Rss

  • youtube

End of the Citizen-Soldier?

Posted by :Larry G. Johnson On : May 17, 2013
1

Category: Archives, Culture Wars

Topical moments in media and culture are often of great debate and concern but are largely forgotten within a short time. Such moments command headlines and sound bites repeatedly play during the 24-hour news cycle. Yet, it is by the accumulation of such topical moments we give a face and direction to the culture in which we live. However, there are singular occurrences, often unrecognized or thought of as only a momentary concern, which starkly define the reasons for “why we fight” in the raging culture wars. One such singular occurrence happened within the last couple of weeks.

George Washington once said, “When we assumed the soldier, we did not lay aside the citizen.” But if the Pentagon has its way, we may see an end to our nation’s historical admiration and respect for the citizen-soldier as the wedge of state is driven between the two. The Pentagon has proposed a policy to prosecute military personnel for promoting their faith. Specifically, the Pentagon stated that, “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense…Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis…” For all military personnel the end result would be to virtually eliminate all expressions of faith, even on a one-to-one basis between close friends or merely social acquaintances. And for all practical purposes the military chaplaincy would cease to function.

It appears that the source of the anti-proselytizing agenda is former ambassador Joe Wilson, Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, and Michael Weinstein, the head of the private Military Religious Freedom Foundation. The three men recently met with several generals to discuss religious issues. Wilkerson equates religious proselytizing to sexual assault, both of “which are absolutely destructive of the bonds that keep soldiers together.” So what did the generals also hear from Mr. Weinstein? Perhaps it was something like what he wrote for the Huff Post:

I founded the civil rights fighting organization the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) to do one thing: fight those monsters who would tear down the Constitutionally-mandated wall separating church and state in the technologically most lethal entity ever created by humankind, the U.S. military. Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces… If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression.

Well! Mr. Weinstein’s rant does tend to leave one breathless. But, let’s let one of our nation’s former citizen-soldiers who also knew a little about the Constitution speak for the opposition. On July 4, 1775, General George Washington issued the following order from his Cambridge, Massachusetts headquarters:

The General most earnestly requires and expects a due observance of those articles of war established for government of the Army which forbid profane cursing, swearing and drunkenness. And in like manner he requires and expects of all officers and soldiers not engaged in actual duty, a punctual attendance of Divine services, to implore the blessing of Heaven upon the means used for our safety and defense.

A year later and five days after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the Continental Congress authorized the provision of chaplains for every regiment in the newly constituted army headed by General Washington. On that same day Washington issued his first general order to his troops:

The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country.

In another general order issued at Valley Forge on May 2, 1778, General Washington implored his troops:

While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the more distinguished Character of Christian.

Unlike Wilkerson and Weinstein, Washington knew the real source of that which forged those bonds that keep soldiers together. That source was religion and in particular the Christian religion. However, if the Pentagon’s civilians and military brass have their way and General Washington was alive today, he would be court-marshaled for (paraphrasing Weinstein) forcing his weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon his helpless subordinates in the Continental Army in sharing his religious views.

Some will argue that we no longer have a military of citizen-soldiers but a professional army with no need of religious influences. Not so. Many are reservists and members of the National Guard. And those full-time members of the military didn’t leave their faith behind at the induction centers. More importantly, whether a professional army or citizen-soldiers, our nation’s Armed Forces without the Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of religion will deteriorate into a palace guard loyal only to their masters and not to the Constitution or the people.

The Pentagon’s anti-proselyting regulation is the culmination of dozens of anti-Christian regulations and initiates in the military that have arisen during the Obama administration (See “I’m so shamed!” CultureWarrior.net – May 2, 2013). But it is this Pentagon regulation that is a singular occurrence which lays the ax to the root of our religious freedom of sharing one’s faith. This marginalization of religious freedom reaches far beyond the Armed Forces. The agenda of the Obama administration to fundamentally change America encompasses every segment of the public square and is the culmination of decades of humanistic infiltration of American culture.

Those of the humanistic worldview have risen to leadership levels in all institutions of American life, and their humanistic policies, laws, and initiatives are being imposed on a nation whose citizens that still cling to the biblical worldview of the Founders. This is the cause of culture wars—the conflict for supremacy in the American cultural vision between those holding the humanistic and Christian worldviews. Christians who ignore or disengage from the battle place religious freedom and our nation at peril.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Ken Klukowski, “Pentagon may court marshal solders who share Christian faith,” Breitbart News, May 1, 2013 http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/01/Breaking-Pentagon-Confirms-Will-Court-Martial-Soldiers-Who-Share-Christian-Faith (accessed May 7, 2001)

Sally Quinn, “U.S. military should put religious freedom at the front,” The Washington Post, April 26, 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/us-military-should-put-religious-freedom-at-the-front/2013/04/26/c1befcea-ade2-11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_print.html
(accessed May 3, 2013).

Michael Weinstein, “Fundamentalist Christian Monsters: Papa’s Got A Brand New Bag,” HuffPost, April 16, 2013 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-l-weinstein/fundamentalist-christian-_b_3072651.html?view=print&comm_ref=false (accessed May 3, 2013).

William J. Federer, America’s God and Country, (Coppell, Texas: FAME Publishing, Inc., 1996), pp. 638, 639, 643.

Oh!? It’s a matter of sanitation and not murder.

Posted by :Larry G. Johnson On : May 10, 2013
0

Category: Abortion, Archives

You may have followed the information (if you were able to find it in main stream media) flowing from the trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortion clinic operator accused of murdering a woman and seven babies born alive. I wrote about Gosnell and Planned Parenthood on April 12, 2013 (See Archives: “Postcard from Hell. In that article I referred to the testimony of Alisa LaPolt Snow, the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates lobbyist, regarding a bill before the Florida legislature that would require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion. In response to being asked what would Planned Parenthood do if a live baby were born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, Snow replied, “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.” With regard to her callus comment I said that, “Apart from lack of sanitation and improper licensing, Planned Parenthood would have little to no issues with Dr. Gosnell’s methods and decision-making process with regard to killing a live baby.”

Referring to the heart-breaking and disturbing facts that occurred at the Philadelphia abortion clinic, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) attempted to have the Senate pass a sense of the Senate resolution that would have condemned illegal abortion practices. The resolution stated:

Congress has the responsibility to investigate and conduct hearings on abortions performed near, at, or after viability in the United States, public policies regarding such, and evaluate the extent to which such abortions involve violations of the natural right to life of infants who are born alive or are capable of being born alive, and therefore are entitled to equal protection under the law.

Given the facts coming out of the Philadelphia trial, it would appear that no reasonable person could object to Senator Lee’s resolution. However, Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) have found a way. A favorite ploy of Congressional Democrats is to resort to obfuscation in blocking solutions for problems when those solutions are in conflict with their interests and agenda and those of their allies. The issue is effectively muddled by enlarging the problem and then seeking “comprehensive” solutions instead of addressing the pressing issue of the moment. One example of this Democratic obfuscation is illegal immigration in which securing America’s borders is ignored or marginalized in favor of making it a part of a larger solution in dealing with “undocumented immigrants.”

Senator Blumenthal employed this tactic to defeat Senator Lee’s resolution and proposed his own resolution which states that all “incidents of abusive, unsanitary, or illegal health care practices should be condemned and prevented and the perpetrators should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”

Senator Lee sees clearly that the problem is immediate and of such compelling nature as to require Congressional action…it is about murdering born alive babies. But Notice Blumenthal’s subtle footwork. For the Senator, it is not about murder but “abusive, unsanitary, or illegal health care practices.” Yes, murder is abusive and illegal, but it can never be labeled a health care practice. It appears that Congressional Democrats, like their ally Planned Parenthood, cannot distinguish between abusive, unsanitary, or illegal health care practices and murder of born alive babies. While Congressional Democrats obfuscate and dither, little human beings are being killed.

Triage is a medical term. It means the sorting of and allocation of treatment to patients and especially battle and disaster victims to reflect the urgency of the patient’s need in order to maximize the number of survivors. The culture wars rage and both born and unborn babies are battle victims dying in America’s abortion mills. Senator Lee’s proposal pointed to the urgency of the need in order to maximize the number of survivors. But for Congressional Democrats, murdering born alive babies does not rise to the level requiring triage. It is part of a larger health care problem that must be investigated, mulled, discussed, considered…ad infinitum. Meanwhile, millions of little babies will never see their first birthday.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Larry G. Johnson, “Postcard from Hell,” CultureWarrior.net, April 12, 2013. https://www.culturewarrior.net/2013/04/12/postcard-from-hell/ (accessed May 10, 2013).

Dr. Susan Berry, “Sen. Mike Lee resolves to address “Gosnell-type” abortion crime,” Brietbart News, May 6, 2013 http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/06/Sen-Mike-Lee-Resolves-To-Address-Gosnell-Type-Abortion-Crime (accessed May 10, 2013).

“Blumenthal Delivers Floor Speech Objecting To Senator Lee’s Abortion Resolution, Introduces Broader Resolution Condemning Criminal Acts And Malpractice In All Health Care Settings” Richard Blumenthal, United States Senator – Connecticut, May 8, 2013 http://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blumenthal-delivers-floor-speech-objecting-to-senator-lees-abortion-resolution-introduces-broader-resolution-condemning-criminal-acts-and-malpractice-in-all-health-care-settings (accessed May 10, 2013).

Our Play-Doh® Constitution

Posted by :Larry G. Johnson On : May 7, 2013
0

Category: Archives, Constitution

Pliable like Play-Doh®? Elasticized? Stretchable? No, liberals prefer to use the term, “Living Constitution.” Irrespective of the singular success of the American Constitution in the history of the world and in spite of the intent of the Founders when writing the Constitution, the popular liberal mantra for most of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century is that the Constitution is a “living document” that must be modified or bent to address the modern age and problems never foreseen by the Founders. By living document, the Constitutional liberals believe that its meaning and intent should be an instrument for enlightened social change to meet the needs of the hour.

Now most liberals have difficulty understanding the difference between life and non-life. For the liberal, an unborn baby is merely a “fetus” or “potentiality for life.” Yet, for the inanimate paper and ink document we call the Constitution, the liberals now wish to infuse it with life from which we are to infer that it must continually grow and change. What they mean is that it ought to be elastic or malleable but prefer the euphemistic “living Constitution” which sounds ever so much more dignified, even sacred.

In an April 23rd press conference, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg wholeheartedly agreed with the concept of a living Constitution. Speaking of the loss of privacy through the use of an extensive surveillance camera system in New York City and the possible use of drones fitted with cameras, Bloomberg said:

The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry…But we live in a complex world where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”

Now Mayor Bloomberg may have skipped his Constitutional government class the day when Article V was taught. If he had been there he would have learned that Article V outlines the procedures to amend the Constitution. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). But Mayor Bloomberg doesn’t want to mess with that long and laborious process. Let’s just interpret the Constitution the way we want. Times are ‘a changing” and problems are pressing. Furthermore, liberals know what’s best even if the people don’t. That’s because “We live in a complex world where you are going to have to…”

We do agree that judicial interpretation of laws and the Constitution is the courts’ proper role. However, because of decades of significant judicial activism by liberal judges usurping the role of the legislature, thoughtful judicial interpretation of the law is thrown aside in favor of passion and expediency that are employed to make law. Thus, human nature, through its passions, appetites, and desires of the moment, is released from the prescriptions of history, custom, convention, and tradition.

However, this was not the intent of the Founders. Sherwood Eddy wrote that Jefferson “…stood for a strict interpretation of the conservative Constitution to prevent ever-threatened encroachments upon the rights of the people, the legislature, and the states.” Russell Kirk confirms Eddy’s view of Jefferson’s opinion of the Constitution, “Thomas Jefferson, rationalist though he was, declared that in matters of political power, one must not trust the alleged goodness of man, but (in Jefferson’s words) ‘bind him down with the chains of the Constitution’.”

We have established that the Founders preferred a strict interpretation of the Constitution and made it difficult to change based on the whims of the moment. Why did the Founders opt for a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and why do liberals so emphatically disagree?

Jefferson’s remark regarding the Constitution gives us a hint. Ultimately, the disagreement stems from the differences in understanding of the fundamental nature of man. The Founders understood the truth of the fallen, corrupt nature of man and designed the Constitution with separation of powers and other devices to control or mitigate that corrupt nature. The liberals believe that man is inherently good, not fallen and in need of redemption. They also believe man is perfectible, a process whereby he will become progressively better and better. Therefore, as man is perfected and society changes over time, we must update our Constitution accordingly.

As citizens turn from the Christian worldview as held by the Founders, they are unable to guide themselves internally with regard to ethical and moral issues and slide into moral relativism in which there is no right or wrong. Benjamin Franklin recognized the folly of this course when he said, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Perhaps Major Bloomberg sees Americans as no longer being virtuous and capable of guiding themselves internally and therefore are in need of more masters and more laws to address the failings of their human nature.

Mayor Bloomberg and the liberals of this world do not stop with diminishing your privacy. Ever the good liberal, Bloomberg is famous for a number of other restrictions of freedom we had back in the “olden days.” Regarding the loss of freedom, his intent could not be clearer when he said, “I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom.” This statement was in response to a question about his fight to control sugary drink portion sizes in New York City and his intentions to go forth in spite of the court’s rejection of his plan. In other words, when Joe Citizen can no longer make good decisions, the Mayor and his fellow elites will make them for him.

The modern humanist-liberal-progressive imbues (reads into or interprets) the Constitution with new rights, laws, and doctrines as well as restricting those old-fashioned rights the Founders thought important so that the modernists can conform man and society to the changes required by a modern world. Thereafter, modernists assure us that the greatest good for the greatest number will be dispensed, all under wisdom of the elites of a socialistic system and blessed by a Play-Doh® Constitution.

However, the modernists travel the same slippery path as those of the French Revolution when they base their societal changes on the ethereal, imaginary, or invented “rights of man” as well as imposing more and more laws to address the failings of human nature. In spite of the French Revolution’s high-minded chorus of “Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!”, the French reality was “monarchy, anarchy, dictatorship” all occurring in a little over a decade.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Cheryl K. Chumley, “N.Y. Mayor Michael Bloomberg: Constitution ‘must change’ to give government more power,” The Washington Times, April 23, 2013 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/23/ny-mayor-michael-bloomberg-constitution-must-chang/ (accessed April 27, 2013).

James E. Person, Jr., Russell Kirk, A Critical Biography of a Conservative Mind, (Latham, Maryland: Madison Books, 1999), p. 105, quoted by Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), p. 136.

Sherwood Eddy, The Kingdom of God and the American Dream, (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1941), p. 124, quoted by Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods…, p. 136.

Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991), p. 29, quoted by Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods…, p. 136.

William J. Federer, America’s God and Country, (FAME Publishing, Inc., 1996), p. 247.

Cheryl K. Chumley, “NYC Mayor Bloomberg: Government Has Right To ‘Infringe On Your Freedom’,” The Washington Times, March 25, 2013, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/25/nyc-mayor-bloomberg-government-has-right-infringe-/ (accessed April 27, 2013).

I’m so ashamed! I was a member of a hate group and didn’t know it.

Posted by :Larry G. Johnson On : April 30, 2013
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Culture Wars

They say confession is good for the soul, and after the shocking news I received a few days ago, I must somehow make amends for my life of crime. It’s a sordid story that began in my childhood. I can’t take all of the blame. Maybe it was peer pressure or parent pressure. Who knows? But I was molded, shaped, and destined for a life of hate. What’s worse, I am responsible for corrupting my own children with that hateful lifestyle. They say ignorance is not an excuse, but I really didn’t know that what I was doing was wrong. Actually I looked at my beliefs and activities as a badge of honor and felt that I was doing good works for the country.

The news came a few days ago as I was browsing through my emails, and there it was: the Family Research Council email warning us that our cover had been blown (it was only then that I realize that FRC is an avowed enemy of the state, a hate group organization with whom I’m associated-unofficially of course).

It seems that a certain military officer, Lieutenant Colonel Jack Rich, discovered that a number of groups in America “did not share our Army values.” This shocking discovery prompted him to send an email to thirty-eight of his fellow officers and NCOs (non-commissioned officers) to educate them that “when we see behaviors that are inconsistent with Army values—don’t just walk by—do the right thing and address the concern before it becomes a problem.”

Well, I can tell you his warning sent chills down my spine! I lay awake several nights knowing that LTC Rich and the Army were not ignoring my behavior while wondering how they would address my problem. And I just can’t take it any longer so I’m confessing. I’m an evangelical Christian. And worse yet and to my undying shame I have been a member or fellow traveler of several subversive, hate-filled organizations including the American Family Association and the Family Research Council.

I know I can do nothing to atone for my sin other than to throw myself on the mercy of LTC Rich and the U.S. Army. Yet, I think there are some circumstances that might mitigate whatever punishment I receive. First, I blame the Army for not doing more to re-educate me before I became too deeply immersed in my life of hate. I was young and impressionable when I received the letter from President Johnson informing me of his invitation to join the military in 1967. If they had done the proper background checks, they would have known of my hateful tendencies and radical Christian associates and could have dealt with them then. I hadn’t intended to violate Army values. Heavens, I didn’t know there were any Army values other than to do what I was told by anyone with more than one stripe on their sleeves or they would kick my you-know-what to @#%! and back. (Sorry for the language but “Heavens” has been a part of my vocabulary for many years, and old habits are hard to break.)

But I’ve thought a lot about those days long ago since my discovery last week that I was deeply involved with domestic hate groups. Perhaps the Army realized back in 1967 that I didn’t share their values and that they did the right thing by sending me to Vietnam as a way of dealing with my issues before they became a problem. Certainly, a lot of people with those issues didn’t return from Vietnam to cause problems. Oh well, who knows?

I’m so glad to get this off my chest. I’m feeling much better already. I wonder if they will give me probation and allow me to join HA (Haters Anonymous). Perhaps I could be a group leader and go to some of those organizations identified by LTC Rich and show them the error of their ways:

• The Christian Right
• Various Racist Skinhead groups
• American Family Association (my alma mater of many years ago)
• Ku Klux Klan
• Family Research Council
• Various Neo-Nazi groups

These are just a few of the organizations identified by LTC Rich with the aid of the Southern Poverty Law Center. As the old saying goes, “The fields are white unto harvest!” I could be sort of a missionary spreading Army values across the land. Oops, sorry for the biblical language again.

It’s good to know there are other true patriots in the U.S. Army besides LTC Rich who have implemented a number of initiatives to expose or root out hate group activities in the military:

• A War Games scenario at Fort Leavenworth that identified Christian groups and Evangelical groups as being potential threats;
• A 2009 Dept. of Homeland Security memorandum that identified future threats to national security coming from Evangelicals and pro-life groups;
• A West Point study released by the U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center that linked pro-lifers to terrorism;
• Evangelical leader Franklin Graham was uninvited from the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer service because of his comments about Islam;
• Christian prayers were banned at the funeral services for veterans at Houston’s National Cemetery;
• Bibles were banned at Walter Reed Army Medical Center – a decision that was later rescinded;
• Christian crosses and a steeple were removed from a chapel in Afghanistan because the military said the icons disrespected other religions;
• Catholic chaplains were told not to read a letter to parishioners from their archbishop related to Obamacare mandates. The Secretary of the Army feared the letter could be viewed as a call for civil disobedience.

Well, this just goes to show those who think the country’s going to the dogs are wrong. There is hope for America with patriots such as LTC Rich spreading Army values!

With deep and sincere remorse,

An older but wiser—Larry G. Johnson.

Sources:

Todd Starnes, “The Army’s List of ‘Domestic Hate Groups’,” Fox News Radio, April 10, 2013. http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/the-armys-list-of-domestic-hate-groups.html (accessed April 24, 2013).

“Are you an enemy of the state?” Family Research Council, April 11, 2013. http://www.frc.org/alert/are-you-an-enemy-of-the-state (accessed April 24, 2013).

Mr. Jones’s Childish Things – Part II

Posted by :Larry G. Johnson On : April 22, 2013
1

Category: Archives, Homosexuality

Mike Jones, an associate editor of the Tulsa World, wrote the newspaper’s April 14th Opinion section lead editorial titled, “Childish things – It’s time to end the divide over gay marriage.” In Part I we discussed Jones’s argument with regard to charges of prejudice and misunderstanding against those opposed to gay marriage and the argument with regard to civil rights. In Part II we will address his arguments about presumed biblical/religious support of gay marriage.

Argument #3 – Jones raises three biblical/religious arguments in support of gay marriage.

• Jones cites the Apostle Paul who “believed that there is no need to get married because Jesus would return soon and the world would end… and that those on earth would better serve themselves if they remained celibate and directed their efforts to pleasing Jesus.” However, Jones’s statement contains both factual and contextual errors. These errors become evident without further comment when one looks at Paul’s actual words and the context in which they were written.

…It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband…I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and widows, it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. [1 Corinthians 7: 1-2, 6-9 RSV]

Now lest one takes Paul’s statement as a license for homosexuals to marry, let’s look at his words with regard to homosexuality.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” [Romans 1:24-27 RSV.]

• Jones’s describes his second religious argument as simplistic but one which he cannot shake. Jones believes his simplistic arguments undermine biblical reasons for opposition to homosexuality. However, his arguments contain huge assumptions which are false.

First, Jones asks if God made man in His own image where does that leave homosexuals. In other words, did He make a few mistakes when He made homosexuals? The assumptive language is that God made homosexuals the way they are. Therefore, God made a mistake or He created homosexuals that way as a reflection of His image. Neither is true.

Let’s quickly dispose of the first question. God does not make mistakes. If He did, he wouldn’t be all-knowing and all-powerful. In essence, He wouldn’t be God. Second, to say that God made a mistake means that we recognized something He missed, and that is absurd. Third, we can’t know the mind of God apart from His revelations to us about Himself. That revelation tells us that He does not make mistakes, “He is the rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.” [Deuteronomy 32:4 KJV]

If God didn’t make a mistake, then that leaves us with Jones’s assumption that God made homosexuals the way they are, i.e., they were born that way. Therefore, we must accept them and their inborn inclinations as equals in society.

Proponents of homosexuality often cite various scientific studies that indicate sexual orientation is a matter of genetics, i.e., sexual orientation is involuntary, immutable, and rooted in nature. Thus, moral distinctions between homosexual and heterosexual behavior would be invalid.
The first response is to state that science has not proven that homosexuality is inborn. Many of the studies that purport to do so have proven to be flawed and brought into question by other studies showing the opposite is true. Time and space does not permit an extensive examination of this area, but what we can say at this point in time is that science has not proven that sexual orientation is a matter of genetics.

But for sake of argument let’s assume that homosexuality in some cases was found to have a genetic basis (either causal or predisposition), then proponents of the homosexual agenda would argue that moral distinctions are invalid as it relates to differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality. But that is not a valid argument for neither causation nor predisposition justifies cultural acceptance. For example, some people are genetically prone to alcoholism. Another study established a genetic link to criminal behavior. But such genetic links do not justify immoral behavior whether it is alcoholism, criminal activity, or homosexual practices. People are not slaves to their passions, desires, and predispositions as humanists would have us believe. Some people will struggle with those forces more than others, but people have the ability to choose their behavior.

Jones also asks if homosexuality makes a person less human. Absolutely not—homosexuality does not make them less human. God created every human being, and He loved each one so much that He gave His Son to be crucified on the cross for every person’s sin (including the homosexual) to make it possible for them to be in right relationship with Him. But man has a free will, and many freely choose to reject that invitation and live a life of disobedience to his commands whether that disobedience is adultery, murder, theft, or being actively engaged in a homosexual lifestyle.

• Jones’s third religious argument is based on 1 Corinthians 13:13: “And now abideth faith, hope and charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” Jones says, “That could go a long way in solving this difference of opinion.” In other words, charity (love) trumps all. If we but love, all will be well.

It is one thing to disagree with the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality or to reject biblical authority altogether in defending homosexual practices. However, it is blatantly disingenuous to revise or twist biblical teachings in order to excuse homosexual practices when the biblical record is unequivocally clear in its universal condemnation of homosexuality. Effectively, Jones is arguing that the basic thrust of Christ’s teachings is that in the end we must place love above all other considerations. Implicit in this humanistic belief is that basic doctrines are inherently divisive and must be pushed aside in favor of the non-judgmental love and acceptance of people as they are. In other words such narrow and rigid doctrines as to how one must live are divisive and contrary to the inclusiveness which is demonstrated by the lives and teachings of Jesus and His disciples. However, this argument is clearly false and strikes at the foundation of the Christian worldview regarding mankind’s Fall and man’s need for redemption as chronicled from Genesis through Revelation.

Before we leave this argument, let’s examine the sincerity of Jones’s call for love that “…could go a long way in solving this difference of opinion.” Apparently, Jones does believe that the same tolerance and love is needed when it comes to accepting the motives of Christians with regard to loving the sinner and hating the sin. “I don’t believe the sincerity of that for a second. It’s more often hate the sin, punish the sinner.”

In summary, heterosexual marriage is a universal, and the strength and unity provided by it is the foundation of a strong and enduring society. Where traditional marriage is in broad disarray, as it is in most Western societies, it does not disprove the truth of the marriage universal but rather speaks of the ravages caused by the ascending humanist worldview. Where traditional marriage declines, so do those societies decline that allow it to occur.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Mike Jones, “Childish things – It’s time to end the divide over gay marriage,” Tulsa World, (April 14, 2001), G1.

Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), Chapter 23, pp. 353-366.