The news has been reporting that someone claims he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin using medieval technology.

My faith in Jesus Christ and His resurrection is not based on the Shroud. For sure, if the Shroud is actually a burial garment of Jesus', then it adds another reason to believe. But if the Shroud is a later work of ingenious art, then my faith is not lessened in the least.  Furthermore, even if someone shows that close reproduction was possible using later technology (which may have happened here), this does not prove the Shroud is a later work of art and not a burial cloth for Jesus.

There's a side to me that thinks it good if all physical artifacts involved in any miracle of Jesus or His crucifixion have been lost to history in the same way that I am glad we don't know with any certainty the actual birth date of Jesus. Astrologers, and those taken with astrology would make too much of His birthdate, just as too many people would focus on the wood or the iron or cloth that came into contact with Jesus - a thing - rather than focusing on Jesus and having a relationship with Him.

My faith in the resurrection of Jesus is based on objective reality and affirmed by my subjective experience (I know He lives in me). We have good reasons to believe Jesus was a man of history who was crucified, that He was buried, and that He subsequently appeared alive to many different people in different situations; and that His tomb was empty. All other explanations to cover those things are lacking. So I do believe that Jesus rose from the dead, resurrected and glorified, and I do believe what He taught - shroud or no shroud.

I have often treated with derision the misapplication of the term "homophobia".  And some folks would probably apply that term to someone who finds any kind of specifically homosexual behavior disgusting.  While someone who finds such behaviors disgusting may indeed be a homophobe, they don’t have to be a homophobe to find behaviors disgusting.

But why should it matter if someone is disgusted by any or all specifically homosexual behavior? Let me clarify what I'm NOT talking about here:

1. Holding hands, hugs, or a light peck.
2. Someone who deals with their disgust by harassing or committing personal or property crimes.
3. Someone trying to use government force to prevent or punish private adult citizens from of for engaging in private consensual behavior.

Even with numbers 2 and 3, the problem comes not with the disgust that someone has, but with their actions that are a violation of someone else's rights.

Different people are disgusted by any number of things, including certain body types, certain foods or drinks, smoking, chewing tobacco, certain fashions, horror movies, My Name is Earl... you name it.  But who is ever sent to sensitivity training for expressing their disgust for, say, eating blue cheese?  No doubt, there are people out there who would be disgusted by some of the things my wife and I do together, but I don't spend a moment worrying about it.  There are people out there – including heterosexuals – who are disgusted by some normal heterosexual behaviors.  I'll refrain from inserting jokes about some wives here.  Heterosexual intercourse is how we all got here, but is a college student punished by school authorities for expressing a disgust of that behavior?

Yet what is likely to happen to someone - in a class or a workplace meeting - who expresses disgust towards sodomy between two men?  It's likely re-education time for such a person (training, therapy).  What about an elected or appointed official who expresses those thoughts?  Activist groups immediately freak out.  That's their right.  It's silly, but that's their right.  However, I think a student or someone in the workplace should be able to say "I am disgusted by homosexual behavior" without being sent to re-education - as long as Constitutional protections apply to those situations.[1]

I am not personally disgusted at the thought of homosexual behavior.  I don't desire to see it - I don't want to engage in it, but the thought of it (hard to avoid, given pop culture and politics these days) doesn’t make me ill.  I don't advise people engage in it; in fact, I would discourage them from doing so - not that anyone would listen to me.  I'm convinced that sex is for marriage, and that marriage unites the sexes.[2]

But homosexuality advocates freak out if someone expresses disgust for any homosexual behavior.  Most meat eaters don't take personal offense at a vegetarian expressing a disgust for meat-eating.  Most marketers don't vilify people who are disgusted with the product or service they are promoting – they simply move on to direct their marketing towards a more receptive audience.  Perhaps the difference is that someone who is selling a service or product knows that it should be someone's choice whether or not they support their business by buying that service or product.  Too many homosexuality advocates are trying to bully us in to buying their "products" – a glorification of homosexual behavior; a disproportionate amount of public resources devoted to issues either exclusive to or prevalent in their subcultures; a discounting of the benefits of traditional marriage and parenting; and a neutered concept of marriage.  People who express disgust at homosexual behavior are more likely to say "no".  That seems to be the problem.  The advocates are demanding something from others.  That requires that enough of the others shut up and sit down, if they aren't supportive, in order for it to work.  If the goal was simply to be left alone, there wouldn’t be so much concern about what other people think or say.

Notes:
1. (Ultimately, I believe in separation of state and most schooling, and employment freedom.  This means that schools would be allowed to set a policy to expel anyone expressing disgust for homosexual behavior, and employers would be able to fire someone for the same offense.  However, schools and employers would also be able to reject anyone for engaging in homosexual behavior – or for any other reason or no reason.

2. I am disgusted and do have contempt for people – regardless of sexual orientation – who make babies when they haven’t provided those babies with a marriage in which to be raised – a marriage consisting of both a decent mother and father who treat each other with love, kindness, and respect.

I finished reading this book and wanted to tell you about it.

I first found "The Bible Answer Man" in 1990 or 1991 when I caught the show on KKLA 99.5 FM (Los Angeles), running in the 3 p.m. hour.  Friday shows were tapes of the late Walter Martin, the original "Bible Answer Man", who had passed away in 1989, lecturing on topics like The Watchtower (Jehovah’s Witnesses), Mormonism, Christian Scientists, the New Age movement, the Occult, Atheism, Mary, and more. I had never heard anything like it. Here was this guy detailing the methods and doctrines of the leaders of groups and movements and contrasting them with the orthodox interpretation of the Bible, and defining and defending the essential doctrines of the Christian faith in a logical, linear, researched way.*

Even though I never was able to see him in person, and to this day I've never even seen more than a couple of photographs of him, Walter Martin has had an enormous impact on my life, not only through the recordings of him teaching, but through his books, including the groundbreaking The Kingdom of the Cults.  Through his writings, his informative, entertaining lectures, and his radio talk show, he inspired countless subsequent countercult and Christian apologetics researchers, writers, and speakers.  He was extremely effective at clarifying exactly how various world religions, cults and religious movements and practices deviated from orthodox Christianity, and why we should practice Christianity and reject the others.

Now Martin is listed as the author of a new book that forms an excellent companion volume to The Kingdom of the Cult – The Kingdom of the Occult.  Now how did that happen?  Did Martin dictate this book from beyond the grave?  No.  In fact, the book will explain exactly why that isn't possible.  However, the co-authors, Kurt Van Gorden and Martin's daughter, Jill Martin Rische, used Martin’s lectures, writings, and notes and augmented them with more research and writing to coalesce everything into this timely look at the occult.

Occult practices have infiltrated pop culture, inspired what seems like half of what is found on the shelves in mainstream bookstores, and the lives of many people who identify themselves as Christians.  Some occult practices are presented today as harmless, some as enlightening, some as chic.  This book explains the difference between occult practices and the knowledge gained therein, and Biblical teachings and practices; and why they are not harmless, nor enlightening...even the ones that are chic.

The bottom line is that anything truly supernatural that is going on in occult practices is the work of evil beings.  Now, this is not one of those books that sees a demon behind every rock.  However, it does not make the opposite error and deny the existence of demons (fallen angels, including Satan), or their ability to mislead and torment human beings.  As the book explains, most of that torment is invited by human beings through voluntary involvement with the occult.

There is no need to seek special knowledge from occultic practices.  God has given us what we need: our mind and senses (and a privileged planet where we can use those in scientific inquiry to find many answers), the Bible and the ministry of Jesus, the Holy Spirit to indwell us, the Church (the entire body of all Christians), and angels.  I think it is safe to say that most people who identify as Christians who seek answers in the occult haven't exhausted the knowledge waiting to be discovered in the Bible they already have.

This is a great reference work for anyone who wants to know the difference between Biblical teachings and practices and those of the occult, or for anyone who claims to be a Christian.

The hardcover book is over 700 pages, including a Bibliography and an Index.  It it can be read straight through, or one can refer to certain chapters that are relevant to one's life – though I recommend at least reading the opening and closing chapters before putting it on your shelf for later reference.  Some of the topics covered include paganism, Kabbalah, Eastern mysticism, New Age, psychic phenomena, astrology, UFOs, Satanism, goddess worship, witchcraft, wicca, and demons (including possession and exorcism).

As I said, the book does not take the view that demons are behind every woe we face or every lie propagated.  It does make a distinction between mental illness of natural origins as opposed to demonic influence or possession, and between illusions for entertainment and actual supernatural displays.  The book also makes the case that true Christians can encounter demons and be harassed by them, but never possessed by them.

I highly recommend it as a resource.  It sure was nice to "hear" from Walter Martin again.


*Because of his work and its effectiveness and influence, Martin became a target for those he exposed.  Their attacks on him, however, do little to effectively counter his demonstrations of the errors committed in their teachings.  While it is understandable that they seek to protect the reputation of their founders by attacking Walter Martin, because without their founding "prophet" their group loses meaning and authority - Christianity is about Christ, not about Walter Martin, so attacks on Martin do nothing to change the truth about what he demonstrated.

I realize that Townhall.com is mainly about conservatism, not Christian doctrine and practice, and that we have a wide variety of participants here, some of whom are likely to want to attack my praise of Martin.  But I believe we can disagree on theology and religious practice and whether or not your religious leaders were/are right, and still work effectively together to promote conservatism in politics and governing.

Steven Reinberg of HealthDay reports on a different look at "virginity pledge" data.

Teens who take virginity pledges are just as likely to have sex as teens who don't make such promises -- and they're less likely to practice safe sex to prevent disease or pregnancy, a new study finds.

Sounds bad for programs like "True Love Waits", right?

This method allowed Rosenbaum to compare those who had taken a virginity pledge with similar teens who hadn't taken a pledge but were likely to delay having sex, she said. She added that she didn't include teens who were unlikely to take a pledge.

So, in other words, making a pledge as a kid doesn't change behavior all that much, but the kind of parenting and community support that encourages pledging is also the kind that discourages teen fornication, pledge or not.

"Strikingly, pledgers are less likely than similar non-pledgers to use condoms and also less likely to use any form of birth control."

This is a form of denial, and it is a problem.

For the study, Rosenbaum collected data on 934 high school students who had never had sex or had taken a virginity pledge. The data came from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.

Rosenbaum matched students who had taken a virginity pledge with those who hadn't.

Not all students who didn't make pledges – just others who were likely to have similar behavior.

She said teens who are religious tend to delay having sex, but that has nothing to do with virginity pledges or abstinence-only sex education programs.

Like I said.

It isn't so much the pledge - it is clearly communicated parental expectations and boundaries, as well as supervision.  We also need to be sure to provide alternative activities for youth and coping skills.  Simply warning them about sin, disease, pregnancy, or broken hearts isn't enough if we don’t teach them how to be disciplined in dealing with feelings, peers, and pressure.  Abstaining sounds like "missing out".  Fornicating can feel good, and you don't get a tangible prize for saying "no".  But there are ways to promote purity, such as celebrations like purity balls.  And please note – I have never attended a purity ball, so I’m talking about the concept, not the execution.

It was easier for people to save sex for marriage when we lived in tight-nit, small communities where children often worked alongside parents and people were done with their education/training as teens and married as teens.  We don't live in that world anymore.  That doesn't make fornication okay, it just makes it easier to do.

Edward Tabash of Beverly Hills, chair of the national legal committee of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, wrote in to complain about a recent editorial in the Los Angeles Times that said a government-recognized "day of prayer" is okay:

For a governor to declare such a day is for the state to officially endorse prayer.

That is not the same thing as adopting a national religious denomination.  For many years AFTER the adoption of the First Amendment, some states had official state denominations.  So a day of prayer is no big deal.

It sends a message that nonbelievers are lesser in the eyes of the political community than those who believe in a supernatural being.

Hardly.  I wonder how he feels about states and municipalities recognizing various days, such as "AIDS Awareness" days or The Great American Smokeout?  Do such declarations mean that those who do not participate are lesser in the eyes of the political community?

The Los Angeles Times saw fit to put both Islam and homosexuality on the front page again, this time in a story that deals with a "gay Muslim".  Erika Hayasaki has the story, which we have never ever heard before: a lesbian's family rejects homosexuality, and that’s tough on the lesbian.

Aliyah is Muslim. It's a part of her identity she can't shed, like her sexuality, like her last name -- Bacchus, as in the Roman god of wine and merriment -- and like her ink-stained flesh: the angel tattooed between her shoulder blades, the dark dragons on her lower back, the polar bear on her stomach, the dying rose on her right wrist.

Actually, she can stop being Muslim.  It is called conversion.  She can choose how, when, and with whom to behave sexually.  She can change her name.  She can even get the tattoos removed.

In America, Aliyah knows, it is acceptable to be gay. But how, she wonders, can she be true to who she is while also adhering to her family's faith?

My faith doesn't call me to "be true to who I am" – it called me die to self and sin and be reborn as a follower of Christ.  I'm not Muslim, but I gather Islam teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin.  Either live by your religion or get a new religion.  If you religion is true, then live by it.

She will tell her family to accept that she is gay, or lose her forever.

You know, my family didn’t like some of my past relationships.  I never gave them an ultimatum about it.  If they are willing to keep in contact with you, why cut them off?

By 13, suitors began coming to her father's door, asking for Aliyah's hand in marriage. When Aliyah argued with her father, he threatened to make her marry and drop out of school. Aliyah stopped paying attention in class. What was the point if her life was destined for marriage and kids, with no hopes for college or a career?

Uh, guess what – wives and mothers use edu-ma-cation in their daily lives.

She quarreled with her husband. She chopped her waist-length black hair into a bob.

Hey, that's like a lot of straight, thoroughly American mainstream wives!

Aliyah remembered her aunt telling her: If you're going to tell me you're a lesbian, I cannot and will not be associated with you. Her aunt hung up. Aliyah sat on the steps outside her apartment, staring at her phone. Not long after, she received an e-mail from her brother saying something similar.

Okay, well it sounds like her family doesn't want to maintain contact.  So going to them and telling them what they already know is kind of pointless.  It is sad that they are so rejecting.

"I am living an upright life. I try to be charitable," she says. "But who decides what is sin and what is not? It's not for man to decide."

Right.  That’s for God to decide.  When God tells us, though, we can't ignore it and claim to still be devoted to God.  Heck, if I ignore something my wife says, she's not going to believe me when I say I'm a dutiful husband.


Do you feel bad yet for voting for Prop 8?  Ready to give your money to negate your own vote?  No?  Well, then expect the paper to run more stories like this.

Not the Los Angeles Times is rooting for the “No on Prop 8” side, or anything.  The paper has an article puffing up religious same-sex “marriage” ceremonies in a blatant attempt to play on our emotions.  Carla Hall reports.

At the beginning of May, Edwards, the rabbi of the Beth Chayim Chadashim synagogue in Los Angeles' Fairfax district, had a single wedding on her calendar. Then the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage in mid-May.

Between mid-June, when gay couples could legally begin marrying, and the first weekend of November, she will have performed more than 40 weddings. All but one are same-sex unions. And that's not counting her own wedding in July to her longtime partner, Tracy Moore, a fundraiser for public radio, which was presided over by a rabbi and State Assembly Speaker Karen Bass.

I have absolutely no problem with these ceremonies – from a legal standpoint.  But I do have to wonder why some people bother with some traditions and not others.  There have been many times I have struggled with the conflict between my feelings and desires and what God has told me through the Bible.  No, I haven’t struggled with homosexuality, but these struggles I did have were extremely painful nonetheless.  Ultimately, I submit to what God has instructed.  And yes, that has meant losing relationships.  I can’t place my desire for someone else over my devotion to God.  I can’t place my own desires over my obedience to God.  God knows best.  Although it was painful at times, life went on.  And God brought me a wonderful woman to be my wife.  If I had done things the way I had wanted to before, there are so many ways I would be worse off now.

"Even though I've just been crazy busy, it feels like such an extraordinary moment in time and it feels like such a blessing to be with these couples," said Edwards, 56, whose temple -- better known as BCC -- bills itself as the first synagogue for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Jews. (The congregation has straight members as well.)

I still think it is strange to organize a synagogue (or a church for that matter) around the sexual attraction of the members, throwing in people who pretend to be the opposite sex.  Who cares if a man likes to wear a dress?  Should we organize a church for people who like to stick food in their ears?  Aren't these places supposed to be organized around God?

The rush to the altar is triggered by the possibility that voters might approve Proposition 8, the California ballot measure that would override the court ruling and ban legal gay marriage.

If you’re relying on the state to give meaning to your relationships, you are misplacing your faith.

The California Supreme Court ruling that the state cannot prohibit same-sex marriages doesn't require religious organizations to recognize them.

Not the ruling by itself – but what happens when you add in all of the other laws and court actions?  You get things like “Churches won’t be forced to perform same-sex marriages…as long as they are willing to pay hefty fines and settlements each time they turn down a request for one, and as long as they aren’t located adjacent to a public street, or within  the borders of a county, or listed in the phone book.”

"I have been swamped," said Rabbi Denise Eger at Congregation Kol Ami in West Hollywood. Eger, who in June presided over the ceremony of Diane Olson and Robin Tyler, the first official gay wedding in Los Angeles, estimates she will have done more than 50 weddings by next month.

Edwards and Eger are rabbis in the Reform movement of Judaism, which recognizes same-sex marriages, as does the Reconstructionist movement.

They strike me more as social clubs rather than religious institutions.

Conservative and Orthodox branches of Judaism do not officially sanction gay marriage, but Conservative rabbis are allowed to marry same-sex couples if they wish.

Predictable.

The Rev. Dr. Neil Thomas, senior pastor of Metropolitan Community Church in Los Feliz, has also been busy performing same-sex weddings.

In church name parlance, “Metropolitan” = “Homosexual”

In general, Edwards won't legally marry same-sex couples just because she can. She has counseled some couples to wait and "not get caught up in the thrill of it."

Good advice for ANYONE planning to “form a corporation”, which is essentially what you’re doing when you enter into state-licensed marriage.

Cynthia Kern and Jane Boisseau, who live in New York, have been together 25 years, and Boisseau is a friend and law partner of Dean Hansell, a longtime member of the BCC congregation. Edwards and the couple planned the wedding by phone and e-mail.

"One of the things I appreciated was that she asked so many questions about our history, our relationship, our son," said Boisseau, who has a 7-year-old, Jeremy Kern, with Cynthia, a New York state judge.

It is impossible that those two women conceived that boy together.  Where is his father?  How sad that he is denied his father.  MEN: NEVER EVER DONATE SPERM.  (If for no other reason - you can be held financially liable for the children conceived.  Yes, it has happened.)

On the morning of their wedding, a dozen boisterous family members and friends sat in a semicircle of chairs at the temple as the two brides stood under a chuppah, the traditional Jewish wedding canopy.

So it is important to have that there.  Just not, you know, a groom.

Edwards, in a teal silk pantsuit and dark round-framed glasses, blended the personal with the political. "This ceremony takes place because of this," she said, holding up a document. "A California marriage license." The guests applauded.

So you would have never had a ceremony otherwise?  So much for this being about “love”.  Brides and grooms were getting married in religious ceremonies long before the state of California was issuing marriage licenses.  Thousands of years, in fact.

"The license has always been something you sign over in the other room with very little fanfare," she said describing what happens when a man and woman wed. "Especially for, I think, gay and lesbian clergy, the irony of signing other people's licenses when we ourselves couldn't get married was painful -- and why we didn't make a big deal out of it.”

So you’re telling me that if there a DMV employee who doesn’t have a driver’s license, they should feel pain?  Once again – people are free to do what they want with each other as consenting adults, but they don’t have a right to force someone else to license their union as a marriage.

How about a story featuring people who voted for Proposition 22, and how they felt when the California Supreme Court overrode their vote?

As expected, the paper printed a couple of letters regarding Father Farrow’s actions.  I discussed that story here.

Jeff Dix of Los Angeles goes for the obvious:

As a Catholic, I wish that the church hierarchy would have had the courage to respond so quickly and unequivocally when confronted with priests who were sexually abusing children. These men did much worse than openly disagree with the church, and, in far too many cases, went unpunished or were protected.

I agree, but it is so tedious for that to be invoked in this matter.  Whether or not the RCC supports or opposes a judicial imposition of neutered marriage upon an unwilling populace should be independent of the church’s handling of crimes committed by employees.  People are imperfect (with one exception), and so are organizations.  But that doesn't mean we should never fight for what is right.

An update on something I blogged about a while back.  Kingdom of the Occult is going to hit bookstores soon.  This should be an excellent reference work from a Christian perspective.  The author is the daughter of the original author of the groundbreaking reference work, Kingdom of the Cults.  Click though for a sneak peak.

I often write what I don’t like about the Los Angeles Times, but one thing they often get right is running pieces from the “other side” (in comparison to the editorial board’s side).

David Wolpe, rabbi of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and the author of Why Faith Matters, had a piece today responding to Bill Maher’s latest attack on “religion”.

There are three problems with Bill Maher's new movie mocking faith: It misunderstands religion, misconceives God and gets human nature all wrong.

Click through to read the whole thing.

Here’s one of my previous entries dealing with Maher.

That some people wrongly appeal to God to excuse their foolishness or evil does not mean that God does not exist or that there is no benefit to placing our faith in God.

Hey, Evangelicals!  Palin is not being “submissive”, so allow Obama/Biden to get elected because things will be so much better then!  That’s what the Los Angeles Times wants us believe.  Further down, I will discuss the attempt to paint her as a religious whacko.  Here’s the article written by staff writer Teresa Watanabe.  Fortunately, there is some balance in the article.

And many, like Ennis, see no conflict between Palin's candidacy and biblical teachings on women's roles.

Many say that biblical restrictions on women's leadership apply to church and home, not the secular world -- clearing the way for a woman to run the nation but not a congregation. And so long as Palin's husband, Todd, approves, they say, her career conforms with teachings on wifely duties.

Exactly.

Women do not need to stay at home if they are wives and mothers to be Biblically correct.  The important thing is that the parents are raising the kids (not strangers), and how she respects and treats her husband.  If that is all fine, there is nothing wrong with her being in public service.

Voddie Baucham, a Texas pastor who has criticized the Palin selection as anti-family in a series of blogs, said that the overwhelming evangelical support demonstrates a willingness to sacrifice biblical principles for politics.

Okay, you go vote for the perfect evangelical.  Good luck.  Meanwhile, you’ll have deal with an Obama/Biden administration.

Palin may have taken center stage at the moment, but the evangelical Christian world has been buffeted for years by growing tensions between those who support egalitarian roles for men and women and those who promote "complementarianism." That's the view that God values men and women equally but granted them distinctly different roles.

It’s entirely possible to believe we have distinctly different roles, especially in marriage, and still have a wife/mother in public service.

A few days ago, the paper had an article by staff writer Stephen Braun talking about Palin’s “fundamentalists beliefs” in relation to her public policy.

First, they ascribe a belief in young-earth creationism to her.  I’m not aware of how that would matter one way or another in breaking tie votes in the Senate.

After conducting a college band and watching Palin deliver a commencement address to a small group of home-schooled students in June 1997, Wasilla resident Philip Munger said, he asked the young mayor about her religious beliefs.

So he asked her.  It wasn’t like she ran up to him and said “And I’m going to see to it that it is mandatory in the law that everyone agrees with me!”  But the way – he’s a liberal blogger.

She has harnessed the political muscle of social conservatives and antiabortion groups, yet she did not push hard for a special legislative session on abortion, and she did not challenge a court ruling that allowed health insurance for same-sex partners of state workers.

So clearly she does not “cram her faith down the throats” of anyone else.

Palin has attended a number of prayer sessions with pastors and has quietly sought their guidance, but she is often mum on matters of faith in high-profile public forums.

Aren’t we told that Obama has done the same things?  Yet I don’t hear this fear that Obama will mix his faith with his public policy.

We get it.  We know there are people out there afraid of people who actually believe in God and that God is not unconcerned with our behavior.  Only socialist women who are fine with slaughtering babies are acceptable to them.

Seeing the coverage of Palin and the prayers said around her and the prayer requests made by her, I am more certain than ever that most people running the MSM don’t really believe in God, and they’re betting you don’t either.  After all, if an omnipotent and involved God exists, wouldn’t it be a good idea to seek to be on His side?  And isn’t it possible that He can make a difference in our lives?  What’s wrong with praying, then?

Yet we repeatedly see mocking of those very ideas.  Talking with dead people, horoscopes, extraterrestrials managing to secretly travel billions of miles and interact with some Earthlings without being detected by others… all of that is taken much more seriously by these people than God.

I find it amusing when people who accept without question that time + matter is all it takes for natural forces to accidentally result in Beethoven, Einstein, Angelina Jolie, dolphins, sunsets, wine, and orgasms think we have strange ideas because we think that God is there and cares.

To them, God is like a bouquet of flowers that you’d only bring to a wedding or a funeral – good for decoration but not much else.  Treating God in a condescending manner is risky business.  Perhaps we should pray for the MSM?

I’m presenting a series here called Exposing (Explaining) the Religious Right.

Who am I to talk about the Religious Right?  I was politically aware long before I could vote.  I’ve voted in every major election since I became eligible.  I attend a church – one I didn’t grow up attending - where a significant percentage of the membership would likely identify as members of the Religious Right (RR).  For many years, I’ve analyzed the literature, media, broadcasts, voting guides, and fundraising mailers of organizations and their representatives regularly cited as being members of the RR – The Family Research Council, Christian Coalition, Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Women for America, Prison Fellowship, and others.

I aim to give an overview of what the RR does, what motivates the RR, and the positions of the RR.

Below, you will find my first installment.


The Religious Right Votes, and Has Every Right To

You can dismiss the Religious Right as just a bunch of hateful, backward kooks who blindly follow ignorant or unscrupulous leaders and superstitious ancient nonsense, but you would be doing yourself a disservice.

Just who is the Religious Right (RR), and why they do what they do?  Even if you are vehemently opposed to what the RR stands for, you should keep reading, because it could give you some useful insight or at least a more informed understanding of the RR.

The RR consists of Christians and Jews of a conservative political philosophy who are quite often traditional/conservative in their theology and understanding of Scripture, and who integrate their faith with their politics, as they integrate their faith with every area of their lives.

Both the RR and its detractors recognize the political and cultural clout and influence of the RR.  In fact, Democrat strategists are clearly looking for ways to “herd the sheep” to their camp, trying to capitalize on the natural fragmentation that occurs when a significant number of a population group (evangelicals, in this case) become politically active.  Inevitably, someone will come up with a somewhat coherent philosophical system that marries Democrat politics with evangelical issues, thereby providing what is perceived to be a viable alternative to registering as and voting Republican simply because they are a Bible-believing Christian who has become politically active.  After all, some people don’t like to be seen as marching in lockstep with too many others, or resist applying their faith to every area of their life, or simply have personality/taste/style clashes with those they identify as iconic Republicans.  If you’re not fond of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, you can’t possibly be part of the RR, right?

That Democrat strategy appears to focus mainly on the Bible-believer’s tendency to want to join do-gooder groups that do things like care for the poor and marginalized and  protect the environment (God’s creation); or feel like they are making a difference by going against what they perceive as the flow of power in an imperfect world; or feel like they are being forgiving and aiding redemption by protecting and going easy on criminals; and convincing the believer that government force is the best, most effective, or at least an appropriate way to reach these ends.

This tactic by Democrats is a refreshing change from the previous tactic, which seemed to be “You shouldn’t vote at all because there is a separation of church and state.” Or “You should ignore your faith when you vote, since there are other people here who do not share your faith.”  I always found the first argument false and that second argument ponderous, considering the people telling the RR to but out are surely voting based on their personal priorities instead of worrying about hurting the feelings of someone in the RR.

Aren’t Bible-believing, praying, church/synagogue/temple-attending folks equal citizens?  Don’t citizens have the right to vote as they choose to?  The last I checked, there was no clause in the Constitution or law in the land that said that some voters weren’t allowed to vote for a candidate or write in a candidate if their decision was going to be based on or influenced by religion, and that elected officials were not allowed to vote according to their personal principles.  Are Christians (evangelicals) and conservative (small c) Jews really not supposed to vote?  And if they vote, are they supposed to forget their faith?  Are they supposed to apply their faith and their way of looking at the world to every area of their lives except politics?  You vote how you want to vote - why shouldn’t the RR?  People may make their voting decisions based on things their union has told them, things their favorite news anchor has said, things their favorite author, celebrity, or talk show host has said.  Why can’t they allow their deepest convictions to guide them simply because those convictions were informed by their religion?

Furthermore, just like any other citizen, isn’t a person in the RR allowed to try to persuade others to his or her position?  It is laughable when people who forcefully proclaim their political views in the halls of academia, in journalism, in entertainment (plays, books, films, songs, concerts, television shows), on t-shirts, buttons, and bumper stickers, and in demonstrations/rallies bemoan that people in the RR are trying to “preach” to them.

In a democratic, representative republic with the freedoms of speech, religion, and association, members of the RR have just as much right to vote as any other citizens, and many of them do vote.

The RR, being conservative, also seeks to conserve such things as the nuclear family as the basic autonomous societal unit; the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman; the country as a superpower; the Constitution; the Church, its place in the local community, and religious freedom; the place of Christianity and Judaism in the American culture; and certain laws, traditions, customs, morals, and standards.  It also seeks to re-institute some things that have been changed or eliminated in recent years, such as protections for the unborn, parental rights, and the public acceptability of certain behaviors.  In the process, they react to and attempt to counter the efforts of those seeking to maintain the recent changes and bring about additional changes.  The RR does this through legal, peaceable means such as personal choices, ownership and leadership of property, organizations and businesses, peer and family pressure, pressure on sponsors/advertisers, persuasive media, voting, voter registration and information drives, and courtroom actions.

Aside from a strong support of the U.S. military and self defense, in general, the RR does not advocate violence, such as wife beating, bombing abortion clinics, or assaulting homosexual people - in fact, the RR tends to strongly denounce violence against individuals and property.  A notable exception is when Pat Robertson appeared to advocate the assassination of a foreign leader.

Given the tactics employed by the RR and the percentage of the populace that somewhat agrees with most of the RR agenda, the RR is hardly fringe or extremist, despite what some critics claim.  There are three main reasons that the RR draws such strong criticism.  First and foremost is that the RR opposes the agenda of Leftist activists and some libertarian ideals.  Understandably, Leftist activists and libertarians would rather not have the opposition.  Secondly, some people oppose the idea of “mixing religion and politics”.  However, as I already discussed, why shouldn’t people apply their deeply held convictions to their political leanings and activities?  Are the critics not applying their deeply held convictions, or are they basing their politics on nothing in particular?  This objection is usually the first objection, thinly disguised.  Finally, some object to the RR because of the “attitude” of the RR, mostly that the critics perceive that the RR claims to have “the answers” and that “we’re right and everyone else is wrong”.  While humility is a good thing and there is no doubt in my mind that sometimes RR leaders fail to be humble or gentle, this often implies that the critics of the RR have little certainty about the rightness or validity of their own positions.  Only an illogical person or a coward refuses to conclude that if his position is right, any mutually exclusive position is wrong.

You may not like the RR, but you shouldn't just swallow that the critics of the RR say without taking these things into consideration.  That’s all for now.  I will continue this in another post.