This pretty much lines up with my thoughts on the David Letterman situation.

Almost a week ago, the Los Angeles Times ran letters reacting to Obama's special plea for expanding government under the guise of reforming health insurance. I wanted to look at a few of them.

Rachel Bruhnke of San Pedro wrote:

Regarding your editorial, what I would like to see Obama propose in the debate on how to pay for healthcare is a transfer of money from U.S. warfare to U.S. healthcare.

Awww, isn't that sweet? Here's the problem. Unless it is amended, the Constitution instructs the federal government to engage in national defense, but does not permit it to get involved in health "insurance".

Larry Rennacker of Santa Barbara wrote:

I am having trouble connecting the dots. You have folks who support the right of the state to kill people (death penalty) but are up in arms, literally (according a recent Times article about ammo purchases), when it comes to that same state providing healthcare to its citizens?

Yes, Mr. Rennacker, some people support executing duly convicted murderers but not forcible redistribution of wealth under the guise of health "insurance". People can already get health care by going to the emergency room. Prosecuting criminal cases and carrying our sentences is a basic function of government. Obama isn't talking about a state program – he's talking about federal programs. There is a difference.

Arthur Saginian of Saugus wrote:

The most realistic approach to reforming our current healthcare system would be to attack its biggest problem: cost. Find its components and tear them down. In the meantime, we can simply make it illegal to deny or cancel coverage.

Socialism? Perhaps. But how else can you combat abusive capitalism?

"Abusive capitalism" takes place when there is a monopoly or some sort of fraud. It isn't fraudulent to say, "We don't want to insure you." It is fraudulent to promise services under certain conditions, then take the money and not provide the services even though the conditions were met. So, socialism is not needed. Fraud detection and prosecution is needed.

Kevin McKiernan of Santa Barbara wrote:

The president finally said the words he needed to say: Healthcare for all is a moral issue. It kind of makes you proud to be an American.

So, just to be clear Kevin, it is perfectly okay for force one's morality on other people via the law, correct?

What is moral about forcing someone to pay for services rendered to a stranger?

Meghan Daum of the Los Angeles Times has commentary on "older" people using "reproductive" technologies.

On July 11, Maria del Camen Bousada de Lara, a Spanish woman who 2 1/2 years ago briefly became the "world's oldest mom" when she gave birth to twin boys at age 67, died of cancer. A recipient of donor eggs and sperm at a Los Angeles fertility clinic, she had told doctors she was 55, the maximum age for partnerless in-vitro fertilization patients at that clinic.

This was a selfish move on her part.  Neither men nor women should be making babies when they will likely be too old to raise them.

It is also immoral for reproductive specialists to aid anyone but a husband and wife in a healthy marriage who seem fit to be parents.  Of course, these people are usually involved in creating "extra" human beings who are condemned to be killed.  So morality isn't their specialty.

Since 1994, there have been 12 documented cases of women over 60 having babies (including a 62-year-old California woman who already had 11 other children). The reigning "world's oldest mom" is likely Omkari Panwar, an Indian woman who was believed to be 70 (her exact age was unknown) when she gave birth to boy-and-girl twins last summer. Never mind that she already had two grown daughters and five grandchildren. Her 77-year-old husband spent his life savings and sold his buffaloes to pay for in-vitro fertilization -- and donor eggs -- because they wanted a son.

A lot of people want a lot of things that they should learn to live without.

Dr. Laura had some good stuff to say about this subject in her blog.

It is better to do two things wrong, or one thing?  One thing, right?  Well the Left doesn’t think so.  You see, the Left thinks it is okay for a politician to have an extra-marital affair (one wrong) if the politician failed to publicly encourage morality (another wrong) before that affair.

For the Left, perceived hypocrisy is worse that marital infidelity.  So look for the Left, especially Democrats, to condemn Sanford not for the affair, but for being a Republican who somehow promoted in the past the idea that it is good to behave in a morally upstanding manner.

I do condemn sex with someone other than your spouse as morally wrong, so I don't excuse Sanford.  I also know that we do not know the inner working of his marriage.

The answer should be obvious, but on March 9, the Orange County Register printed a short letter from a Carey Strombotne that asked "If church and state are separate, why then do religious people have the right to weigh in on the issue of Proposition 8?"

Today, the paper printed several responses.

It is a perversion of the American system to suggest that citizens should not be able to vote according to their conscience.  If that includes notions that are also found in tradtional, organized religion, so be it.  Non-religious arguments have been made for the California Marriage Amendment and similar laws.  Non-religious arguments have been made supporting the state's interest in licensing marriage as something uniting the sexes.

Ralph Alder of Santa Ana wrote:

A license from the state to marry is not a basic human right but rather a license granted on behalf of the people, because the people have chosen to issue it, just as with a driver's license, a business license or any other license.

And, as I've written many times before, individuals have access to the licenses regardless of their sex or sexual orientation, so there is equal access, even if one does not want to exercise that access.

Tom Culp of Dana Point wrote:

Does he mean that we have no free speech if our views are informed by religious conviction? Should we recuse ourselves from voting on such matters? How will this work in practice? Will there be a "Council on Separation of Church and State" set up by the government to determine what is political speech and what is religious speech? Will they then penalize newspapers for running op/ed pieces and letters to the editor that have a religious perspective?

Will there be a screener at polling places to question people on how they arrived at the votes?

Good questions.  Read their letters in full and also check out the letters from Mario Manriquez, Jr. of Cost Mesa, Michael R. Sumners of Santa Ana, Tom Farmer of La Mirada, Casey J. Durham of Mission Viejo, Ken Ellis of Anaheim, and Gene H. Cox of Mission Viejo.

Note that the OCR allows you to register and comment on their articles and opinions pieces.

Of course, someone could always say that we ought not vote according to our religious beliefs or our morality.  But that "ought" implies it is immoral to vote that way - and such a statement commits suicide and should not be taken seriously, because it is a moral statement itself about how we should vote.

I vote according to what I think is right.  Don't you?  We may have a different basis for right or wrong.  But unless you are willing to debate me about which one of us has a better basis to work from, then your plea for me not to vote according to what I think is right while you are voting according to what you think is right is laughable.

Less than 24 hours ago, someone commented on an entry in the main blog here at Townhall.com, dismissing a mention of Dr. Laura Schlessinger with attack I have seen before:

Ask her about morality: she abandoned her own mother, leaving the old woman sick, poor, vulnerable and alone. She was murdered by thugs in her run-down apartment.

There are a few overused canned attacks on Dr. Laura, and this is one of them.  This person is attempting to dismiss a point of Dr. Laura's by attacking Dr. Laura instead of the point.

This dismissal might work if Dr. Laura was making a point about how to stay closely involved with a difficult mother as an adult, because taking the statement at face value as true, it indicated that Dr. Laura was not close to her mother.

Mostly though, it is a weak attack, often used by people who are irritated by Dr. Laura's priorities, which are NOT negated by the circumstances involving her mother.  Based on listening to Dr. Laura and reading what she has written, I gather her top priority is:

Raising the next generation to be as healthy (physically, morally, emotionally) as possible through personal responsibility.

That doesn’t sound so bad, does it?  What is controversial about that?  Well, it is the details that people object to – usually not because those details don't help create a healthy generation, but because they are inconvenient to the person objecting.  And that really gets their goat.

The details in Dr. Laura’s priority include:

• Not fornicating so as to avoid the risks of making babies out of wedlock, spreading STDs, and decreasing the chance of a happy, lasting marriage.
• Unmarried women giving children up for adoption instead of having them killed or raising them without a father.
• Not getting married until you are a ready to be a good spouse and have found a good spouse.
• Treating your spouse kindly (that includes wives treating their husbands well, too!)
• If unhappy with your spouse, who is also the mother or father of your children, maintaining an intact home that has a nurturing environment until the youngest child is 18 instead of divorcing and re-marrying and/or making more babies with someone else.
• If you are without a spouse of the opposite sex, not conceiving a child to be raised without a mother or a father.
• Older generations not cannibalizing younger generations - for example, a wife and mother should not donate a kidney to her elderly mother.
  
• Avoiding toxic people, even if you are related by blood.

You get the idea.

So why should we not listen to any of this because of how Dr. Laura's mother died?  How is what happened to her mother a moral failure on her part?  Adult relationships are voluntary, unless a crime is being committed.  It takes two to keep that relationship going.  These critics have no idea what went on between Dr. Laura and her mother.  It is entirely possible that her mother avoided her due to her (the mother's) own faults or errors.  That wouldn't be Dr. Laura’s failure.  If her mother was murdered, that would be the fault of the murderers.

I do have some minor areas where I quibble with Dr. Laura.  Overall, though, she is helping to make the world a better place.  She is usually spot-on.

So if you disagree with Dr. Laura, explain why - if you want to be taken seriously.  We already know she, like the rest of us, isn't perfect.  Citing what you think is a mistake in a personal life doesn’t negate the truth of what she advocates.

The panicking marriage neutering activists are running a "No on Prop 8" ad all over the radio.

-It says things like Prop 8 "has nothing to do with schools or kids", which is a misrepresentation, because taken in conjunction with other laws and court rulings, it will have an impact on schools and children.  Also, what they are trying to get everyone to forget is that marriage, from the interest of the state, is about children in the first place.

-It says that schools are "not required to teach marriage".  Do you mean to tell me that they want us to believe that schools will not discuss marriage with students?  Of course schools discuss marriage with students.  Ever hear of social studies?  Health?  Home Economics?  History?  Without Prop 8, the marriage neutering activists will make sure that public schools drill into children that there is "no difference" between bride-groom marriage and other arrangements.  They tend to do things to advance their agenda unless they are specifically barred from doing so (and often that doesn’t stop them) – they don’t wait for permission, let alone a "requirement".

 -It repeatedly says that Prop 8 would take away "fundamental rights" and also uses the phrase "basic constitutional rights".  As I’ve pointed out before, that is a lie.  True rights do not obligate others without their consent.  The people of California issue marriage licenses, the people of California specifically voted to maintain bride-groom marriage licensing.  The Constitution reserves power to the people.  Furthermore, any same-sex couple that has bothered to register as domestic partners has all of the legal attachments of marriage in California.

-"Our laws should treat everyone equally."  Our laws treated everyone equally before, they treat everyone equally now, and they will treat everyone equally if Prop 8 passes.  (Although I wonder where this "treat everyone equally" stuff was when the domestic partner law was passed, since it does not extend to both-sex couples unless one of the members is over a certain advanced age.)  This argument is a red herring.

-"Regardless of how you feel about marriage, it is wrong" to, essentially, have a say in how marriage is licensed by you (the state).  This is interesting.  They are trying to make a moral argument that is wrong to prevent same-sex couples from getting state-issued marriage licenses.  Aren’t these the same people that tell us that morality is personal and relative and we shouldn’t put it into public policy (as if it was possible to avoid making moral decisions when it comes to law)?  I say: regardless of how you feel about marriage, it is wrong to use the courts to unjustly trample on the rights of others.  Essentially, what they are saying here is that it may be okay for you to have beliefs about marriage, but it is immoral to vote your conscience.  Only their beliefs about marriage should matter when it comes to state marriage licensing.

I’m not sure the recent TV spot is any different.  If it is, I will analyze that, too.  Did they stop trying to pass off that husband and wife couple who have long been part of the homosexuality advocacy establishment as your average ordinary long-married parents?  Haven’t seen that ad in a while.

Here we go again with a focus on the flaws of men and how women are victims.  Mike S. Adams has a column that appeared today right here on Towhnall.com entitled “Real Men Don't Do Pornography”

I commented on the column, but I needed more room to elaborate here on my own blog.

Author’s Note: Having broken one or more of the following rules in no way excuses a man from following them in the future.

This is a good point.  Just because someone has screwed up in the past does not excuse them to keep screwing up.

A divorced friend of mine was complaining to me recently about the pool of women available to him here in the coastal Carolina region. His specific complaint was that too many (I think he said “all”) of the women were carrying too much baggage to have a successful relationship. I’m so tired of hearing “men” make this complaint that I’ve made it the subject of today’s column.

If your divorced friend has minor children, he shouldn’t be dating at all.  Even if he doesn’t have children, the fact that he is divorced makes him less desirable to many women who have a choice to date men who have never been married.  I can’t speak to coastal Carolina in particular, but generally, attractive single women go where the money is, and where they can show off the fact that they are attractive year-round – places like coastal California, Miami, and Dallas.  Finally, as far as baggage – yes, there are a lot of women out there who come with baggage, such as real or imagined trauma that has not been properly handled, an entitlement and emasculating mentality, too much extra weight, debts, and minor children.  But not all unmarried women have such baggage.

It is not entirely fair and accurate to say that most adult women are carrying a lot of “baggage” or have a lot of “issues.”

Sure it is.  At least when talking about unmarried adult women of dating age in the U.S.A.

It is much more accurate to say that most adult women are profoundly wounded and scarred by the things that “men” have done to them when they were not really acting like men.

I see.  Women are never responsible for putting themselves in bad situations, are they?  They aren’t responsible for picking or continuing to see bad males.  They aren’t responsible for running up debts, for getting knocked up with someone they shouldn’t, for becoming obese, for bonding with and wasting time on cads, or for selling their bodies.

Real Men Do Not Go To Topless Bars.

As with most of these, I have to ask… were King David and King Solomon real men or not?  No, their sins should not be minimized or ignored.  But are we prepared to say they were not real men because of those sins?

Now, I’ve never been to such a place or been entertained by an “exotic dancer”, but how does a topless bar “wound and scar” a woman at a man’s direction?  Yes, I believe that working in such a place is demeaning, but I know at least one veteran of such employment personally who disagrees.  Regardless, those women have chosen to work there.  They are no more victimized than the men who are paying to see something they can easily see – and touch – for free.

Real Men Do Not View Pornography.

I suppose it really depends on what you mean by that word - and no, I'm not pulling a Bill Clinton.  Since I am convinced that sex is for marriage and that a man who actively lusts after someone who isn’t his wife is sinning, then most of this would be wrong.  But it isn’t if it is made by a married couple strictly for their own enjoyment.

I asked whether he would ever want his daughter to star in a porn flick. He said “never.” When I reminded him that the porn star has parents, too, he vowed to reconsider his continued viewing of internet pornography.

I don’t find this argument so strong.  There are many things I hope my daughter doesn’t do, but it doesn’t make those things wrong per se.  Some people don’t want their children being professional janitors, for example, but janitorial work is perfectly honest, legitimate, and necessary.  I don’t want to see my daughter using the toilet or showering, but that doesn’t mean she shouldn’t.

Something that “men” who view pornography do not realize is that it trains the mind to be sexually stimulated by seeing images of many different people nude and engaged in certain acts.

This is not well-worded.  The fact is, males have always been stimulated by such things.  That is why porn was created.  The market was already there.  Now, if you had used the words “sexually stimulated only by seeing…”, you would have a more compelling warning.

Eventually, the viewer becomes unable to be stimulated by just one person.

This probably happens to some who view porn.  I haven’t read any academic papers on the matter, so I can’t say with any conviction.  But how many man are unable to be stimulated by just one person because that one person is emasculating, disrespectful, hostile, unenthusiastic and unwilling to accommodate his needs, and lets herself fall apart?

Thus, a “man” who views pornography is much more likely to hurt his wife by engaging in adultery.

I would agree that a male who views pornography (most males have at some point in their lives) is more likely to engage in adultery than one who never has.  But it is also more likely that the one who never has a low libido, and thus is less likely to commit adultery – or make love to his wife very often for that matter - if he bothered to get married.

Real Men Do Not Have Sex With Women They Do Not Intend To Marry.

As one comment points out, this should be “Real Men Do Not Have Sex With a Woman to Whom They Are Not Married” unless Adams really thinks fornication is okay as long as there is an intent to marry.  But you know what?  Guys sure are finding a lot of willing gals.

Men have it within their power to stop contaminating the future-wife pool. A little self-control can do a lot to strengthen a dying institution.

I agree.  But anyone – man or woman – who has saved sex for marriage likewise has every right to insist that the person they marry has done likewise.  Women who sleep around with cads and then intend to marry a “nice guy” after they are bored with sex are playing both sides of the fence in the same way as a man who has slept around but wants to marry a virgin.  Marriage-minded men should not expect sex on a date, and women should not expect a man they don’t even know to pay for their dinner: women should be willing to pay for their share of dating costs unless they are busy with family or domestic obligations that prevent them from earning an income.

Real Men Do Not Engage In Post-Marital Sex. Saying “I used to be married” is a pretty lame excuse for engaging in post-marital sex.

I agree, but what I think most men who do this are communicating is that they tried marriage and didn’t enjoy it.  Since women are freely offering unmarried sex to them, they’ll take it.  Especially if they are unchurched or are in churches that have abdicated their moral authority.

And, if you have children, especially girls, there’s a really good reason to avoid it.

It’s a bad idea to risk creating half-siblings.

Put simply, if you have young girls and you start having sex after marriage your girls will find out about it from your ex-wife.

The ex-wife should shut up and remember she once agreed to marry that guy.  The guy could probably say plenty of things that she does wrong, too, but parents should not badmouth each other.

Real Men Never Relinquish the Role of Spiritual Head of the Household.

Ah, now that’s a key, isn’t it?  Women who say they want “real men” often work against this.

In a future installment, I will deal with the issue of “real women.” That installment will talk about the things women are doing to hurt other women.

Interesting.  Nothing about what women do to “wound and scar” men?  Nothing about how women are more likely to file for divorce?  Or paternity fraud perpetrated by women?  False rape accusations?  False domestic violence charges?  Or child support fraud perpetrated by women and aided by the government?  Or women who refuse their husbands?  Or spend their marriages into debt?  Nothing about women who live off of alimony for the rest of their lives even though they did everything they could to discourage a man from doing what he needed to do to advance in his career?  Nothing about romance novels, soaps, and other media that create unrealistic expectations in women about romance and riches, and how men are objectified as sperm donors and wallets?  Nothing about women who will date men with no intention of ever marrying him (if he’s a “real man”) or fornicating with him (if he’s one of those other men) simply because she likes the free meals and attention?  Or about how women get men fired for “sexual harassment” even though the men did exactly the same things as a more attractive coworker who was not fired?

Like I said, I believe sex is for marriage and the most of other moral underpinnings of Adam’s arguments.  However, I do not believe we should “overpromise” on marriage or male-female relations in general.  Purity, saving sex for marriage, and fidelity are all great things, but they do not guarantee a happy marriage, uncomplicated marital lovemaking,or good parenting - or good relations between the sexes.  Indeed, it could be quite the opposite if one partner is able to abide by these in part because of a low libido, rather than a strong devotion to godliness.

Related: Women Have Created the Child-Man

Christians in this country have had things relatively easy compared to most of the world through most of history.  We haven’t had to meet in secret under threat of death, we haven’t had to take up arms to defend ourselves from invading armies or hordes of Muslims, barbarians, pagans, or atheists.  We haven’t had politico-sectarian strife as in the British Isles.  Since the time of Christ’s earthly ministry, Christians have had to face the wrath of Jewish establishment authorities, oppressive pagan governments, violent pagan hordes, Islamic armies and terrorists, and atheist iron-fisted governments.  While we are right to stick up for our representation in our national, state, and municipal heritages, and our right to self-government under this Constitution, we hardly have faced the oppression that so many of our brothers and sisters have faced.  In turn, we did not force everyone in the nation to adopt Christianity, and in general, while some identifying themselves as Christians have been clumsy or annoying in the behavior, people have generally enjoyed broad freedom.

That’s because this has been, in a sense, a Christian nation.

Okay, whenever someone claims that we are or were a “Christian nation”, someone else is likely to declare that most of our founding fathers were Deists and not Christians.  Those who want us to shut up will often cite “low” church membership rolls in comparison to total population in the early days of our nation.  But in those days, being a “member” of a church typically meant that one not only attended that church regularly, but had undergone baptism and/or confirmation into that church, regularly tithed to that church, and practiced, as far as anyone knew, the morals and doctrines of that church – violation of which would mean not being a “member” until repentance and restoration  Rolls were also likely to only include the head of the household.  The pews certainly contained many more souls, and the influence of the church extended strongly beyond its walls.  The naysayers will cite some actual or perceived historical injustices or evils as evidence that we’ve never been a Christian nation.  These people can’t tell us why those things are wrong, only that they believe or feel them to be wrong, or at least contradictory to Biblical teaching…which they don’t believe anyway.

By referring to the U.S.A. as a “Christian nation”, I don’t mean that there were never injustices or evils or mistakes in our history – just like when I call myself a Christian, I don’t mean I’ve never done (and never do) unchristian things.  Certainly slavery as practiced in America was unchristian, as were actions by anyone who denied the humanity and human rights of Africans and African-Americans.

By “Christian nation”, I mean that we are a nation of individuals who have traditionally identified ourselves as Christians or affiliated with a Christian church; a nation where Christian churches are the most prominent religious institutions dotting the landscape; where you can glance at our founding documents, the writings and speeches of the founders, legislation, court decisions, proclamations, public art, marketing, and other media through most of our history and find citations from, references to, and allusions to God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ; where churches and preachers have held significant influence in public opinion; where most people publicly used and accepted basic tenets of the Bible or lessons from Biblical texts; where the Bible was used in public instruction; were the prominent academic institutions, hospitals, and charities where expressly implementing a Christian mission; where in the halls of government or academia, or in the workplace, a person could loudly and unapologetically lead a group prayer, or appeal to Christ; where the religious aspect of holidays and cerebrations were not downplayed; where crèches were common on city land around Christmas; where mottos, seals, and artwork on public buildings openly paid homage to the Christian foundations of that institution or the local or state or federal government.

The major movements and changes were accomplished with sturdy appeals to the Bible – the exploration and colonization of the land, the American Revolution, the Emancipation, the fight against Nazi Germany and its conspirators, standing our ground through the Cold War, the fight for civil rights.  Even those who currently fight to neuter marriage licensing often misappropriate “judge not” and “love your neighbor” from the Bible.

But even as most people in the country still identify themselves as Christian (or cite Jesus or the Bible as some authority), we are becoming a post-Christian nation through the tyranny of the minority and the apathy and cowardice of those who are supposed to be salt and light.

We allowed a clause in the Constitution that was meant to prevent the adoption of one denomination as the national religion to be used to slowly but surely remove our heritage and our free exercise of our religion from the public square, to divorce our governing from natural law. Perhaps out of complacency and in a botched attempt to be welcoming to the immigrant, to be fair and tolerant and “nonjudgmental” to the atheists and hedonists as well as anyone who believed differently, we allowed the aggressive secularization of our society the degradation of our culture, and the enshrinement of license as a “right”.  Maybe we went along with it because of our own materialism.  In the process, we have trampled on our basic rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and to do with our property and our labor what we will, as long as it wasn’t destructive.

We thought the family and church and its charities too constricting, personal responsibility and self-reliance too scary, raising our own children too burdensome, and now we are settling into the clutches of the nanny state, which gains more power the less moral and responsible its citizens, the less those citizens believe their rights and obligations - and those of everyone else - flow from God.

So out goes the Bible, the cross, prayer, and the Ten Commandments.  Out goes discernment, sound reasoning, shame, and humility.  Out go the moral constraints on sexual behavior.  Out goes the expectation of marriage as a lifetime commitment uniting a man and a woman to care for each other and their children ahead of their own wants.  Out goes valuing human life, in comes using human beings for our own convenience and and dispensing of other human beings when they are inconvenient.

In our churches, we’ve allowed another Jesus and another gospel.  We reward people like Oprah as they recast Jesus and his teachings in a philosophical mold that is based on Eastern religious concepts antithetical to the Bible.  Their “Christianity” demands nothing of them.  It does not ask that they change their behavior.  Yes, most Americans say they believe in God or a unifying spirit, but many don’t believe that such a being has authority over their lives, or at least they don’t act like it.  After all, if we’re confronted with our sins, we cover ourselves with moral relativism, twisting Scripture (“judge not!”), and appealing to evolution as an explanation.  We want God there at the wedding, at the hospital bed, and the funeral - but not in the wallet, or the marriage, or the bedroom.

So get ready for post-Christian America, where rights are granted – and can be abridged – by the government which is not "of, by,  and for the people" but rather an elite class, and we “can’t” govern by Christian principles.  Heck, Christians are being told they shouldn’t even vote by their personal convictions.

We can see how far we’ve come. Years ago, for example, our current President was ridiculed for citing Jesus Christ as his favorite philosopher.  Yet Thomas Jefferson, whose “wall of separation” phrase in a letter has been misused by such people, compiled and presented a codification of Jesus’ moral teachings.

Right now, they’ve got enough people believing that tolerance means we can’t do anything with which they are uncomfortable.  But we are already seeing that where they gain power, they won’t even practice the true meaning of tolerance.  Those who live by their Christian principles will not only be marginalized, they will be kicked out of the classroom, fired from the job, and successfully prosecuted and sued in the courtroom.  I wonder if we’ll get to the point where killing a Christian will be okay, as long as you can cite that they expressed “hate speech fightin’ words” by affirming Christian morals, making someone else feel “threatened”.

Are you ready for post-Christian America?

Related post: Are You Really a Christian?

...but we need to deal with reality.

We don’t live in a libertarian country.  Any move towards a libertarian policy needs to be weighed against what will remain "non-libertarian", at least until it gets addressed, too.

For example, I think people should be free to offer their services on a daily basis unencumbered, and anyone who wants to hire them should be able to do so, unencumbered.  And it really doesn’t matter to me at all if that person who is being hired is here legally or not.  But I also think that 1) there should be a lot less public property – places where day laborers tend to congregate; 2) there should be stronger private property laws, so that if someone wants to host day laborers, they can (AND they can set the conditions, such as “no littering”), and if others want them off of their property, they can remove them; 3) government should not regulate the workplace (aside from actual crimes like fraud), nor collect payroll taxes; 4) there shouldn’t be tax-funded public assistance programs and thus no illegal aliens getting my tax money; 5) there should be separation of state and school, so that I can choose whether or not to pay for the education of the children of illegal aliens; 6) the federal government should control of the national borders so that terrorists, criminals, and their tools don’t make it here.

Under those conditions, the complaints that many people have about day laborers would be addressed.

Libertarians often argue that even illegal aliens greatly contribute to our society, because of their inexpensive labor.  I heard this once from a libertarian guest on KFI’s John & Ken Show.  The hosts couldn’t believe it; they kept describing how illegal aliens were ruining neighborhoods, schools, and other things.  The hosts and the guest were kind of talking past each other.  Although I understood what was going on, the conversation never got to the point where the guest explained that in “his” world, the negatives of illegal aliens would be largely eliminated – in his world, the schools and roads and such are private property and not funded by taxes or controlled by government bureaucrats, and illegal aliens don’t get public assistance.  That’s something the hosts didn’t seem to catch, and something the guest never explicitly explained.

In a libertarian world, there are no tax-funded schools, so it doesn’t matter how many illegal aliens are in our schools.  In a libertarian world, infrastructure is paid for by users, not by taxpayers.  In a libertarian world, there are no social welfare programs paid for by taxes.

Take another example - “drugs”.  I would find legalizing them more tolerable if I have the right to freely fire (or not hire in the first place) someone who does them, and to protect myself and my property from someone who is high, and if I had other libertarian freedoms, such as not paying for the health care of druggies.

Legalizing prostitution is more tolerable if I can own the sidewalk in front of my business and bar streetwalkers from standing there.

Get the picture?

A commenter on column by John Stossel, reacting to a Christian commenter's appeal to the redeeming abilities and influence of Jesus Christ, mockingly derided the Christian tendency to cite Jesus Christ as the answer to everything.

Well, actually, He is.

Now, people like this commenter dismiss Christianity (and, presumably, other recognized world religions that involve supernaturalism, God, or future state of rewards/judgments) as outdated superstition.

But if you look carefully and with an open mind, it is quite possible that you will come to the same conclusion as many other highly educated, logical, reasonable, intelligent people – that Jesus Christ is the answer.

We can debate political science all day long.  We can discuss the relationship of the individual to society.  We can debate what to do about the ills, injustices, absurdities, and contradictions of our laws and culture until we’ve worn our fingers down to stumps.

The truth is, whether you want to believe it or not, that the Bible accurately describes the human condition.  We are created in the image of God, but we are fallen with a sin nature.  There is an objective right and wrong that emanates from the nature of God, and we often do wrong because our will is not morally neutral.   All human death and suffering are the result of someone’s sin, quite often (but not certainly not always) the sin of the person suffering.

Human beings are broken.  As a result, our world is broken.  We have committed moral crimes against God, and are suffering as a result.

So what the answer to this problem?  Just about every religion out there says there are certain things you have to do in order to get right with God, or the universe, or whatever.  But the Bible teaches that we can’t ever make it right by our own actions.  Instead, it teaches, Jesus Christ has done it by living the perfect life in our place, dying to pay the debt of our sins, and extending His covering to all who ask.

Okay, so our sins are forgiven, but we still live in this broken world, and we’re still capable of sinning.  Well, guess what?  Jesus also provided us an example of how to live, offers to help us, and has left us some simple rules for living that help us avoid problems.

For example, life is so much simpler and less troublesome when we live by the Biblical principle that sex is for marriage.  Fornication, adultery, etc. bring dysfunction, heartache, jealousy, disease, births to broken homes, and other ills.  Yes, they've been going on since the dawn of humanity, but that doesn't mean they are right.

So, excuse us Christians if we cite what Jesus has done for us by taking away our sin, giving us reassurance and strength, and morals to live by.  We’re very thankful for what He’s done, and frankly, there are no lasting, effective answers to the serious problems of our world without Jesus.  All we can do amounts to temporary band-aids and stop-gaps until He comes to clean house.

Are you really so sure that there is no God who could have ever communicated with human beings?  That sounds like an awfully sweeping negative that would be highly difficult to prove.  If there is a God who has communicated with human beings, wouldn’t the same God have the power to keep His message alive?  Could it possibly be that such a message can be found in the Bible?   Yes, there are educated and intelligent people who dismiss Christianity or any theism and the Bible - but the real question is why do they?  Is it based on sound reasoning, or other things?

Not all Christians are the superstitious bumpkins you dismiss us as.  Oh sure, there are plenty of silly and obnoxious people out there – some on television – who claim to be Christians, and some of them may very well be.  But there are also many Christians out there who have been motivated and empowered by our Lord to do some great things for the world, things you benefit from and enjoy.  Countless people have had their hearts changed by Him, so that they turn from their sins and stop being so destructive to society and themselves.

He’s changed my heart.  I know that is no proof to you – you don’t even know me so you can even tell if I have changed over the years.  But if you care to take an honest look at the apologetics, there is good reason to believe that He can change your heart, too, and that the Bible has some good life lessons relevant to us today.

Yes, Jesus Christ is the ultimate answer.  At least, that is the best conclusion to which reason leads me.

Have you noticed that, when someone cites the Bible as an authority or as a source of their moral grounding, you can often count on a “response” in which someone else will simply quote various Bible passages - out of context – that they find to be strange or contrary to their liking?  The person doing this probably thinks they have discredited the Bible, but they usually have just exposed their own ignorance of the Bible.  The tactic is along the lines of discussion-killers such as “Sez you!” or “Shut up!” or sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting repetitive nonsense so that you don’t hear what the other person is saying.  It isn't meant to contribute to the discussion - just to stop it.

It does not necessarily follow that just because this person doesn’t like or understand something in the Bible, that the Bible carries no authority or is untrue.  It definitely doesn’t mean that the original person shouldn’t cite or derive principles from the Bible.

In most cases, the person tossing out these (what they’d call) disagreeable or absurd verses doesn't really want to engage in a serious discussion about the Bible, so discussing the verses they have cited is an exercise in futility.  Even if you showed them that the verses, in context and in their literary form, are not in error or absurd, they’re still not going to accept the Bible as something with authority.  Usually, this is because they know the Bible makes demands of human behavior, and they don’t want to be subjected to these constraints.  In other words, it is not what is hard to understand in the Bible that these people are really concerned with – it’s what is clear and understandable.

We are talking a about a collection of writings that were written in times long since past, by a variety of authors with various backgrounds, writing in ancient languages.  I find some stuff written a mere 200 years ago in English to be strange or hard to understand at first.  (Fortunately, the main things the Bible teaches are also the plain things.)

But then you read things in their context and do a little research into history, culture, linguistics, etc., and things make a whole lot more sense.  Who is writing?  Who is being addressed?  What are the conditions?  What was customary during those times?  Are there other passages that shed light on this one?  Have things since been changed or superseded?

Sometimes someone cites an event in the Bible that they disbelieve simply because it would apparently require the supernatural to be true.  All this proves is that the critic doesn’t believe the supernatural is possible.  They don’t believe there could be a God who can intervene in the universe.

Another common thing for these “hit and run” critics to do is to cite something that happens in the Bible that most people today in our culture would consider to be immoral.  But assuming the thing cited is truly immoral, that does not mean that the Bible approves of the immoral action.  Usually, the Bible also records the negative consequences of immorality.  As stated by many before, the Bible does not approve of all it records.

If they cite actions or commands the Bible credits to God as something they disagree with, they are not proving the Bible wrong or God wrong.  They are proving that they disagree with the God of the Bible.

These types of mockers usually give no reason why we should take them to be an authority as opposed to the Bible (or the God of the Bible), even though that is what they are implicitly asking us to do when they list verses they don’t like or understand.

One of the most recycled and beaten-to-death examples of this type of mocking is the “Letter to Dr. Laura” that these people keep reposting in their blogs and on their websites, usually because they are upset that Dr. Laura believes that sex is for marriage.

A good response to that overused piece of ignorant sarcasm is found here.

Many intelligent, educated, reasonable people have presented good reasons as to why they cite the Bible as an authority, or even believe it is the Word of God, and - shock of all shocks - they've read and even studied all of those passages the mockers think they are so clever in bringing up.  I'm well aware that there are also plenty of intelligent, educated, reasonable people who reject the Bible as an authority, let alone the Word of God, so don't even bother giving me their names.  It doesn't matter what intelligent believe, pro or anti-Bible.  It matters why they believe what they believe.  If they believe something just because they get a warm fuzzy feeling doing so, that doesn't prove their belief to be true.

In all fairness, we no longer live in a society that is Biblically literate and that respects the Bible, and when someone quotes the Bible to make their point, perhaps a better thing to do, instead of simply posting a bunch of verses one finds strange or absurd, would be to ask “Why should we listen to the Bible in the first place?”  But again, that assumes that the mocker really cares and would be willing to read through and sincerely consider an answer.

It is interesting that the Leftists are calling global warming the big moral issue of our time.

What have we learned from Leftists about moral issues?  Let’s apply their reasoning on moral issues to global warming:

1. Whose morality?  What’s true and right for you may not be for me!  Don’t force your morality on me.  Stay out of my garage.  Stay out of my electrical system.  I like global warming, and you have no right to tell me to stop!

2. People are going to “do it” anyway.  We might as well educate them about how to safely drive gas-guzzlers.  We’ll give them vaccinations, abortions, clean needles, and put condoms on the tailpipes.  That will prevent anything bad from happening and solve the problems.  After all, they prevent anything bad from happening to teenagers, right?  Or maybe we can change the oil for them, give them new brakes and shocks, correct the alignment, and wash the cars.  We want people to be able to drive gas-guzzlers safely.  Get with the twenty-first century.  Kids are going to drive gas-guzzlers anyway – you can’t stop them.

3. Why do you hate my alternative lifestyle?  You claim to have research that says it is harmful, but I can find research that says it isn’t.  I have a right to drive a gas-guzzler.

4. There should be tax funding to make sure poor people can get gas-guzzlers.

5. Don’t like gas-guzzlers?  Don’t drive one!  My vehicle, my choice!

6. You are being bigoted when you mark parking spaces as being for “compact” vehicles, or when you won’t let me drive my gas-guzzler in the HOV lane just because I have a “drive-alone” orientation and do not drive a hybrid.  You are saying my love for gas-guzzlers is inferior.  How dare you judge me and discriminate against me.  I should be able to park in those spaces and drive in those lanes – after all, aren’t I guaranteed equal protection and access?

7. We’re here, we’re BBQing, get used to it!

8. Not only do I have a right to BBQ and drive a gas-guzzler, but if I get cancer as a result, then you should pay for my medical treatments, or you are a bigot.

9. I'm going to organize a parade of mobile BBQs and idling gas-guzzlers and get really, really in your face.

10.  I need a gas-guzzler and to BBQ my food for medical reasons.

All kidding aside, one act of fornication can result in death.  People are dying all over the world due to their fornication. Also, abortion kills at least one human being each time, and can kill the mother as well.  One drug  overdose can result in death.  Growing up in a broken home makes someone more likely to engage in violent criminal activity or get trapped in deadly gang life.  How many people are dying from global warming today?

As for "evangelical" leaders signing on to global warming alarmism - Leftists should not see that as a good sign.  Such people very often "buy high and sell low."  I would take it as a sign that the alarmism has peaked and is on the decline.

(Edited to clean up mistakes.)

Much has been made in the last couple of days about a statistic that says households headed by married couples are now in the minority.  This no doubt garnered a lot of press due to a Leftist desire to promote the state over the family, and the Left figures that if married couples no longer form the majority of households, politicians and businesses can stop focusing on what married couples want.  They can now cater to people who want the state to be big brother or big sister.

Never mind the fact that by the same statistics, married couples still make up the largest percentage of households by far, because the rest of the pie is made up of a combination of:
1. Couples shacking up
2. Widowed people
3. Platonic roommates (divorced or never having been married)
4. Single parents living without a honey
5. Same-sex couples.

Also, how many people in the "unmarried" households either were married and would still be if they could control the matter, or are planning (or at least hoping) to get married?  Those are also people likely to support marriage-friendly policies.  Plus, a married couple represents two potential votes and more spending power in general than a single person.

Still, the statistics do show that households headed by married couples no longer outnumber all of those outer arrangements combined.

And is that any surprise?

For one thing, people are living longer in general, and that may mean widowed spouses are living longer as widows or widowers.  At the other end, people are waiting longer to get married.  Have you seen the percentages on college enrollment?  Lots of women, and many of them are staying single until after finishing school and some are waiting even longer until they've worked for a while in a career.  One of the positive effects of genuine feminism is that the days of women having to rely on their fathers, brothers, and then husbands for financial survival are long gone, so they have one less factor creating a need to get married young.

But yes, there are the other cultural reasons, too.  Divorce is more accepted.  We have separated marriage from commitment.

We have also...
Separated sex from childbearing.
Separated sex from marriage.
Separated living together from marriage.
Separated childrearing from marriage.

And now, many are actively trying to separate marriage from society (while still demanding societal sanction), making it strictly a personal matter between any two people based on criteria that can't be verified.  This counterfeiting of marriage devalues marriage while removing one of the core defining features - uniting both sexes.

And since we long ago separated sex from marriage, people can have sex without being married and without social disapproval.  They can live together...even raise kids together.  They can do all of this without being looked down upon, without even being admonished by their supposedly Christian church.  They can appear to "have it all" without having to go through a ridiculously expensive and stressful ceremony, which can also foment strife considering the ceremony is likely to draw some people who have divorced each other, there to sit near their sworn enemy as someone else they are related to promises lifelong commitment... just like they did at one time.

Of course, most women want to have that ceremony and the vast majority of women "marry up" financially and thus have a measurable incentive to get married.  Most people can understand it to be true when pro-family groups point out that women and children are better off in married households.

However, a growing number of men (and women with sons or brothers) doubt it when the pro-family groups say that men are also better off getting married.  They doubt it because most women DO marry up, and the laws of most states make that a losing partnership for the man if there is a divorce... and there is a very high chance for divorce. The divorce and child support laws in most states are such that a wife can sit at home, cheat on the man under his nose, spend up the credit cards, and give birth to his best friend's child, then divorce the man, take half of everything, even live off of his alimony payments for the rest of her life, AND get child support from him to pay for a child that isn't biologically his.  Here in California, a woman who was married to a man for ten years can live off his alimony for the rest of her life... as long as she doesn't remarry.  That is surely another factor is lowering the percentage of married households.

The fringe feminists once proclaimed that marriage is slavery (though now the lesbian ones are clamoring to make sure they can be in "slavery" to other women), and that all sex (male/female, of course) is rape.  Well, many american women bought into the first part, and even if they get married, they keep it from being "slavery" by telling their husbands "You have two hands, you cook it (or clean it, or fold it, or whatever) yourself!"  Men see their kids being raised in daycare instead of by their wives so that she can be a "liberated" woman.  (I know... some men pressure their wives to work... not talking about them here.)

And since women bought into the mantra that traditional marriage is slavery, but not that all sex is rape, they have "liberated" themselves by sleeping around.  More and more men notice this and say, "Good!  I don't want to get married either!"  As long as they have easy access to casual sex, these men do not see the benefits of getting married to women who do not cook, do not clean, will not raise their kids, become uninterested in sex with them, and will wipe them out financially if they opt to leave.

I'm sure there are also women who refrain from marrying for fear of going through a divorce.

And we wonder why the percentages have changed?

(By the way... I'm happily married... to a woman who cooks, cleans, and so very much wants to raise our kids once we have them.)