WHEN GAYS INEVITABLY CLASH WITH MUSLIMS

January 29, 2015  

            The LGBTQ (for the uninitiated to the latest PC shorthand that is the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transsexual-Queer) crowd have recently been celebrating their dismantling of laws limiting marriage by definition to male-female relationships only.  Increasingly emboldened by what they see as having homophobics on the run, they continue to push for anti-discrimination laws punishing those who disapprove of their lifestyle.  As I, and many others, have previously chronicled, lawsuits all over the country have resulted in Christians being prosecuted for refusing services to gay couples on the basis of the Christian’s moral convictions.  A school district in Maine was recently successfully sued by a transgender child’s family for discrimination because the child was not allowed to use the bathroom that fit his/her psychology but not biology.  The litany of what amounts to an assault on traditional Christian values when it comes to marriage and sexuality continues unabated.

            E.J. Dionne, the darling of progressives, recently opined in a column that the Culture Wars are dead.  The LGBTQ bunch has won in the court of public opinion and the state and federal courts.  Pro-choice proponents have fought pro-lifers to what amounts to a standstill on the topic of abortion.   The battle between Christians and Progressives over moral issues has been won by the Progressives.  In his august opinion, the new battles to be fought will be over ethnic issues related to immigration, not moral issues.

            There is no doubt the LGBTQ crowd has every intention of pushing conservative Christians into being forced, not only to tolerate, but to be unable to criticize in any way, a lifestyle they see as sinful and ungodly.  They want to legally constrain and restrict our freedom of both speech and religion under the guise of “tolerance” and a repudiation of what they claim to be “hate speech.”

            While their campaign against what they consider Christian bigotry has been pursued with gusto, there has been a telling silence when it comes to attacks on Islam.  Have you heard of a lesbian couple demanding a Muslim bakery produce a wedding cake for them?  Has there been a gay couple demanding a Muslim cleric perform their marriage or face being sued for discrimination?

            The fact of the matter is Christians are a “soft target.”  We fight fair.  We battle with words and in the courts.  LGBTQ advocates now control the media and have filled the courts with judges sympathetic to their position.  They possess few or no moral constraints in regard to how they attack and characterize their foe.  It is no wonder that Christians have recently been subjected to defeat after defeat.  Yet, the Christian response to those defeats is simply to continue to stand for their convictions, even in the face of increasing penalties and pressures for doing so.  Here’s the thing: Christians are not going to bomb or behead their opposition.  Gays can pursue their assault against Christianity with almost full assurance there will be no retaliation, especially none involving physical assaults.

            I believe it is quite possible that the LGBTQ’s attempt to change the culture and rewrite moral laws has not seen, as yet, some of the consequences about to come their way.  Their cultural and legal smackdown of Christians has given them a swaggering confidence that could well become their undoing.

            Laws that would force religious entities to forsake their sacred beliefs or face severe legal consequences will apply to all religions.  That means Muslims will be subject to the same laws as Christians.  They, too, will be forced to condone, or at least tolerate, behavior they find reprehensible or face punishment and fines.

            Progressives framed the Charlie Hebdo massacre in France as an attack on free speech.  It wasn’t.  It was clearly a response of Muslim extremists to what they saw as blasphemy that could not be tolerated.  Those cartoonists and editors were murdered because they were blasphemers.  To those Muslims, freedom of speech does not include freedom to blaspheme Allah or their Prophet.

            Islamic extremists clearly do not operate under the same constraints as Christians.  If you offend their belief system: They will shoot you.  They will bomb you.  They will cut your head off.  They will not hesitate to resort to the most heinous forms of violence to punish and quiet those whom they view as enemies of their faith.  The sad proof of that truth is found too often on the nightly news these days.

            So what is going to happen when charges of hate speech are brought against Muslim clerics who affirm the Koran’s teaching against homosexuality?  What will be the response when gays in this country choose to parody Islam’s treatment of women?  How are Muslim extremists going to respond when blatant transsexuals apply for jobs at Muslim businesses? History would say the LGBTQ crowd is going to be in for a rude awakening.  They will be stirring a snake that is known to strike when it feels attacked.

            I certainly lay no claim to knowing what the future holds.  But it seems to me that if gays keep on trying to cram their agenda down the throats of those who find it morally and spiritually repugnant, they are going to begin to encounter those whose response will not be civil and non-violent in the Christian tradition.  Instead, the Charlie Hebdo level of violence may well be coming to these shores.  If so, life may not be so “gay” for the LGBTQ  lifestyle advocates in days to come.

 

Dan Rouse

MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACKS

 January 27, 2015

            I don’t envy professional quarterbacks like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning.  They are amazingly proficient at what they do – arguably two of the best quarterbacks ever to play the game.  Yet, despite their demonstrated abilities, they are subjected to constant second guessing.  Why did Brady leave the pocket?  Why didn’t Manning throw to the wide open receiver?  They must make split second decisions, then act upon them with tremendous precision.  There is a sense in which these two men, who are so gifted they make a very complex job look easy, are made victims because of their proficiency.  It is precisely because they are so good that many forget how difficult what they do really is. 

            Football is a billion dollar industry and incredibly entertaining to millions of people, but the bottom line is it is just a game.  If a team wins or loses, if a quarterback makes a good decision or a poor one, throws a perfect pass or an interception, no lives are lost.  Mourning or rejoicing may occur based on who wins or loses, but there are no lives are on the line. No one will live or die based on the outcome of decisions made and performance rendered.

            That is not the case when it comes to law enforcement.  On a daily basis, thousands of men and women put their lives on the line in order to protect our lives and property. These are officers who never know when they approach a car in a traffic stop whether or not the driver or passengers may be armed and ready to shoot.  These are the men and women who respond to domestic calls and suddenly face an enraged man armed with a knife.  They are forced to make split second decisions in regard to the use of deadly force.  And, increasingly, they are being subjected to second guessing on those split second decisions.  Should the officer have used deadly force in this situation?  Couldn’t she have simply allowed the suspect, though armed, to run away?  Couldn’t he have decided to use a Taser instead of his sidearm?

            Deadly force should never be taken lightly, and it should always be subject to review.  However, we must all remember that such decisions often occur in very stressful situations and must be made in milliseconds.   Police officers are highly trained individuals, and the vast majority of them are very competent in what they do.  Still, these highly trained and very capable officers live every day with the knowledge that, suddenly and unexpectedly, they may be faced with making a life or death decision in mere moments.

            Within the last couple of weeks a police officer in the nearby city of Muskogee shot and killed an armed suspect.  The man had threatened to kill a young woman attending a wedding.  The panicked minister, aware of the situation, phoned 911 asking for an officer to immediately respond.  The responding officer confronted the suspect and was in the process of placing him in custody when he broke away and ran.  The officer pursued him.  The suspect, as he ran, dropped a pistol, then stopped to pick it up.  After he picked up the gun, the officer made the decision to fire repeatedly, killing the man.  The entire ordeal was recorded on a video camera the officer had attached to his uniform.  This video was subsequently released to the public by the  Police Department.  It is available for viewing on Youtube.  While hard to watch, it drives home how a situation can escalate in seconds into life or death decisions.

            I have listened to numerous discussions of this fatal shooting.  And I have been appalled at the Monday morning quarterbacking that has occurred.  Why did the officer choose to begin to cuff the suspect?  Why not just interrogate him?  Why did he pursue when the suspect suddenly broke away from him and ran?  Why did he choose to shoot when the suspect dropped, then retrieved the pistol, but appeared to begin to turn and run again?  Why did the officer fire repeatedly instead of only once?

            All these questions are being asked when, thankfully, there is a recorded 911 call from the minister describing the situation and asking for an officer to respond, and the subsequent video of all that occurred courtesy of the officer’s body cam.  This is not a situation where there is only eyewitness testimony, which has been proven to be notoriously inaccurate.  The whole heartbreaking scenario is recorded.  Yet, despite this, some continue the second guessing and condemning of the officer.

            I have only the utmost respect for anyone who would choose to be involved in law enforcement today.  They knowingly enter into a profession where, not only do they put their lives on the line, but they subject themselves to being second guessed and judged on the decisions they make.  The vast majority of the time the decisions they are required to make do not involve deadly force, but there is always the possibility that may occur.  In the highly charged and contentious atmosphere in which officers now function, they must not only make those split second decisions, but must have, in the back of their mind, the knowledge that such  decisions will be subjected to intense scrutiny.  While deadly force decisions should never be taken lightly, and I don’t believe they are, I am concerned that such extreme scrutiny will lead to officers hesitating in a moment when such hesitation could be fatal.  How many officers are going to lose their lives because, in those milliseconds when decisions must be made, they hesitate and die as a result?

            The police officer in Muskogee is being viewed, by some, as a criminal.  What seems to be lost in all of this, and many other such cases, is that the suspect brought all of this on himself.  He made threats of violence.  He possessed a firearm.  He resisted and fled arrest.  When he dropped the gun he stopped and picked it up.  He didn’t have to die.  He simply needed to follow the officer’s instructions and he would still be alive – maybe in jail, but still alive.

             We seem, in many ways, to have become a nation of Monday morning quarterbacks, reveling in our ability to second guess decisions.  From the President on down, everyone is constantly subject to criticism for whatever decision he or she may make.  While such second guessing is normal and even, to some degree, healthy when it comes to politics and football, I don’t know that it applies in the same way when it comes to the police officer constrained to use deadly force.  Unless the use is obviously and clearly egregious, and frankly I haven’t seen evidence of such in highly publicized recent cases, we need to give those men and women in blue the benefit of the doubt.  They put their lives on the line every day for us, and I believe they deserve our support and our trust.

 

Dan Rouse

REGULATION NATION

January 14, 2015

             A very thought provoking short video, found here, expresses a profound truth about the destiny of this country.  If we do not discipline ourselves on a personal level, the practice of democracy as we know it becomes impossible.  There cannot be liberty without an almost universal exercise and honoring of self-control.  It has been the preaching and practicing of the Christian faith that enabled the founding and functioning of this country.  As that faith is increasingly marginalized, denigrated, or ignored, the consequences are real and painful.  A people who no longer have an internalized moral base will require that some external force be brought to bear to regulate their behavior or absolute anarchy will result.

            For society to function, there must be laws which allow individuals to safely interact with others in business and personal relationships.  Without those laws and the protection they provide, opportunities for abuse run rampant.  If there cannot be trust, there must be at least some guarantee interactions will be safeguarded in a way that allows them to continue.  In other words, if I can’t trust you to keep your word you will pay me a certain amount each month for an automobile you have purchased from me, I will seek to guarantee that happens via a contract and onerous penalties if you fail to do so. 

            Scripture makes clear the existence of laws is certainly no compliment.  In Galatians 3:19 Paul will tell us the law was added “because of transgressions.”  As he writes to the Romans he will infer that laws were given because we love imperfectly.  “Love does no wrong to a neighbor…” (Rom 13:10).  Therefore, the commands found within the law of Moses he cites in the previous verse were given because human beings, not loving others as they should, forced the necessity of regulating their behavior with law.  

            The bottom line?  Laws are necessary to protect us from each other.  If we truly sought one another’s highest good as we should, there would be no need for law.  Again, citing Paul in Romans 13:10, “…love is the fulfilling of the law.”  So, if everyone loved each other in the way they should, laws against theft and murder would be unnecessary.  Such unloving actions would not need to be forbidden and penalized because they would simply never take place.

            It would follow then that individuals with values rooted in Christianity would make the existence of many laws unnecessary.  However, the higher the percentage of those who are either ignorant of, or simply have no respect for, Christian moral principles, the more necessity there will be for laws to regulate their behavior.  Again, this will be necessary in order to allow society to function with some semblance of order.  Guarantees of at least some degree of safety in business and personal interactions must exist or societal breakdown is inevitable.

            Remember, law is not a compliment to human nature; it is a reproach.  Laws exist because of moral failure, not success.  The more need for law, the more clear it becomes a society is coming apart at the seams.  Laws become the stitching holding a rotten fabric together.

            We are becoming a nation of regulations and laws.  Why?  While several causes could be cited, including everything from bureaucratic overreach to power hungry politicians, at the heart of the matter is the heart of the people.  If a nation rejects a transcendent standard of moral conduct, such as is presented in the Bible, and replaces moral absolutes with ambivalence and tolerance, the result is moral anarchy: exactly the situation in which we find ourselves today in this country.

            If individuals have no internal moral compass to guide them in their day to day behaviors, then some form of external restraint must be provided.  The problem is, while we can pass laws forbidding and penalizing those who would lie, cheat, and steal, that changes nothing about their faulty compass.  This means those without that compass will simply find more creative ways to break laws for which they have no respect, and government will be forced to add more regulations and laws to curb their behavior.  It is a sick and never ending cycle. 

            In the name of what many progressives would call moral freedom, and I would argue is really moral anarchy, we have placed this country on an inevitable path toward totalitarianism.  Society simply cannot function in a democratic way without moral responsibility.  When a people have lost their way morally, the only possibility for society to function is by ruthless regulation of its people.  Those who would argue for the “freedom” found in moral ambiguity are, in reality, sowing the seeds of what will ultimately rob us of freedom.   

 

                                                                        Dan Rouse