prize then why not give him an Oscar for what he could accomplish on screen or perhaps the Stanley Cup for what he could accomplish on the ice.

You know, I honestly don't know how people make sense of the world. We live in an age where it's illegal to test shampoo on a cat, but it's okay to replace a mother's warm embrace with a tube sucking out a baby's brain. Currently, a schoolgirl cannot be given aspirin by her school without her parents' permission, but she can receive an abortion without her mother and father knowing a thing about it. You can have naked women pushing products on television, but you can't have a cross in the middle of the desert. If you're a preacher and you get caught up in a sexual scandal the media jumps all over it, but if you're a celebrity or a member of the left then the news hides the story and Hollywood rushes to your defense. And soon, it seems, we can say whatever we want about conservatives, no matter how degrading or disgusting it might be, but it will become a crime to merely view homosexual marriage as a violation of common sense natural principles.

Modern man is a walking chimera of contradiction and contrarieties ever attempting to make his living on the mere shadow of what once was a culture built upon solid ground. Being troubled by a man winning what once was such a prestigious award for merely having the potential to win it is the least of our worries.

Christians and conservatives have been fighting a losing war for the past couple decades. We've been focusing on the issues and not the worldview. Yes, abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia are moral wrongs. Yes, evolution is a theory that doesn't make sense without active input from God. And, yes, this country was founded upon a certain political system. But while we were arguing for all that we missed the larger picture and the other side seized it and replaced it with their own. You see, to make sense of reality you need a worldview. You need a system of thought through which you can make sense of the little bits of information you take in and live by throughout the day. Christianity is the only system that actually succeeds in doing such a thing, and its upon these principles that mankind stands or falls. The Church ignored that truth and let the secular world work in plain sight in replacing God with man, design with chance, and morality with opinion polls.

For example, in Poland, Prime Minister Donald Tusk recently argued that castration on pedophiles was not a violation of human rights because pedophiles are such horrible people that they cannot be considered human beings. I'm not attempting to defend pedophiles but the logic is as clear as any modus ponens. If we're all a product of time, matter, and chance, then it doesn't matter who or what we declare is actually a human. Jews? Not worthy of human rights. Blacks? Not worthy either. Unborn babies? Place them on that list as well. It's a simple act of unwarranted fiat based upon the presupposition that man is nothing in and of himself.

However, in the Christian worldview it all falls into place. Human beings are human beings regardless of what they have done, what color their skin it, or how small or large they might be. This is not because some piece of paper or elite body of persons grants them this right, but because God created all of humanity to be equal. With proper theology in place, the pieces start to fit. All of them. And that includes this weird idea of Obama getting a Nobel Peace Prize for doing absolutely nothing while others attempting to really change the world through reaction and not rhetoric are constantly demonized.

You see, deep down inside man hates that which is good for man is in constant rebellion with God. Thus man will fight his best to destroy that light wherever it shines. America is such a place where that light shines, but Obama does not agree. And so he is rewarded for his constant trampling and trashing of all that is good. This reward is not in recognition of bringing peace between anything at all. This was a purely political move for the ideology of some godless Europeans who are enjoying Obama's destruction of all that which is good.

At least, that's the only way I can piece this together--and that's my peace prize for my own head.

Why I'm an Intolerant Closed-Minded Bigot

We all know it's true. Christians are closed-minded intolerant bigots. They actually have the audacity to think that they're right about their religious beliefs and everyone else is wrong. From their self-built platform they then get off telling the world who they can marry and what they can do with their own bodies. If the world doesn't listen, then the Christians just tell them they're going to hell. It's too bad Christians can't be objective and open-minded with the rest of society.

Well, a lot of people think that's true. I don't. Here's why.

First, what does it mean to be closed-minded and intolerant? If it means that a person will never rationalize his way through another position and only pontificate on his own, then I might agree. That person is closed-minded as they refuse to see things from a different perspective. Are there Christians who are like this? Yes. However, are their people of all beliefs who are like this? Yes! I do not believe that the problem is with the Christian message, but with society in general. People are closed-minded, the Christian message is not.

Do you like logic? I like logic. Let's get logical.

If I ask two people to guess how tall my mother is and they both give me two different heights, then they cannot both be correct (unless one was meant to be with heels or some other qualification). They could, of course, both be wrong. To determine which, if either, is right, investigation must be pursued. This is true with religious beliefs as well. When the Christian claims that Jesus died on the cross, and the Muslim claims that Jesus did not die on the cross they cannot both be correct. Either Jesus died on the cross, or He did not die on the cross. The question becomes did Jesus die on a cross or did He not (or did He even exist at all?). If He did then Islam is false, if He did not, then Christianity is false. This is not being intolerant, this is simply being consistent with the nature of reality. Christianity is a belief about the nature of reality, and therefore follows the same logic as applied to determining if anyone was correct about my mother's height.

Logic: 'tis simple.

But what about all this nonsense about Jesus being the only way to salvation? Once again truth is exclusive. When Christ stated that He was 'the Way, the Truth, and the Life,' that no man comes to the Father but through Him, He was making a reasonable statement that reflected these simple nature of truth. Jesus could have been wrong, there might be more ways, but the mere exclusivity of the statement itself is not ground for saying that it's wrong or intolerant.

In fact, even the belief that all religions are true is exclusive. Religious pluralism is no less intolerant and dogmatic as Christianity. What's secretly being said is that every religion of the world is wrong. The pluralist is arguing that when a religion makes a claim about the nature of reality it's false. This is because once we predicate religious truth to reality it then becomes exclusive. Reality, as we have seen, is one way or the other. Either your dinner is poison, or it is not poison. Either that light is red or it's not red, you aren't going to speed through a red light arguing that it's really green for you and only red for other people. The only possible way to bunch all religions or world-views together would be to water them down to where they no longer reflect what they actually claim to be. Ironically, one would have to conform them to his own predetermined doctrine of beliefs, therefore, demonstrating what they are attempting to avoid: beliefs are exclusive.

So, then, in the name of truth and common-sense, I'll gladly continue being a closed-minded intolerant bigot. It's the only way to live. Besides, deep down you're one too. Admit it.

Picture Problem

Picture one:

Here we apparently have the Obama seed from which some sort of tree has blossomed. Under its branches we can see people from different backgrounds coming together holding hands in peace and harmony.

...really?

Perhaps it's just me but I think what this country needs is a reformation back to its roots and not a new seed planted in the ideologies of some man bringing "change." That's why I'm a conservative, I desire to conserve what this country was founded upon and not progress away from it.

For example, the Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." From this we can infer that our country was founded with three specific propositional truths: God exists, He created man, and there are moral absolutes. Yet, today it is unconstitutional to speak about God, creationism, or moral absolutes in public school. This is because secular humanism has become the new founding basis for our society. The Humanist Manifesto declares that "the universe is self-existing and not created"; that "man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process"; and finally that "the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernal or cosmic guarantee of human values." This is the only politically correct position to speak of and base public policy on. It is of no coincidence that most liberals are for secular humanism as the basis for this country. Secular humanism is the antithesis of what this country was founded on and liberals wish to liberate this country from its roots and make it anew.

I'll pass. Two people ate from that tree a long time ago. It wasn't good.

Picture two:

I can't say I know much about Michael Moore seeing as that I don't know anything about him. Yet, I'm going to go ahead and judge his movie by its poster. From what I can gather we have some CEO holding a giant bag of money hidden away in one hand, and a tiny American flag waving in the wind in another. Through capitalistic principles Mr. CEO is becoming rich by exploitation of the middle class. Oh, and we also have Michael Moore who isn't buying any of it. Apparently he also smells really bad because the rest of protesters in the background don't want to be anywhere near him.

What's the problem here and what is the solution? I guess it's that Mr. CEO is a greedy son-of-a-bitch and he needs someone to come in and regulate how he runs things.

Problem solved.

But is it? Think hard about what was the real problem. It wasn't capitalism, it was greed. Mr. CEO may not have that large bag of cash anymore but he's still going to be a greedy son-of-a-bitch. Why? Because I'm a greedy son-of-a-bitch. As are you. We're all greedy sons-of-bitches. It's in our nature. Moving the money bag from this person to that person isn't going to change anything. It's just going to cause the money to be held onto by whichever greedy son-of-a-bitch gets his hands on it.

There is no political system that is going to lead us out of our problems. That's because the problem isn't political, it's moral. We no longer base ourselves in what this country was founded on, we instead teach a system of thought that is its polar opposite. The logic that follows is simple: if there is no God and man is merely the product of time, matter, and chance, then there isn't any reason why I shouldn't go ahead and be that greedy son-of-a-bitch; life is meaningless, I have no moral law to abide by, and you have no intrinsic worth that I should respect.

I guess our children have been studying Secular Humanism 101 in school and are applying its principles to their daily lives.

Son-of-a-bitch.