An atheist caller to the Sunday Night Bible Forum (www.thebibleforum.net) is insistent that the United States is not, nor has ever been, a Christian Nation.
I have tried to communicate with him, but he simply wants to rant, which is what people do when they have no objective standard of morality. Nothing, nowhere, and in no way exists which makes this claim. The best we can say is that the Founding Fathers were rooted in classical literature and biblical understanding, basing their efforts on biblical principles.
The caller's point is that the Treaty of Tripoli proves the Founding Fathers were NOT seeking this goal as evidenced by John Adams' signing a Treaty which declares that the "Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;...."
The fact that knowledgeable people don't make this claim doesn't seem to penetrate his thinking. And he says he's a "teacher." It's the Red Herring atheists enjoy dragging across the path, to distract the discussion and prove their point.
The President who signed this Treaty also wrote things like: "The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity..." [Written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress -- 1776]
The Facts of this Treaty are:
1. The United States wanted to stop the piracy of their ships by the Barbary Nations -- we did not have the Navy to fight a war against these people. [Interesting how Muslims are still pirating ships at sea]
2. The Barbary Nations were Muslim -- used to defending their religion against all comers [Jihad]
3. The Treaty was written by the Barbary Nations -- in Arabic
4. A 1931 Commission by the U.S. concluded that the English version was a "poor attempt to paraphrase or summarize the wishes of the Arabic States.
5. The Document is unique [how many early documents disavow our Christian Heritage?]
6. The language is imprecise, allowing Congress and the President to freely sign it [America was NOT founded on "The Christian Religion." but on Christian principles]
That there are people, today, willing to abandon the very principles that allows them to be critical of our heritage and enjoy the benefits of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness without reprisal, is a testimony to the generosity of Christian beliefs. No Secularist, Humanist, Progressive government would ever allow such a thing! Just look at what Congress and our President are doing, right now, in seeking to vilify and limit the free dissent of citizens against their positions!
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
A Living Hell
An email from a Moslem listener asks: Name a place if you can where Christianity has not left in it's wake a "living hell" for those who came in contact with it.
He is upset that I would characterize Islam as a religion that allows for violence in the defense of the faith as opposed to Christianity which advocates forgiveness, tolerance and turning the other cheek.
In answer to his challenge, I would name The United States of America. The "American Experiment" was decidedly Christian in it's underlying values. In harmony with this, we have allowed all sorts of religious beliefs to be established and flourish, unmolested. Some of these beliefs have run counter to what we stand for, but at no time were the adherents limited, much less persecuted.
Today, in Egypt the Coptic Church is under attack from Moslems. There is shooting in the streets and in their churches, buildings are being ransacked and burned, people are being persecuted for their beliefs.
In Turkey, the Sudan, Saudi Arabia, The Gaza Strip, Iran and Indonesia, Christianity is an outlaw religion. Non Moslems are finding themselves in a "living hell" simply because of what they believe. Not what they're doing. What they think.
The Founder of Christianity suffered at the hands of religious bigotry. He ultimately gave His life for those who would follow Him.
The Founder of Islam slaughtered those who would not convert to his new religion. And built into his system the concept of jihad: the overt, aggressive defense of the faith, up to and including murder.
Christians are responsible for hospitals, orphanages, schools, the Y.M.C.A. and later the Y.W.C.A., along with individual rights for citizens, the exaltation of women and protection for children.
In Great Britain, the Minister of Parliament who labored for 20 years to abolish slavery, was a committed Christian, acting on his beliefs that all men are created equal.
In America, the Abolitionist Movement was started by and undergirded by Christians.
Christians live according to conscience and faith.
Moslems live according to law and the threat of flogging, mutilation and death.
Christians serve their Heavenly Father. A Father Who loves His children.
Islam serves a Master who's will is not always known but must be accepted.
The Christian is charged with loving God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength. And to love others as they would themselves.
The Christian is commissioned to preach the Gospel to all nations. He is not taught, nor required to force anyone to accept his offer.
And when the Christian is attacked, he is not taught to retaliate in kind. When insulted he is to "turn the other cheek." When persecuted he is not to persecute in response. And if your neighbor sins against you, forgive him.
Where in the Koran, do you find similar teachings?
It is argued that under Mosaic Law an eye is required for an eye. This is a legal prescription for settling disputes in Israel. It is not a universal principle. It did not apply to Gentiles. And Jesus changed that, in the Sermon on The Mount, teaching that the righteous demands of God required something more noble: love your enemies, do good to them that despitefully use you.
This is a "Living Hell" I can live with!
He is upset that I would characterize Islam as a religion that allows for violence in the defense of the faith as opposed to Christianity which advocates forgiveness, tolerance and turning the other cheek.
In answer to his challenge, I would name The United States of America. The "American Experiment" was decidedly Christian in it's underlying values. In harmony with this, we have allowed all sorts of religious beliefs to be established and flourish, unmolested. Some of these beliefs have run counter to what we stand for, but at no time were the adherents limited, much less persecuted.
Today, in Egypt the Coptic Church is under attack from Moslems. There is shooting in the streets and in their churches, buildings are being ransacked and burned, people are being persecuted for their beliefs.
In Turkey, the Sudan, Saudi Arabia, The Gaza Strip, Iran and Indonesia, Christianity is an outlaw religion. Non Moslems are finding themselves in a "living hell" simply because of what they believe. Not what they're doing. What they think.
The Founder of Christianity suffered at the hands of religious bigotry. He ultimately gave His life for those who would follow Him.
The Founder of Islam slaughtered those who would not convert to his new religion. And built into his system the concept of jihad: the overt, aggressive defense of the faith, up to and including murder.
Christians are responsible for hospitals, orphanages, schools, the Y.M.C.A. and later the Y.W.C.A., along with individual rights for citizens, the exaltation of women and protection for children.
In Great Britain, the Minister of Parliament who labored for 20 years to abolish slavery, was a committed Christian, acting on his beliefs that all men are created equal.
In America, the Abolitionist Movement was started by and undergirded by Christians.
Christians live according to conscience and faith.
Moslems live according to law and the threat of flogging, mutilation and death.
Christians serve their Heavenly Father. A Father Who loves His children.
Islam serves a Master who's will is not always known but must be accepted.
The Christian is charged with loving God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength. And to love others as they would themselves.
The Christian is commissioned to preach the Gospel to all nations. He is not taught, nor required to force anyone to accept his offer.
And when the Christian is attacked, he is not taught to retaliate in kind. When insulted he is to "turn the other cheek." When persecuted he is not to persecute in response. And if your neighbor sins against you, forgive him.
Where in the Koran, do you find similar teachings?
It is argued that under Mosaic Law an eye is required for an eye. This is a legal prescription for settling disputes in Israel. It is not a universal principle. It did not apply to Gentiles. And Jesus changed that, in the Sermon on The Mount, teaching that the righteous demands of God required something more noble: love your enemies, do good to them that despitefully use you.
This is a "Living Hell" I can live with!
Thursday, August 6, 2009
A Classic Mass Murderer? Or A Commentary On Society?
George Sodini, a systems analyst from Pittsburgh, walked into the LA Fitness gym, in Collier Pa, firing as many as 30 rounds from two handguns, killing 3 women before turning a gun on himself. He called it his "Exit Plan" and had plotted this event for months.
The question is "Why?" The answer is the all-too frequent: lonely, isolated, angry man who felt unloved and ignored. He calculated that 30 million women had ignored him over a 25 to 30 year period. "Girls and women don't even give me a second look ANYWHERE." "Proof that I am a total malfunction." A man who felt neglected and unwanted, who sought attention through killing.
He wrote: "A man needs a woman for confidence. He gets a boost on the job, career, with other men, and everywhere else when he knows inside he has someone to spend the night with and who is also a friend. This type of life I see is a closed world with me specifically and totally excluded."
His victims were described as "young girls...that look so beautiful as to not be human, very edible." And so he walked into an aerobics class, turned off the light and started shooting.
The psychological community is quick to identify George's symptoms as that of a classic mass murderer. But not so quick to accept responsibility for him.
What is it about our society that people are so needy, so sexually oriented and so isolated? Is it in the water? The genes? Or is it a sense of entitlement? George felt his childhood was abusive. His blog spends a lot of time talking about how he was mistreated as a child. And how he went through life feeling no one cared for him, loved him or nurtured him.
And so he isolated himself, nurturing this loneliness and loathing, justifying what is clearly disturbing behavior. His perceived rejection justifying his actions.
Oh, he also hated God and religion. His "Exit Plan" included the ultimate effort to not simply take control of his circumstance, but to judge those he perceived to be his tormentors: young women. There had been one in a nondenominational church who had spurned his attention, apparently.
Is George Sordini an exception? An anomoly? Or is he the norm? No one is likely to know for sure. But if we just look around, it doesn't take much to see that most people are just like George. Self-centered. Feeling alone. Wanting to 'belong.' And pursuing sexual intimacy as the cure.
We don't all kill people. But we do serve self. And a self-serving attitude is not simply contrary to godliness, it's socially and spiritually destructive.
George Sordini is probably more of a prototype than an aberration. And, if so, we will see more and more of this sort of behavior. I wonder if anyone will see the connection between our secular, psychological philosophy of life and these events. Or will we continue to be shocked that so many are acting out their pain and despair in such dramatic ways, labeling them "classic mass murderers" and going back to sleep?
The question is "Why?" The answer is the all-too frequent: lonely, isolated, angry man who felt unloved and ignored. He calculated that 30 million women had ignored him over a 25 to 30 year period. "Girls and women don't even give me a second look ANYWHERE." "Proof that I am a total malfunction." A man who felt neglected and unwanted, who sought attention through killing.
He wrote: "A man needs a woman for confidence. He gets a boost on the job, career, with other men, and everywhere else when he knows inside he has someone to spend the night with and who is also a friend. This type of life I see is a closed world with me specifically and totally excluded."
His victims were described as "young girls...that look so beautiful as to not be human, very edible." And so he walked into an aerobics class, turned off the light and started shooting.
The psychological community is quick to identify George's symptoms as that of a classic mass murderer. But not so quick to accept responsibility for him.
What is it about our society that people are so needy, so sexually oriented and so isolated? Is it in the water? The genes? Or is it a sense of entitlement? George felt his childhood was abusive. His blog spends a lot of time talking about how he was mistreated as a child. And how he went through life feeling no one cared for him, loved him or nurtured him.
And so he isolated himself, nurturing this loneliness and loathing, justifying what is clearly disturbing behavior. His perceived rejection justifying his actions.
Oh, he also hated God and religion. His "Exit Plan" included the ultimate effort to not simply take control of his circumstance, but to judge those he perceived to be his tormentors: young women. There had been one in a nondenominational church who had spurned his attention, apparently.
Is George Sordini an exception? An anomoly? Or is he the norm? No one is likely to know for sure. But if we just look around, it doesn't take much to see that most people are just like George. Self-centered. Feeling alone. Wanting to 'belong.' And pursuing sexual intimacy as the cure.
We don't all kill people. But we do serve self. And a self-serving attitude is not simply contrary to godliness, it's socially and spiritually destructive.
George Sordini is probably more of a prototype than an aberration. And, if so, we will see more and more of this sort of behavior. I wonder if anyone will see the connection between our secular, psychological philosophy of life and these events. Or will we continue to be shocked that so many are acting out their pain and despair in such dramatic ways, labeling them "classic mass murderers" and going back to sleep?
Thursday, July 30, 2009
How Do You Define Racism?
We watched and listened, last week, to pundits and pols, as they wiggled and squirmed around the issue of racism. Sparked by the Professor Gates issue and our President's response. The question is, however, what constitutes racism?
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, racism is: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. But how can that be possible when all human beings are of the same "Race?"
Ah, here's the problem: we have re-defined the word racism to suit our circumstance and perhaps to exaggerate something which is completely normal. People groups DO exhibit unique traits and characteristics. But, maybe we're really looking at something else and simply calling it racism.
What about bigotry? Merriam-Webster defines a bigot as: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
So, what's the difference? Well, one is a political "club" used to beat people over the head for fun or profit. The other is immoral. But we can't talk about morality because everyone's morality is different. What's right for you may not be right for me, according to the post-modern, secularist.
So, we're stuck with "racism." This idea is more social than moral and we can drag it out whenever we need it in order to defend poor behavior or attack our enemies.
Professor Gates exhibited bigotry. He assumed that because the men at his door were police officers that they were simply out to give him a hard time or intimidate him because he was black. Isn't that what all police officers do?
The fact that he and another man used their shoulder to break down a door, in order to gain access, then showed a Harvard University ID, which did not have the address of that house on it was not apparently a suspicious enough event, in the mind of this PhD. When the officer wanted more information and to come inside, to make sure everything was as it was being presented, Professor Gates shouted "Racist!" He also began insulting the officer and making a ruckus on the lawn, constituting a Public Disturbance [as opposed to a disturbance in his own home].
That should have worked. It usually does. Al Sharpton thought it was sufficient. Even the president of the United States weighed in on Professor Gates' side.
But, alas, the facts were on the officer's side. What a surprise! You mean not all men and women in blue are bigoted? You mean we can no longer paint them all with the same brush?
What, then, are we to do when the police catch us in suspicious circumstances?
We could try cooperating, like ordinary citizens instead of expressing a bigoted attitude. That would be the Christian thing to do. And, if you're not a Christian, it would be the polite thing to do.
We may even start getting along.
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, racism is: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. But how can that be possible when all human beings are of the same "Race?"
Ah, here's the problem: we have re-defined the word racism to suit our circumstance and perhaps to exaggerate something which is completely normal. People groups DO exhibit unique traits and characteristics. But, maybe we're really looking at something else and simply calling it racism.
What about bigotry? Merriam-Webster defines a bigot as: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
So, what's the difference? Well, one is a political "club" used to beat people over the head for fun or profit. The other is immoral. But we can't talk about morality because everyone's morality is different. What's right for you may not be right for me, according to the post-modern, secularist.
So, we're stuck with "racism." This idea is more social than moral and we can drag it out whenever we need it in order to defend poor behavior or attack our enemies.
Professor Gates exhibited bigotry. He assumed that because the men at his door were police officers that they were simply out to give him a hard time or intimidate him because he was black. Isn't that what all police officers do?
The fact that he and another man used their shoulder to break down a door, in order to gain access, then showed a Harvard University ID, which did not have the address of that house on it was not apparently a suspicious enough event, in the mind of this PhD. When the officer wanted more information and to come inside, to make sure everything was as it was being presented, Professor Gates shouted "Racist!" He also began insulting the officer and making a ruckus on the lawn, constituting a Public Disturbance [as opposed to a disturbance in his own home].
That should have worked. It usually does. Al Sharpton thought it was sufficient. Even the president of the United States weighed in on Professor Gates' side.
But, alas, the facts were on the officer's side. What a surprise! You mean not all men and women in blue are bigoted? You mean we can no longer paint them all with the same brush?
What, then, are we to do when the police catch us in suspicious circumstances?
We could try cooperating, like ordinary citizens instead of expressing a bigoted attitude. That would be the Christian thing to do. And, if you're not a Christian, it would be the polite thing to do.
We may even start getting along.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Hate Speech
Jim Wallis is CEO of Sojourners, a "Progressive Evangelical" organization with the purpose of articulating "the biblical call to social justice, inspiring hope and building a movement to transform individuals, communities, the church, and the world." [http://www.sojo.net]
Jim Wallis believes it was "hate speech" that contributed to the recent murder of Dr. Tiller, in Kansas, and the Security Guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C.
He suggests Christians "shun" those who "propagate the hate speech that provides the framework of justification for these heinous acts. It is time to publically (sic) walk away from those who are committing these kinds of social sins and encourage others to do the same."
What he's talking about are those Christians, and others, who say abortion is murder. You see it's this kind of narrow, judgmental opinion that feeds the hate we see expressed in these murders and elsewhere...Wallis says.
Jim Wallis is an ordained minister of the Gospel. He is President Obama's spiritual advisor. He is invited to speak in Churches and at religious meetings and Christian colleges and seminaries. Jim Wallis is the darling of the political Left.
Jim Wallis is also an admitted Socialist and Communist. He was part of the radical Students for a Democratic Society, in the 1960's. He preaches that Christians should drop the typical conservative issues of abortion and same-sex marriage, and embrace poverty, AIDS and global warming.
The evangelicalism Jim Wallis envisions is indistinguishable from the secular Left. And he actively challenges Christians of all traditions to transform the culture through social activism and progressive policy. Jim Wallis does not understand The Word of God!
Problem? The Bible challenges Christians to transform the culture by means of the Gospel, not conform to it. We are not to embrace it. We are not to bring it into our churches, let alone our homes.
Who's winning? Look around. On the immediate side, the Jim Wallis' of this world are gaining in popularity and power. Dominion Theology, Kingdom Now Theology, popular Evangelicalsim, Replacement Theology, the Contemporary Christian Movement and a host of lessor philosophies are pushing The Church toward capturing the culture for Christ.
Problem? The Bible says, very clearly, that sin will reign on earth until Jesus comes. His coming is as The King of Kings! No political or social construct can or will succeed until Jesus destroys the current structure and establishes His Kingdom on earth.
Until then, those of us who actually believe The Bible will come under increasing pressure to keep quiet, get in line and stop preaching an exclusive Gospel message.
Will you sign up for this?
Jim Wallis believes it was "hate speech" that contributed to the recent murder of Dr. Tiller, in Kansas, and the Security Guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C.
He suggests Christians "shun" those who "propagate the hate speech that provides the framework of justification for these heinous acts. It is time to publically (sic) walk away from those who are committing these kinds of social sins and encourage others to do the same."
What he's talking about are those Christians, and others, who say abortion is murder. You see it's this kind of narrow, judgmental opinion that feeds the hate we see expressed in these murders and elsewhere...Wallis says.
Jim Wallis is an ordained minister of the Gospel. He is President Obama's spiritual advisor. He is invited to speak in Churches and at religious meetings and Christian colleges and seminaries. Jim Wallis is the darling of the political Left.
Jim Wallis is also an admitted Socialist and Communist. He was part of the radical Students for a Democratic Society, in the 1960's. He preaches that Christians should drop the typical conservative issues of abortion and same-sex marriage, and embrace poverty, AIDS and global warming.
The evangelicalism Jim Wallis envisions is indistinguishable from the secular Left. And he actively challenges Christians of all traditions to transform the culture through social activism and progressive policy. Jim Wallis does not understand The Word of God!
Problem? The Bible challenges Christians to transform the culture by means of the Gospel, not conform to it. We are not to embrace it. We are not to bring it into our churches, let alone our homes.
Who's winning? Look around. On the immediate side, the Jim Wallis' of this world are gaining in popularity and power. Dominion Theology, Kingdom Now Theology, popular Evangelicalsim, Replacement Theology, the Contemporary Christian Movement and a host of lessor philosophies are pushing The Church toward capturing the culture for Christ.
Problem? The Bible says, very clearly, that sin will reign on earth until Jesus comes. His coming is as The King of Kings! No political or social construct can or will succeed until Jesus destroys the current structure and establishes His Kingdom on earth.
Until then, those of us who actually believe The Bible will come under increasing pressure to keep quiet, get in line and stop preaching an exclusive Gospel message.
Will you sign up for this?
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
God vs. ObamaCare
Christians often have a hard time separating politics and faith. The dividing line is not always clear. But, when you consider that the Bible reveals the mind of God on the important issues of life, you can come to certain conclusions.
For example: The Bible favors personal responsibility over government largesse.
We are being told we need Socialized Healthcare because, according to the U.S. Census, 40 million Americans are not covered by insurance and the costs are out of control.
The truth is, according to the CBO, only 23.7 million Americans are not covered. 14 million are eligible for Government programs and 10 million earn over $75,000 a year. That's about 7% of the population. Hardly enough to warrant a major re-structuring.
In 1960, Americans spent 53% of their money on housing, energy, food and healthcare. In 2008, Americans spent 55% of their money on the same items. But we increased our spending on Recreation.
Two-thirds of the cost of healthcare in America comes from new medical technology and innovation. This has resulted, for example, in a survival rate from heart attack to jump from 60% in 1980 to 90% today. And our survivability from a stroke is 3 times better. New things cost money.
In America, sick people cannot be turned away from public hospitals. Indigenous poor and illegal aliens make up a large percentage of FREE healthcare.
In a 5-Continent Study, more American women were likely to have regular mammograms. ALL American women! Not just those with insurance.
In America, 5% of the population represent 50% of all healthcare dollars spent.
The conclusion is not that we have a healthcare crises, but that we have a crises in selfishness. And we want someone else -- anyone else -- to pay what we owe, so we can have more money for Flat Screens, ipods, blackberries, and jewelry.
This is not a political problem, but a moral problem.
For example: The Bible favors personal responsibility over government largesse.
We are being told we need Socialized Healthcare because, according to the U.S. Census, 40 million Americans are not covered by insurance and the costs are out of control.
The truth is, according to the CBO, only 23.7 million Americans are not covered. 14 million are eligible for Government programs and 10 million earn over $75,000 a year. That's about 7% of the population. Hardly enough to warrant a major re-structuring.
In 1960, Americans spent 53% of their money on housing, energy, food and healthcare. In 2008, Americans spent 55% of their money on the same items. But we increased our spending on Recreation.
Two-thirds of the cost of healthcare in America comes from new medical technology and innovation. This has resulted, for example, in a survival rate from heart attack to jump from 60% in 1980 to 90% today. And our survivability from a stroke is 3 times better. New things cost money.
In America, sick people cannot be turned away from public hospitals. Indigenous poor and illegal aliens make up a large percentage of FREE healthcare.
In a 5-Continent Study, more American women were likely to have regular mammograms. ALL American women! Not just those with insurance.
In America, 5% of the population represent 50% of all healthcare dollars spent.
The conclusion is not that we have a healthcare crises, but that we have a crises in selfishness. And we want someone else -- anyone else -- to pay what we owe, so we can have more money for Flat Screens, ipods, blackberries, and jewelry.
This is not a political problem, but a moral problem.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Are We Taking Stupid Pills?
This week it was reported that four teen aged boys sexually abused one of their team mates, in the locker room, with a broom handle and a hockey stick. They did it repeatedly and they will be charged as Adults.
This is horrendous, but it is NOT news. Things like this occur every month in America. Children are used and abused by all sorts of people. Often it is by adults who are charged with protecting them. Not infrequently it is by sexually-charged perverts.
We are shocked when a child is abducted for sex or raped or otherwise sexually abused. But we laugh at the so-called comedy of TV shows which feature sexuallized situations and pay big money to see what used to be called pornography, in Movies and Stage Shows.
We pass laws to protect citizen's from this abuse. But we also pass laws to allow the protection of those who peddle it in Magazines, Books, Songs and Commercials. We protect the right to Free Speech, which now includes pornography, nudity and debauchery. And we market sexual fashions to children as young as 5 years of age.
We have come to accept that young children need to be exposed to sex in the classroom, even homosexuality in Kindergarten [Calif. School District just voted to do this].
If we really wanted to protect children (and others) from Pedaphiles and other abusers we'd get sexual content out of their world. We'd stop the Viagra and Sexual Lubricants Commercials. We'd stop legitimizing selfish, sexual lifestyles. We'd stop mainstreaming aberrant sexual behaviors.
We all know that if you don't want to get burned, you simply stay away from the fire.
It seems the sex-merchants have won. Under the guise of Free Speech, they make commercials that sell their wares and make themselves huge profits. Then use that money and power to convince us that video images don't cause behaviors.
And otherwise reasonable people believe it! Law makers and judges support it! Teachers' unions and medical professionals accept it! Does anyone have the courage to stand up and say this is wrong? For the childrens' sake?
Either stop being outraged at sexual atrocities, or stop programming the society to accept every form of sexual behavior, known to man. We can't have it both ways!
This is horrendous, but it is NOT news. Things like this occur every month in America. Children are used and abused by all sorts of people. Often it is by adults who are charged with protecting them. Not infrequently it is by sexually-charged perverts.
We are shocked when a child is abducted for sex or raped or otherwise sexually abused. But we laugh at the so-called comedy of TV shows which feature sexuallized situations and pay big money to see what used to be called pornography, in Movies and Stage Shows.
We pass laws to protect citizen's from this abuse. But we also pass laws to allow the protection of those who peddle it in Magazines, Books, Songs and Commercials. We protect the right to Free Speech, which now includes pornography, nudity and debauchery. And we market sexual fashions to children as young as 5 years of age.
We have come to accept that young children need to be exposed to sex in the classroom, even homosexuality in Kindergarten [Calif. School District just voted to do this].
If we really wanted to protect children (and others) from Pedaphiles and other abusers we'd get sexual content out of their world. We'd stop the Viagra and Sexual Lubricants Commercials. We'd stop legitimizing selfish, sexual lifestyles. We'd stop mainstreaming aberrant sexual behaviors.
We all know that if you don't want to get burned, you simply stay away from the fire.
It seems the sex-merchants have won. Under the guise of Free Speech, they make commercials that sell their wares and make themselves huge profits. Then use that money and power to convince us that video images don't cause behaviors.
And otherwise reasonable people believe it! Law makers and judges support it! Teachers' unions and medical professionals accept it! Does anyone have the courage to stand up and say this is wrong? For the childrens' sake?
Either stop being outraged at sexual atrocities, or stop programming the society to accept every form of sexual behavior, known to man. We can't have it both ways!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)