ANOTHER TAKE ON JANUARY 22nd

January 31, 2014

Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) wished Roe v. Wade a happy 41^st birthday on January 22, 2014 because of her “commitment to protecting women’s rights.”  On that same day the NARAL website invited people to “celebrate” the Roe v. Wade decision handed down by the Supreme Court on January 22, 1973 giving women the “right to privacy”, and thus an invented right to exercise the “choice” to abort their unborn child.  Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, on the same website that day advocated for “pro-choice” values and attacked the “hypocrisy” of the “anti-choice” movement.  On that day, the barbarians celebrated their "right" to child sacrifice. 

Since January 22, 1973 there have been approximately 55,000,000 abortions in this country.  Necrometrics.com, a website which lists approximate casualties from some of the more infamous genocides of the 20^th century, reveals the following sobering comparison.  The genocides that occurred under Stalin in Russia, the Holocaust under Hitler, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, in Bosnia, Darfur, Rwanda, and Somalia, erased the lives of nearly 30,000,000 people.  If present trends continue, this year we will have destroyed by legal abortion the lives of twice the number of human beings destroyed in the 20^th century by some of the greatest monsters in history.  And we will do so in the name of “freedom” and “reproductive rights.”  How is this something to celebrate?

When numbers are too great they overwhelm and their impact is, unfortunately, lessened.  The brilliant director, Steven Spielberg, in the 1993 film “Schindler’s List” recognized this.  I will never forget the tool he used to personalize the horror of the holocaust.  In a movie filmed in black and white, Spielberg colored the dress of one little girl red.  While hordes of prisoners were transported and ordered about, your eye was continually caught by, and following, that little red dress.  It was a disturbing but powerful way to remind us all that there were 13,000,000 individual victims to the horrors of Hitler’s genocide.       

Over 55,000,000 individuals have been robbed of the gift of life.  They have been sacrificed on  altars of convenience and economics and embarrassment.  Because their lives were never allowed to extend beyond their mother’s womb, their tiny voices have never been heard, their stories never told.  What might have been had they been allowed to live will always remain just that.

Every January 22^nd has an intensely personal meaning to me.  You see, my wife and I were blessed with a son born to an unwed mother.  He was born on January 22, 1983, exactly ten years after the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down.  His mother was a nineteen year old college student living in Las Cruces, NM.  Her boyfriend refused to acknowledge parentage.  Like millions of others, she could have decided to kill our son.  Roe v. Wade had handed her that legal right.  We would never have known had she done so.  His brief life and death would be just another statistic on a gruesome chart.  Thank God, she decided to allow her baby, our son, to live. 

Adam has blessed our lives for thirty one years.  He’s a plumber with a sweet wife and two darling children, a little boy and a little girl.  He’s hardworking, funny, loves to hunt, and loves his wife and babies in a way that will touch your heart.

I will always be grateful to the young woman who spared his life.  I can’t imagine our lives without his as a part of them.  His mother unselfishly made the choice to allow him to live.  I can’t put into words what that means; or the horror of imagining if she had chosen to destroy him, as have so many.

What rests in the hearts of those who would celebrate death?  What lurks in the minds of those who glory in word games designed to dehumanize a human being?  How can they celebrate as a triumph the deaths of millions of unborn children?  I genuinely don’t understand. But I will always be grateful for those women of courage, who, under difficult circumstances, choose life.  May they be lauded and blessed for their choice.

 

OF PIGS AND DOGS

January 30, 2014

 

I’ve had two challenging interactions with friends recently over how we, as Christians, should respond to the world.   A dear, and very bright, sister in Christ expressed concern about unnecessarily offending and judging others by our actions, or reactions, to them.  Specifically, she made reference to the case in Oregon where a couple who owned a bakery refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.  Their refusal clearly offended that couple.  Did giving them offense serve a defensible purpose?  The second interaction involved the concerns of a brother in Christ over falling into the trap of labeling and, perhaps, in a sense, dehumanizing those whose sins offend us.  For instance, treating the militant LGBT community as the enemy, and, in the process, failing to differentiate between the sin and the sinner.  Could we not, in the process of that, fall into the trap of condemning their offensive militancy even as we were practicing our own? 

In light of these very legitimate concerns, allow me to share a few observations.

First, scripture makes it very clear that it is not within our purview to harshly judge.  Jesus expressly forbids such judging in Matthew 7:1,2.  He not only forbids it, but attaches a warning that, should we indulge is such judging, we will find ourselves judged in the same manner.  Paul, in 1 Corinthians 4:3-5 will similarly caution against judging, warning that we are not equipped to step into that role.

Secondly, the word of God vehemently denounces objectifying and dehumanizing other human beings.  The book of Philemon is written by Paul to motivate Philemon to see Onesimus not as a slave, which to the Roman world would be something less than human, but rather as a brother. In Matthew 5:28 Jesus will attach the sin of adultery to one who would look lustfully upon a woman in his heart.  Turning females (and males) into “sex objects”, which is exactly what pornography does, is very dangerous business spiritually. 

Thirdly, while we are neither to judge nor objectify, that does not mean we are to blithely ignore sin or its consequences – quite the opposite.  In Matthew 7:15-20 Jesus will emphasize the importance of “fruit” inspection.  We are not to harshly judge others, but at the same time it is vital that we consider the fruit, good or bad, being produced by their lives.  Also, while we are not to critically judge others, we have a responsibility to discipline brothers and sisters in Christ whose lives are reflecting deliberate rebellion against His will (see 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 Thessalonians 3). Thus, we must not only evaluate the sinful actions of others, there are times when we are called upon to strongly react to them (1 Corinthians 5:1-7).

Fourthly, we need to speak the truth in love as Paul urges in Ephesians 4:15. Some read this as saying, in essence, that we must therefore not give offense to anyone.  But I believe that is a misreading and misapplication of what Paul is urging.  Agape is to seek the highest good of another.  It is not to emotionally coddle.  Speaking the truth can be challenging, and in the minds of some, offensive.  It is just as wrong to avoid truth in the name of civility as it is to use truth as a hammer with which to beat someone.  If we never confront others over their sin, how can they possibly be moved to repentance (Luke 13:3)?

Fifthly, it is enlightening that immediately following His admonition against harsh judging in Matthew 7:1,2, Jesus will warn in Matthew 7:6 – “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you.”  Jesus is not making reference to animals here, but to human beings who are living and reacting like animals.  He is warning His people to be aware that there are those out there in the world who not only do not value the holy but are downright dangerous. 

We are kidding ourselves if we refuse to recognize that there are those in the world who despise our God, His will, and His people.   Bill Maher has repeatedly done what he could to spit on what is holy and rend the people of God.  Macklemore’s anthem to “equality”, “Same Love,” that was rapped during the travesty of a wedding ceremony on the Grammys last Sunday evening, viciously rips at Christianity as bigoted and hateful.  To stick our heads in the sand and think such vitriol should go unresponded to grants permission for destruction.  Neither the apostles nor Stephen minced any words nor gave any ground when confronted by those who were determined to quiet their voices.  Responding to bigotry with bigotry is unchristian, but to respond to bigotry with silence, as long as we are allowed a voice, is suicidal.  

Finally, I must come back to the fact that no one changes their mind unless challenged to do so.  Sin, in all its forms, must be confronted for the soul destroying poison that it is.  Repentance is not going to be generated without confrontation and, at times, denunciation.  Don’t forget that our Lord drove moneychangers from the temple and called the scribes and Pharisees snakes and hypocrites.  Was He being unloving, or was He rather seeking to somehow shatter the barriers of hard-heartedness and pomposity with which they had wrapped their hearts?  Jesus would lament Jerusalem’s (Matthew 23:37,38) refusal to hear Him, but He never stopped stridently and forcefully calling them to repentance.  

May God grant us great wisdom, faith, and courage for the battles that lie ahead.     

Why Vote???

January 20, 2014

            It appears to me that we are embarking on a new, and frightening, way of governance in this country. It is governance by judicial fiat. Increasingly, the right of mere citizens to express themselves on moral issues is being stripped from them. U.S. District Judge Terrence Kern struck down Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, stating in his decision that the amendment is based merely on “moral disapproval” of same sex marriages and thus, in his opinion, stands in violation of the U.S. constitution. A state constitutional amendment passed by an overwhelming majority of Oklahoma voters in 2004 has just been negated by the decision of one man.

            Are Oklahomans really “arbitrary” and “irrational” in their position on gay marriage?  That is exactly what Judge Kern accused them of. From his lofty perch, high above the close-mindedness of the unwashed masses, he has been empowered to, dare I use the word “arbitrarily”, reverse the will of the people based upon his own, obviously superior in his opinion, moral view. One man, appointed, not elected to his position, is able to reverse the will expressed by seventy six percent of the voters of Oklahoma in 2004.  

            This kind of judicial tyranny is now being suffered all over the country. Less than a month ago, a U.S. District Court Judge in Utah rendered a similar decision there, effectively negating the moral voice of Utah voters. Millions of votes are being reversed by the decisions of a very elite few. Seriously, I’m beginning to wonder why any of us should bother to vote on moral issues.  Why not just let the judges in their infinite moral wisdom dictate to the unwashed masses what our moral stance will be? Because, in essence, that is exactly what is happening. The voice of the people is, with alarming frequency, being rendered absolutely irrelevant.  

            Personally, I take umbrage at being labelled arbitrary and irrational. I really don’t believe I, and a majority of my fellow citizens, necessarily fall into those categories because our moral stance is different from that of some judge. I also believe I, and many of my fellow citizens here in Oklahoma, have a right to express moral disapproval of same sex marriage. At least, I used to believe I did. I’m not so sure any more… Apparently, I need to ask a Federal judge to tell me how I should feel about that. 

                                                                        Dan Rouse

Homophobic???

January 20, 2014

In the culture war being waged today, words are the weapon of choice.  Those words shape our values; those values, in turn, the moral tenor and direction of our nation.  Therefore, it is of exceeding importance conservatives cede no ground in this war of words.  Unfortunately, that has not been the case.  “Liberals” have been allowed to discard that somewhat tattered and discredited appellation and, instead, morph into “progressives”.  “Pro-abortion” advocates have been conceded the much more generic and less explicit “pro-choice” label.  Most egregiously, the LGBT faction has been allowed to simultaneously demean and discredit those who would oppose their agenda by labelling such opposition as “homophobic”.

I know of no term currently being more scurrilously used in the culture wars than “homophobe”.  If one objects to any tenet of the LGBT agenda, from gay marriage to sexually confused children being allowed to ignore the “boys” and “girls” labels on bathroom doors, such objections are automatically tarred as being rooted in “homophobia”. With the use of this term, objectors are at once painted as irrational and illogical.  After all, if the objections are rooted in a phobia rather than logic, of what possible value could they be?  Why should those with an irrational fear of gay people be given any credibility?  Should they not rather be objects of pity and, perhaps, therapy?

Homophobic has become a pejorative description, its usage carrying with it tones of ignorance and racism.  In the fields of political battle, few wish to be labelled with such an appellation.  In the hands of the LGBT crowd it is a verbal grenade gleefully tossed with regularity the second their agenda or tenets are challenged; its verbal detonation ending many a discussion before it can even begin.  Phil Robertson can explain and qualify all he wants concerning his views on homosexuality.  Because he is labelled as a homophobe, to many his remarks carry the same weight as that of a KKK member discussing race relations.   Ending a debate before it ever starts by “poisoning the well” is a brutally effective strategy.

What is incredibly frustrating is that the term “homophobic” is allowed to be so wildly and inaccurately applied.  In a recent discussion with a friend on the subject of the efficacy of gay adoption, I was warned that my objection to such an arrangement could be deemed homophobic.  Let us analyze that rejoinder.  I believe it will shed light on the misuse and abuse of the term.

People with phobias experience sudden anxiety and fear when they encounter objects or situations which do not normally generate those types of feelings in others.  A person with claustrophobia may panic in an elevator.  An individual who is agoraphobic may find herself hyperventilating in a crowd.   These feelings of anxiety and fear are not rational, but they are definitely real and often debilitating to the one with the phobia.

I have friends and acquaintances who are gay.  I occasionally encounter openly gay people in various social situations.  I have never experienced a panic attack in association with one of those interactions.  I don’t run screaming from the room.  I don’t hyperventilate.  My “fight or flight” response is not triggered by their presence.  In other words, I experience none of the symptoms said to be associated with a phobia.  There is no illogical fear or dread.   I simply have a fundamental disagreement with their sexual lifestyle.  Yet, inevitably, because of that disagreement, I will find myself labelled by the LGBT crowd and their minions as homophobic.

Homphobia implies a debilitating fear.  I may be put off by a man dressing up as a woman, but it doesn’t frighten me.  I may disapprove of two women exchanging a soulful kiss, but I’m not going to panic over it. 

As is the case with many who object to the practice of homosexuality, I don’t fear gay people, I fear for them.  There are very real physical consequences for males actively involved in the homosexual lifestyle.  It is undeniable they have a much higher rate of STD’s and AIDS.  Those higher rates of infection are directly tied to sexual practices.  If there is illogic or irrationality involved, it is in those who would deny such consequences in the face of widely publicized CDC studies.

I have yet to meet my first true homophobe.  That is not to say they may not exist, it simply reflects my experience.  On the other hand, I know many folks who don’t approve of homosexuality.  The vast majority of them would not be comfortable in a gay bar or at a gay parade.  That doesn’t make them homophobic.  They would also be equally uncomfortable at a swinger’s convention.  That’s not the lifestyle they approve or choose.  It’s not illogic panic.  It’s a rational moral choice.  

We need to seize every opportunity to call the LGBT crowd on the misapplication of this incendiary description.   In the case of the discussion with a friend referenced above, when I presented my objections to the use of the term his response was, “I’d never really thought about that.”  Unfortunately, too few have.  There is a very real need for a determined re-education of those who have become comfortable with the misuse of the term.  We cannot hope to have logical, rational, discussions on matters of great moral and cultural import if they can be ended with the simple lobbing of a verbal grenade.

It would also appear a more offensive position could be taken in challenging the use of “homophobe.”  One of the most effective challenges might be to simply mimic their own tactic in reverse.  Would it be invalid to refer to those who are militantly gay as “heterophobic”?  In fact, is that not by their own self-description and practice, accurate?  If a man or woman is disgusted by the thought of a heterosexual relationship, could such repulsion not be considered, perhaps, irrational or illogical – perhaps even phobic?  That is exactly how gays  characterize one repulsed by the idea of a homosexual relationship. In evaluating relationships in this light, would not sauce for the goose be sauce for the gander as well, or whatever LGBT iteration might be involved?

Similarly, would it not be valid to label many of the wildly inflammatory charges homosexuals lay against those who would challenge their right to marry each other and adopt children as “heterophobic”?  Many in the LGBT crowd certainly seem to harbor an irrational fear that those of the heterosexual persuasion are determined to harm them in this matter when such is simply not the case.  How does it logically follow that objecting to two gay men adopting a little girl must necessarily be viewed as inherently vengeful or mean-spirited?  Really?  Could it not be that it simply strains credibility to believe that two men who have vehemently rejected a marital relationship with a female, and have made it clear they can only find happiness with another male, somehow think they can raise a young female with any hope of her having a healthy self-image?  With all the challenges already presented to young females in this culture, do we really need to afflict them with another?  Such a position doesn’t wish harm - quite the opposite.  It desires to protect the vulnerable from harm. 

There are logical, rational reasons for objecting to many aspects of the LGBT agenda.  The objections are not rooted in a phobia.  They are rooted in fact.  Conservatives in this culture war must challenge the slanderous use of terms such as homophobia.  We cannot, and must not, allow in this war waged with words such blatant and abusive misuse of terms.  It places us in a needlessly defensive position and hinders a rational discussion of incredibly important issues.  May we tirelessly battle to see that truth, not inflamed and distorted terminology, rules the day.        

OUR GOVERNMENT: BLUDGEONING ITS WAY TO A NEW MORAL STANDARD

January 23, 2014

We are quickly moving into a brave new world in which traditional Judeo-Christian values are not only being marginalized, they’re being criminalized.  A new civil “right to take offense” is now being granted to those who have declared war on traditional values.  But our government is going far beyond that. Not only are they granting a subjective right to the offended, but such offense is being criminalized and codified into law. 

 
Being offended by the words or actions of another is nothing new.  As long as there are different cultures and different belief systems, there will be things said and done by some which will offend the sensibilities of others.  But the fascists that have seized the reins of government have raised being offended to a new level.  Now, in the holy name of ending discrimination, they have turned offending another into a crime.  Not only that, but the crime can be committed in the passive response of the criminal party simply expressing their offense at the actions of the offender.  If that sounds contrived and strained and weird, perhaps it’s because it is.  But that is exactly what is occurring in this country.

Aaron and Melissa Klein owned a bakery called Sweet Cakes by Melissa.  Last year they were approached by a lesbian couple, Laurel Bowman and Rachel Cryer, about baking a cake for their gay wedding.  The Kleins, who are Christians and oppose same sex weddings, refused.

Highly offended, Bowman and Cryer filed an official complaint with the government citing discrimination.  The Bureau of Labor and Industries in the state of Oregon, based upon the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, ruled that the Kleins had violated the civil rights of the gay couple by denying service based upon their sexual orientation.  The Kleins have been given the opportunity to settle with Cryer and Bowman, if they refuse to do so the Bureau has threatened to bring formal charges and prosecute them. 

 
This case has frightening implications for moral conservatives.  Allow me to enumerate a few…
 
One, the state is now clearly seen as having the right to compel an individual to do that which violates his or her conscience in order to ensure the “rights” of another individual are not violated.  Religious conviction is not a justification for refusing to offer services under the Oregon Equality Act of 2007.  While religious organizations are exempted, individuals are not.  So the Klein’s right to express their conviction that same sex marriage is wrong by refusing to make a cake celebrating such is trumped by the same sex couple’s demand that the cake be made.  By statute moral conviction is now being removed from the market place.
 
Two, there is increasing effort via legislation to geographically limit the expression of traditional Judeo/Christian religious convictions.  Religion is free to be expressed within the confines of a house of worship, but the beliefs associated with that religion must remain there.  They are no longer free to be expressed in public, particularly if their expression would offend the sensibilities of those who sneer at such convictions.  In a very practical sense, the government has effectively ordered the Kleins to cease practicing their faith when they open the doors of their business. 
 

Three, the first amendment right of freedom of expression is being trumped by such legislation.  The Kleins are no longer free to practice their faith.  That freedom has been stripped from them in the name of civil rights.  They no longer can run their bakery as they choose.  They no longer have the right to refuse service based upon strongly held private conviction.  Such convictions are now not only moot, they are criminalized.

 

Four, actions are being criminalized which produce no real harm, only offense.  Where is the harm in refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple?  There is no monopoly on baking cakes.  The couple can simply drive to another store and have the cake baked for them.  Their right to have a wedding cake has not been infringed.  Yet, because they feel they have been discriminated against, the refusal to bake the cake based on religious conviction is now not seen as merely rude but criminal.

 

Five, the Kleins had done nothing overt to discriminate against or offend anyone.  There were no signs in their windows refusing service based upon sexual orientation.  They were executing no public agenda which would indicate or encourage discrimination against anyone.  Clearly, their convictions were being practiced quietly and passively.  They had no agenda to offend.  Yet, when placed in a situation where their private convictions offend this gay couple, their beliefs are criminalized.

Six, there clearly is an agenda here, and it is not on the part of the Kleins.  They were not the aggressors in this situation.  Cryer and Bowman were the ones with the agenda.  They could have blown off what they saw as the narrow-mindedness of the Kleins and gone somewhere else to purchase their cake.  Instead, they chose not only to be offended, but to punish and intimidate by bringing charges of discrimination.  The state has now handed the right to bludgeon into submission those who have deep seated moral convictions which run contrary to the new amorality now in fashion.  Once again, such disagreement has now been criminalized.

 

Seven, many of those with traditional Judeo/Christian values, along with Muslims, are being faced with real moral dilemmas.  When encountering in-your-face demands for service such as the Kleins received, what will they do?  Will they simply accede to the demands?  Will they lie – “Sorry we’re so busy our schedule simply won’t allow us to accommodate your order” - and violate their conscience?  Will they shut down their business, as the Kleins, in the fall out since their case became public, have been forced to do?  

Cases such as that of the Kleins clearly illustrate some of the implications of the culture war for millions of people in this country.  There is an ongoing effort to force adherence to a new amoral code.  Increasingly, many Christians, and others with similar moral persuasions, are finding themselves marginalized, and even criminalized, for their beliefs.  Unless Christians and others begin to actively speak up and seek legislative remedy, they may well find themselves, like the Kleins, one day facing criminal charges simply because of what they believe.                   

 

A SNAPSHOT OF OUR CULTURE – AND IT'S EMBARASSING!

January 28, 2014

            Sunday evening, January 26^th, CBS aired the annual Grammy Awards.  This is supposedly a venue to recognize and honor the best artists in the recording industry.  I say supposedly because year after year amazingly talented artists are ignored while trashy and relatively talentless media darlings are handed their trophies.

            I did not tune in to the Grammys Sunday evening.  I have long since ceased to care about watching performers (I hesitate to call them artists) being honored more for their outrageousness and immorality than for their questionable talent.  However, these awards produced enough outrage that there were plenty of reports Monday morning to give me a very good feel for the sewage called “entertainment” that was provided. Here’s a little of what we missed…

            Beyonce pranced around in a one-piece outfit that revealed way more than it concealed.  She and her husband’s, Jay Z, performance was suggestive enough and vile enough to generate a twitter outrage among many parents.  Apparently, there was an immediate storm of protest.  Really?  Surprised?  That’s what Beyonce and Jay Z have thrived on for years.  She glories in the sexually suggestive and he in the vile.  Business as usual.

            Katy Perry put on a performance that could only be called, and in fact was called by several observers, Satanic.  Dressed as a witch and surrounded by demons, Perry revealed her absolute contempt for Christianity and her obvious entrancement with Satan.  This pop “star” who has made millions pandering to the lowest common denominator morally continued to demonstrate her absolute disdain for the Christian faith.

            If there was a low point to the evening morally, and apparently identifying that particular point from a plethora of choices would be difficult, it came when Queen Latifah presided over the “weddings” of 33 couples.  Of course these couples had to include both lesbian and male homosexual couples who were being united in “marriage”.  This was supposed to be a demonstration of how “open” and “equality oriented” our “artists” are today.  Needless to say, it was a shameless denigration of the sacredness of marriage and an “in your face” challenge to traditional moral values.  If it had been a farce it would have been tasteless.  But it wasn’t a farce, and that makes it even more heartbreaking.

            Here is a snapshot of where our culture is musically and morally as we begin 2014.  And, frankly, we should be ashamed.

                                                                        Dan Rouse