Author: jbwatson

Jason B. Watson is a follower of Christ who enjoys "thinking out loud" when he has time to do so.

The Safest Poison?

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

I have mentioned here before that I am part of an online community of Christian educators and in the forums provided through that community there are many discussions on a wide range of topics of interest and concern to Christian educators. Not too long ago there was a discussion about science textbooks for high school science classes–how to select the best books, thoughts on the offerings of specific publishers, etc.

One of the comments was made by a school administrator who quoted his school’s biology teacher. Part of his comment was this statement: “What I found was that the [publisher’s name] was a good curriculum; however, my concern was with the student text generating student interest. There seemed to be a lot of text compared to pictures, models, graphics, and diagrams.” I found this statement troubling for a couple of reasons. First, we are talking about textbooks for a high school science class, not an elementary school class. By the time they reach high school students need to have learned how to learn, and they need to be beyond the stage when their interest in and attentiveness to a text is driven primarily by the colorful pictures and graphics a book may contain. There is a place for graphics, illustrations, models, etc., I do not dispute that, but selecting a textbook because it has the best graphics–or, on the contrary, excluding a textbook because it does not have great graphics–is a dangerous basis on which to make a decision, not to mention silly one. One of the best series of history books I have ever seen is the four-volume The Story of the World series by Susan Wise Bauer, and those books contain no photos. Whatever maps or illustrations are included are in black and white, yet students enjoy the books because they are well-written and tell the narrative story of history.

The second comment made by the quoted biology teacher was, unfortunately, exponentially more troubling than the first. He explained that their school eventually chose a textbook from a secular publisher, and hailed the wonderful extras that came with the adoption of that book, including access to online resources. Then he made this statement: “Choosing this secular curriculum has been a blessing because my class is very captivated and ‘in love’ with biology. It was the least infiltrated with evolution compared to other secular publishers.”

Now I need to state here and now that I am not one who holds rigidly to the position that Christian schools should only utilize textbooks and resources from Christian publishers. My philosophy has always been that the textbook that will best meet the needs of the students is the one that should be used, and that it is the responsibility of the teacher, regardless of the textbook used, to ensure that courses incorporate a biblical worldview. And I have not seen the specific textbook in question, so I cannot definitively state that it is a “bad” book or that it should not have been selected.

What I can say with confidence, though, is that the very suggestion that a book is “okay” because it is “the least infiltrated” with evolution or any other theory or position that is counter to Scripture is highly troubling. Does the individual in question think that his assertion is even possible? A textbook is either infiltrated with evolution or it is not. A person either has a biblical worldview or they do not. A person is either for the Lord or he is not. There is no middle ground. And infiltrated, by the way, does not mean that the book contains the theory of evolution. Every good biology textbook should include the theory of evolution, since part of effectively teaching students is exposing them to the various theories that exist and equipping them to counter those that are in opposition to Scripture. No, infiltrated means that the textbook’s author’s wrote the book with an evolutionary worldview. It means that they believe that human beings evolved from apes, and apes evolved from something else, and on down the line to the primordial ooze or whatever building blocks man supposedly evolved eventually from. It means that the book’s author’s deny that God spoke the world into existence.

That has implications that are vast, and will touch every page of that textbook, despite the biology teacher’s assertion that “Evolution references were primarily localized in the evolution unit.” Baloney. The evolution references may be localized, but the idea of evolution, the belief in evolution, and the implications of evolution are not localized; they cannot be localized. I would certainly hope that a biology teacher at a Christian school would not say that the creationist viewpoint is localized to the chapter on origins in Christian textbooks, or that his own creationist viewpoint is localized to his teaching about origins. I would hope that his viewpoint infiltrates (to use his word) every lesson he teaches.

With that in mind, the suggestion that the book “least infiltrated with evolution” is a good and safe choice is really not much different than saying that the student’s can drink the beer with the lowest alcohol content, smoke the cigarettes with the lowest nicotine content, watch the movies with the lowest number of obscenities or least amount of nudity, use the drugs with the lowest likelihood of addiction, and play Russian roulette with the gun with the fewest number of bullets. Those suggestions are absurd, I know. But the textbook least infiltrated by evolution is not really any different…because there is no amount of poison that is safe.

The Day Between

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Yesterday was Good Friday; tomorrow is Easter. Yesterday we remembered the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; tomorrow we remember his resurrection, the fact that He is no longer dead, and the tomb is empty. But how often do we think about today, the day between? Today it probably has little if any major significance, but imagine what the day between must have been like for the followers of on that very first “day between.” The Gospel accounts tell us nothing of what happened that day other than that His followers “rested according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56), since Saturday was he Sabbath. Interestingly, Matthew records that the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate that day to request a guard for the tomb of Jesus “lest His disciples go and steal Him away and tell the people, ‘He has risen from the dead…'” (Matthew 27:64).

Imagine, though, what that Sabbath day was like. There was nothing the followers of Jesus could do to keep themselves busy and try to keep their minds off of the fact that Jesus was dead, because it was the Sabbath, and activity was strictly regulated, most of it forbidden. It was the day to worship God, and it must surely have been difficult to worship God the day after the One Who had proclaimed Himself to be the Son of God had been crucified on a Roman cross. Today, we can celebrate (solemnly) Good Friday because we know about Easter. The death of Jesus Christ is gruesome and horrific but also fantastic, because we know that through His death He paid the penalty for the sins of all who will ask for forgiveness and accept His free gift of salvation. It is also fantastic because Jesus died in order to conquer sin, hell and death, and we know He was not dead for long. But His followers who were sitting around on that very first “day between” had not understood that He was going to rise again, so there was no excited anticipation for Sunday morning. Instead there must have been dread, incredible sorrow, almost a loss of the will to go on living.

We know this because the Gospels record the fact that Mary and Martha prepared spices and returned to the tomb on Sunday morning, something there would have been no point doing if they knew Jesus would not be in the tomb. Luke tells us that they were “perplexed” when they found the tomb empty (24:4). The angel who appeared to them at the tomb asked them why they were seeking the living among the dead. “Remember how He told you…?” the angel asks in Luke 24:6. Verse 8 says they then did remember, but when they went and told the apostles–the very men who had spent three years living with, ministering with and learning from Jesus–the news of Jesus’ resurrection seemed to those eleven men “an idle tale, and they did not believe them” (24:11).

The hopelessness that must have gripped the followers of Christ on that first day between still grips many people today, and understandably so. After all, if there is no God, there is nothing beyond the here and now, so what difference does it all make? If Jesus was just a good moral teacher, but He died and stayed dead, there is really no difference between Jesus and many other great teachers who have lived throughout the centuries. Paul writes in I Corinthians 15:54 that if Jesus has not been raised from the dead then our faith is in vain. It is useless, worthless and pitiful.

Thank God that the day between was just that, only a day between two incredible and essential events that changed the world and made possible the forgiveness of sins and the gift of eternal life.

A “particular social group”

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

This story has received a fair amount of attention in select news outlets in recent weeks, so you may have heard about it already: Uwe and Hannelore Romeike have six children, five of them school age, and the came to the United States from Germany in 2008. Why? Because homeschooling is illegal in Germany, and the German authorities had threatened to take the Romeike’s children away from them because they were homeschooling. In 2010 a U.S. immigration judge granted the Romeikes political asylum because, in the opinion of the judge, the family had a legitimate fear of persecution in Germany due to homeschooling. There are documented cases of other Christian families in Germany that have been fined, imprisoned and even stripped of custody of their children for homeschooling. Why? Because, according to the Germany authorities, homeschooling families are creating “parallel societies.”

The laws in Germany are more than 80 years old. In fact, according to Aaron T. Martin’s article entitled “Homeschooling in Germany and the United States, published in the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law in 2010, “the draconian policies that are on the books in Germany today were originally implemented by Hitler in 1938.” Why did the Nazi government abolish homeschooling? Because “Nazi leaders proceeded systematically to attack books,
music, films, and radio programs that forwarded any view of the world
inconsistent with the Third Reich’s agenda.” It was this climate in Germany that drove many of the nation’s leading intellectuals out of the country–including Albert Einstein to the United States.

One could question why Germany still has such laws on its books, and I do. In fact, interestingly enough, so do the state legislatures of Georgia and Tennessee, which both took the unusual approach in 2009 of passing resolutions calling on the German government to legalize homeschooling. Among the reasons stated in the Georgian resolution is the statement that “parents hold the fundamental responsibility and right to ensure the best quality education for their children, and parental choice and involvement are crucial to
excellence in education” and “the importance of religious liberties and the right of parents to determine their child’s upbringing and the method in which their education should be provided.” Apparently the Bundestag is unimpressed by the opinions of two states from the American south, as no action to change the law has been taken, to my knowledge. And while I agree that Germany should change their laws in this regard, I am more concerned with what the U.S. government is doing at the moment.

After the immigration judge granted asylum to the Romeikes in 2010 the government immediately began backtracking, concerned that the European Union would be offended and that key European allies would consider the decision an affront to their national sovereignty. The Department of Homeland Security disputed the decision, and last May the Board of Immigration Appeals sided with the government. Now the Romeikes await a decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on an appeal filed on their behalf by the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA).

Attorney General Eric Holder has argued that Germany’s ban on homeschooling does not violate the “fundamental rights” of the Romeikes. He further argues that homeschoolers who are persecuted for homeschooling their children do not constitute a “particular social group” requiring protection from the United States. What kinds of people do make up groups warranting asylum? Well, the United States has granted asylum to torture victims and victims of religious persecution, as well as to some political dissidents. According to an article by Mary Jackson in WORLD Magazine, the U.S. has also expanded asylum status over the last decade to include “several hundred harassed homosexuals.”

HSLDA Founder and Chairman Michael Farris wrote on the HSLDA web site on February 11 that “The Supreme Court of Germany declared that the purpose of the German ban on homeschooling was to ‘counteract the development of religious and philosophically motivated parallel societies.’ This sounds elegant, perhaps, but at its core it is a frightening concept. This means that the German government wants to prohibit people who think differently from the government (on religious or philosophical grounds) from growing and developing into a force in society.” For those reasons, and the fact that the U.S. Attorney General’s office is arguing that such a ban does not constitute the persecution of a “particular people group,” Farris believes that the “argument revealed some very dangerous views of our own government toward our freedom.” I have to agree. If the United States government is willing to deport a family that entered the U.S. legally, followed the rules to obtain asylum, and–to my knowledge–have been law abiding residents of the United States for nearly five years because the government does not think that the right to homeschool one’s children is a “fundamental right” then we have a serious problem, and we better be on the lookout. What’s next?

A sad, unfortunate and poorly timed reversal

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

If you follow the news you have probably already heard that Ohio Senator Rob Portman has very publicly changed his position regarding gay marriage in recent days. Portman has always been a staunch opponent of gay marriage; in 1996, as a member of the House of Representatives, he was a cosponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act; in 1999 he voted for a measure that would have prohibited same-sex couples in Washington state from adopting children; in 2011 hundreds of students at the University of Michigan protested having Portman speak at the school’s graduation ceremony because of his position on gay marriage. In response to that protest, Portman’s spokesman said, “Rob believes marriage is a sacred bond between one man and one woman.”

So what changed? Well, two things. One, Portman’s son “came out,” informing his parents in 2011 that he is gay. Two, this revelation caused Portman to “think of this issue from a new perspective,” he told Ohio reporters.

Senator’s Portman’s son’s sexuality is none of my business; it is a private matter–or at least it was, until his father brought it into the public square to explain his own sad, unfortunate and poorly timed reversal on the issue of gay marriage. And I do not choose those descriptors lightly. Allow me to explain….

The reversal is sad because, based on his own explanations, Portman has allowed the circumstances of his life to cause him to reinterpret Scripture, and to do so inaccurately. Here’s how it worked: Portman believed the Bible was clear in its opposition to homosexuality and its teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman (he was right on both counts); Portman’s son informed his parents he is gay; Portman loves his son; Portman faces moral dilemma; Portman solves moral dilemma by deciding Scripture means something different than what it does, and what he had previously believed it did.

The reversal is sad because Portman decided that it was easier to embrace a false understanding of the very Word of God than it would be to stand firm in his convictions. It is easier to say God is love, and must surely want people to be happy than it is for Portman to tell his son that he loves him, but he hates his sin.

Yesterday Portman wrote a commentary in The Columbus Dispatch. In it he states that his son’s announcement has caused him to think about this issue in “a much deeper way.” Translation: I was opposed to gay marriage until I found out my son is gay, but my love for my son trumps my adherence to the Word of God. Portman writes that his son told him that “his sexual orientation wasn’t something he chose; it is simply a part of who he is.” I am sure Portman’s son may believe that, and Portman may believe it, too. I have written here before about the issue of “homosexual orientation,” and I am not going to rehash that now. (Desire and Deceit, an excellent book on the subject by Albert Mohler addresses this issue, too). According to Portman, “At the time, my position on marriage for same-sex couples was rooted in my faith tradition that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Knowing that my son is gay prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective: that of a dad who wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the people they love, a blessing Jane and I have shared for 26 years.”

Every parent wants–or at least should want–their children to love “happy, meaningful lives.” But part of tough love–in other words, part of being a parent–means standing firm when the way in which a child wants to live that life is contrary to what is God-honoring. Portman’s reasoning is exactly the same as that that I have challenged here repeatedly regarding the slippery slope that is the issue of gay marriage. Portman wants his son to be happy, Portman’s son is gay, so gay marriage should be okay? That’s absurd. What do we do when someone’s else’s son claims that what makes him happy is having sex with children? What do we do when someone’s daughter says that what makes her happy is the challenge of stealing and exploiting someone’s identity? What do we do when someone’s child says that what makes him or her happy is taking the lives of other humans whom they find to be unattractive, undesirable, or just plain irritating? Yes, yes, I know…those are not the same things, many will say. They are not the same actions, true–but they are all choices people make.

Portman continues, “I wrestled with how to reconcile my Christian faith with my desire for Will to have the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment as his brother and sister. Ultimately, it came down to the Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God.” There’s nothing wrong with such a wrestling match. What is wrong is realizing that the two cannot be reconciled and so deciding that the “Christian faith” should be reinterpreted in order to make it work out alright in the end. Does the Bible have an overarching theme of love and compassion? Yes. But only because the Bible also has an overarching theme of justice and holiness. We cannot accurately understand the love of God without accurately understanding the justice and holiness of God. Because He is a God of holiness, He cannot tolerate sin or have it in His presence. Because He is a God of justice, sin has a penalty that must be paid. Once we understand that, we can understand God’s love–His incredible, indescribable, truly awesome love that caused Him to send His only Son to pay the price for the sins of humanity because none of us can pay it ourselves. What the Bible clearly does not teach, Senator Portman, is that God’s love and compassion means God wants us to do whatever makes us happy. Are we all the children of God? In so far as He made us all, yes. In so far as we will all go to heaven? Not even close.

As far as I know all three of Portman’s children are grown, but can you imagine sitting down to tell them that what they had been taught and raised to believe was God’s Truth was actually wrong? “Well kids, your mom and I made a mistake. So did the pastor, and the Sunday school teacher, and, well, most of the Bible teachers we have respected over the years. Remember what we taught you about homosexuality? Turns out we were wrong. See, your brother is gay. Yes…that’s right. Your brother…our son. And he surely did not choose to be that way. It is just the way he is. It is the way God made Him, apparently. So, we have been wrong. Now that we know your brother is gay we can see it all clearly. We just never understood before. But gay people really love each other, and they deserve to happy just like everyone else. Just because your brother is attracted to men does not mean that he should be denied the right to marry when he finally finds the man he wants to spend the rest of his life with…..” You get the idea. Do you see it, though? Portman is saying that because his son is gay, God must surely think it’s okay.

Portman goes on to make one of the more idiotic statements on gay marriage I have ever heard: “One way to look at it is that gay couples’ desire to marry doesn’t amount to a threat but rather a tribute to marriage, and a potential source of renewed strength for the institution.” Uh, yeah…that’s one way to look at it alright. One very wrong, misguided, and–sorry, Senator–stupid way to look at it.

Portman’s lack of conviction (lack of spine?) is further evidenced in the following paragraph of his commentary, when he writes this: “Around the country, family members, friends, neighbors and coworkers have discussed and debated this issue, with the result that today twice as many people support marriage for same-sex couples as when the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law 17 years ago by President Bill Clinton, who now opposes it. With the overwhelming majority of young people in support of allowing gay couples to marry, in some respects the issue has become more generational than partisan.” So, since most people think the idea is okay, it must be okay then. Sure. Another ridiculous argument. God’s Word does not fluctuate with the opinions of the people in America (or anywhere else). God’s Word is the same yesterday, today and forever, and it is absolutely clear on the fact that homosexuality is sin, it is an abomination. Of course, we do live in a representative democracy in the U.S., so the opinions of the people can change the law. If that does happen it will not make it right, though, and Bible-believers need to do everything we can to oppose such a change.

And herein is why Portman’s reversal is so poorly timed: the Supreme Court will soon be hearing arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act, and Portman joins the rising throng of people advocating it being overturned. The only thing Portman gets right in his commentary is his suggestion that the courts, and right now the Supreme Court in particular, should not decide this issue. “I believe change should come about through the democratic process in the states. Judicial intervention from Washington would circumvent that process as it’s moving in the direction of recognizing marriage for same-sex couples. An expansive court ruling would run the risk of deepening divisions rather than resolving them.” I agree with that statement. The Supreme Court needs to find only that the Defense of Marriage Act was passed lawfully and is constitutional, and leave the rest up to “we the people.” The Supreme Court must not legislate from the bench and declare gay marriage to be constitutional.

Lukewarm

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Heads up…the basis for this post is a bodily function that most people (myself included) find disgusting. So be forewarned….

Earlier this week I was sick. I don’t mean I wasn’t feeling well or my tummy hurt; I was sick. Violently sick. And, as suggested above, it was disgusting. As I was lying in bed contemplating the reality of my situation, two things went through my mind. One, it boggles my mind to think that there are people who voluntarily and intentionally put themselves through that regularly by drinking too much. Any pleasure or good-feeling that comes from drinking a lot would surely be negated by the time spent over the toilet, in my opinion. Two, Scripture makes it clear that lukewarm Christians make God want to vomit, and that should provoke some serious thought and self-reflection.

In the early chapters of Revelation John presents his vision of the churches and the message for those churches from God. While those churches are in literal places, they are also examples, I believe, of the statuses churches today might be in, and since churches are made up of people, the messages to the churches are also messages to believers. Specifically, to the church in Laodicea, in Revelation 3:15-16, John writes, “‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth'” (ESV). Most translations use the more acceptable words “spit” or “spew,” but the Holman Christian Standard Bible uses “vomit.” The Message presents it this way: “You make me want to vomit!” The Voice also uses “vomit.” The Message and The Voice, of course, are not translations; they present the ideas of Scripture in every day easy-to-understand language but are not particularly concerned with maintaining accuracy with the original wording. Young’s Literal Translation, however, also uses “vomit”: “So — because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to vomit thee out of my mouth.”

So what would cause God to want to vomit? John made it clear; being lukewarm. God does not have any tolerance for Christians who are trying to be godly and worldy. John stated clearly that God would prefer cold to lukewarm; why? Because at least those who are cold have made a commitment and are not faking it. The way I read and understand John 3 is that the church at Laodicea probably said all the right things and went through all the right motions and probably looked quite spiffy to anyone who was watching, but it was mostly just for show. Like the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, they were white-washed sepulchers. Their religion was, as James wrote in James 1:26, “worthless.” Their services were probably well attended and well scripted and impressive. If they had a church bulletin it was probably full of all of “the right stuff.” But when they were away from the church, those Laodiceans were much like the world, doing their thing, doing what worked or was convenient or made them happy. They probably had strong words for those they encountered who were “cold” toward God, and probably considered themselves to be “hot,” at least on Sunday mornings. But the reality is, in God’s eyes they were disgusting, and they made him want to throw up.

Unfortunately, I can think of something even more disgusting than that…and that’s just how often the term “Laodicean” might be accurately be applied to me.

Think!

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

I know it is not original to me, but I have always said that the best thing a teacher can do for his or her students is teach them to think. Unfortunately, while it would seem that this should be a given, it is not always. Far too much “education” these days is in the form of pumping the heads of students full of facts and figures long enough for them to pour it back out for the test. After that, who cares? As long as the scores are high enough on the standardized tests and the school makes “adequate yearly progress” that’s all that matters.

I was reminded of the importance of thinking recently when I saw an ad for Reformed Theological Seminary. A picture of young man gazing intently into a star-filled sky was beneath the headline “If you long to know the mind of God, you must learn to use your own.” Near the bottom of the ad is this statement: “[A] faith that’s truly mature requires a mind that’s well-informed.” I am not particularly familiar with RTS, but based solely on this ad I am convinced that someone there “gets it” (even if only someone in the marketing department).

Dorothy Sayers wrote an essay entitled The Lost Tools of Learning that is well respected among many educators, especially those within the field of classical education. My favorite statement in her well-written essay is this: “Is not the great defect of our education today–a defect traceable through all the disquieting symptoms of trouble that I have mentioned–that although we often succeed in teaching our pupils ‘subjects,’ we fail lamentably on the whole in teaching them how to think: they learn everything, except the art of learning.” And that was written some sixty-five years ago; how much worse is it now?!?

Unfortunately the dearth of thinking goes far beyond institutions of formal education. Sadly, it tends to be a mark of the church, as well. Far too many Christians fail to engage their minds, somehow afraid to wrestle with the practical application of their faith to their everyday lives, throwing their mind in neutral at church. John Piper wrote a book entitled Think, and Ravi Zacharias has radio broadcasts entitled Let My People Think and Just Thinking. They have built their ministries at least in part around stimulating the believer to engage the mind as well as the heart when it comes to spirituality.

Dictionary.com begins its eighteen definitions of the word “think” with these two: “to have a conscious mind, to some extent of reasoning, remembering experiences, making rational decisions, etc.; to employ one’s mind rationally and objectively in evaluating or dealing with a given situation.” The Bible is full of instructions on the use of the mind and the importance of thinking; why have so many believers allowed their minds to become intellectually flabby? Why are so many churches failing to stimulate thinking and intellectual rigor?

Jesus Himself said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind….” Can we really love Him with all our mind if we refuse to think?

I dare say incredible things would happen if Christians would start thinking seriously about the Word of God and about using its power to impact our world.

Not going away

~ jbwatson ~ 1 Comment

The issue of homosexual marriage is not going away anytime soon…which means it will not go away as a topic for this blog, either. It is an issue that is too important to ignore, an issue on which we cannot remain silent.

First of all, I need to state that I am a firm believer in the system of government established in the United States, and despite the fact that I am not always pleased with the decisions that are made or the speed with which they are (or are not) made, I think the system generally works the way the founders designed it to work, and I think they knew what they were doing. In fact, if our elected officials were held accountable for adhering to the requirements that are in place for them, things would work even better.

On that note, despite the fact that I am not an extremist by any means and would ordinarily hesitate to call for something as drastic as the impeachment of the president, President Obama should have been impeached the moment that he announced the he was instructing the Department of Justice not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The Constitution (in Article 2, Section One, Clause Eight) requires that the president take the this oath upon being sworn in to office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Of course, though not constitutionally required, every president has added “So help me God” at the end of the oath, following the example set by George Washington at the very first inauguration. So why should President Obama have been impeached? Because he violated his oath, and has been violating it ever since. He cannot “faithfully execute” the duties of his office if he is instructing the Justice Department to not enforce a law that was passed by Congress and signed by a previous president. Whether he likes or agrees with the law or not does not matter one bit; it is the law, and he is sworn to uphold it. Even worse, the DOJ has gone beyond not enforcing the DOMA to actively opposing it. The Congress has had to hire lawyers to defend the DOMA in court against the DOJ! Interestingly, even Steve Weinstein, EDGE Editor-in-Chief, writing on South Florida Gay News, acknowledged that the president is not upholding it responsibilities: “The House has been voting extraordinary funds to fight DOMA repeal on its own, thus making for a historic clash between a presidency that refuses to defend a law (as the Constitution mandates him to do) on the one hand; and a legislative body taking extra-legislative action by intervening in the courts.”

Now, just last Friday, the DOJ filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief with the Supreme Court, urging the Court to strike down elements of the DOMA. Why should the DOMA be struck down? Because “the broad consensus in the scientific community is that, for the vast majority of people (gay and straight alike), sexual orientation is not a voluntary choice.” This statement itself is a lie, but let’s ignore that. After all, the Obama administration could have found a certain segment of the “scientific community,” the majority of which does assert this claim. (Rather like all the toothpaste commercials that claim that 4 out of 5 dentists recommend their brand, right? After all, if you line up enough of them and stick to it long enough, you could find 4 out of 5 people that would recommend or support just about anything).

It is further evidence of an increasing trend by President Obama and his administration to assert in less-than-veiled terms, however, that those who disagree with their position are, well, stupid. He has taken the same approach to his arguments for addressing climate change, too. In his State of the Union address on February 12 President Obama said that climate change is “the overwhelming judgment of science.” He used the same phrase in his second inaugural address when he said, “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science….”

Back to the DOMA, though, the Supreme Court will hear Harvard Law School professor Vicki C. Jackson argue that it does not even have the authority to hear the case United States v. Windsor since the Obama administration has chosen to stop enforcing DOMA. According to the Harvard Crimson, “Jackson will assert that because the Obama administration has chosen to no longer defend the 1996 law, agreeing with the decision made by a lower court that it is invalid, the court does not have the authority to rule on the case.” So, if the president decides not to enforce a law the Supreme Court cannot even hear cases on it? That’s ridiculous. That flies in the face of the very purpose of the checks and balances system established by our Constitution. If this line of reasoning is followed, we will be well on the way to an autocratic presidency.

Equally troubling–perhaps even more so–is that the Obama DOJ has also asserted in its amicus curiae brief that the lawfully enacted DOMA must be struck down and homosexual marriage must be both granted and protected, the will of the people be damned. Specifically, the brief argues that, in this instance, the Court must not allow the will of the people to run its course. “That approach would be very well taken in most circumstances. This is, however, the rare case in which deference to the democratic process must give way to the fundamental constitutional command of equal treatment under law. Section 3 of DOMA targets the many gay and lesbian people legally married under state law for a harsh form of discrimination that bears no relation to their ability to contribute to society. It is abundantly clear that this discrimination does not substantially advance an interest in protecting marriage, or any other important interest. The statute simply cannot be reconciled with the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Constitution therefore requires that Section 3 be invalidated.”

The Constitution requires no such thing. President Obama and his administration are asserting that they know better than the Congress, than the people of the United States, and than the very Constitution of the United States.

Last year Senators Orrin Hatch, Saxby Chambliss, Dan Coats, Thad Cochrane, Mike Crapo, Charles Grassley, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, Richard Shelby and Roger Wicker filed an amicus curiae brief of their own in the case of Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management on an appeal being heard in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Their brief provides an excellent overview of the history of DOMA and the danger of seeing struck down by the Court for reasons that are not constitutional. (If you’re interested, you can read the brief here: http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/d78e55fd-f3bd-459e-b424-9875aabf9ddd/Amicus%20Brief%20of%20US%20Senators%20in%20Golinski%20final.pdf).

Former attorneys general Edwin Meese III and John Ashcroft also filed an amicus brief with the court in the Golinski case, arguing that the Obama administration had seriously erred in its decision not to enforce DOMA, and that because of its unprecedented actions in failing to support the law of the land, its opinions must not be given much weight in the deciding of the case. “Due to the historical landscape addressed above, and the fifteen year history of DOJ’s defense of DOMA, the decision to change course and challenge DOMA’s constitutionality should be viewed as an extreme and unprecedented deviation from the historical norm and, as such, the persuasive weight afforded to DOJ’s brief should be less than in the typical case.”

I could go on, here, but I will stop, because this is already getting lengthy and because there is plenty of information out there already that you can read if you want to explore this subject in more detail. Bottom line, we have a President who is violating his oath of office by refusing to enforce a law that was passed by Congress and signed by a previous president, and we now have him using his DOJ to actively oppose the law in court in an effort to see the law ruled unconstitutional. We need to pray for the nine men and women on the Supreme Court. Specifically, we need to pray that they will hear the case and that they will rule that the DOMA is constitutional, and the president and the DOJ must enforce it.

We’re Slipping (Part 2)

~ jbwatson ~ 1 Comment

Just over a year ago I posted an entry entitled “We’re Slipping” in which I addressed how we are already slipping down that slippery slope that will come with any efforts to normalize homosexual relations, and certainly with any approval of homosexual marriage. Unfortunately we are still slipping, a fact made painfully clear in a January 2 article in the British newspaper The Guardian, an article entitled “Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light.” Andree Seu Peterson took a very insightful look at this article in her column in the February 9 issue of WORLD Magazine; in fact, I found it to be one of the better columns by Seu Peterson I have read. Her column was entitled “Culture creep.”

Side note, since I am not British, nor do I imagine many if any of my readers are, I am going to drop the “a” and use the spelling we are used to when I reference pedophilia for the rest of the article, even when I quote the piece from The Guardian.

The Guardian‘s article highlights the fact that we are slipping. Seu Peterson’s column highlights three strategies used by those on “The Dark Side” (her term) to gradually make us more accepting of behavior that has previously been clearly understood as immoral and wrong.

At one point The Guardian article includes this statement: “There is little agreement about pedophilia, even among those considered experts on the subject.” That in and of itself is troubling to me, and should be to you, because it should sicken you to think that there could possibly be any disagreement as to whether or not adult-child sexual relationships are wrong. However, Seu Peterson calls this Strategy No. 1–“the notion of different opinions.” She writes that by suggesting that any behavior is controversial rather than wrong, the door is immediately thrown open to the possibility that perhaps it is not wrong. After all, if people can sincerely disagree on the subject–particularly the so-called experts–maybe it is not as cut-and-dried or black-and-white as we originally thought, right? As Seu Peterson writes, “Relinquish the word ‘wrong,’ accept the softer ‘reasonable difference of opinion,’ and the camel’s nose is well under the tent.”

Strategy No. 2 identified by Seu Peterson is distinctions. The Guradian article includes these lines: “A pedophile is someone who has a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. Savile appears to have been primarily an ephebophile, defined as someone who has a similar preferential attraction to adolescents.” Seu Peterson states that “ephebophile” was a new word for her, and it was for me, too. In fact, Dictionary.com does not recognize it as a word. However, by creating a distinction between different kinds of sexual attraction to children, Seu Peterson writes, “automatically confers a certain legitimacy without even having to argue for it.”

The third strategy is what Seu Peterson calls the domain of the professional. How does that work? By quoting and citing individuals with impressive titles and/or who work at impressive institutions–thereby giving the impression that the “smart people” understand all of this much better than the rest of us. The piece in The Guardian did this by citing results from “Sarah Goode, a senior lecturer at the University of Winchester and author of two major 2009 and 2011 sociological studies on pedophilia in society” and “two eminent researchers” and “the Harvard Mental Health Letter,” the last of these which “stated baldly that pedophilia ‘is a sexual orientation.'”

These are strategies that are used by the media, used by individuals and groups motivated to change the acceptance of previously-unacceptable behavior, and by the scientists and research centers that cater to these groups (and depend on them for funding). As with the warnings I gave in the last post, we must be careful how news is “spun.”

Perhaps more troubling than any of the above, though, and the clearest evidence that we are well on our way down the slippery slope? This statement in The Guardian: “Some academics do not dispute the view of Tom O’Carroll, a former chairman of PIE [Pedophile Information Exchange]…that society’s outrage at pedophilic relationships is essentially emotional, irrational, and not justified by science. ‘It is the quality of the relationship that matters,’ O’Carroll insists.”

Seu Peterson is correct when she ends her column with this: “The thing to notice is that while you weren’t looking that word ‘relationships’ snuck in without debate. Another place gained. The language of alternative lifestyle slowly replaces today’s more common terminology of ‘abuse’ and ‘victim.'”

No scientific support

~ jbwatson ~ 1 Comment

On February 15 My Christian Daily ran a piece entitled, “Panel calls therapy for gays ‘a human rights violation’.” The article was a brief overview of the issue of conversion therapy and a meeting of a panel of individuals for what was advertised as “the first ever UN discussion on the legalities, ethics, and science behind the movement promoting [efforts to change sexual orientation].” The meeting, though, was held at Church Center, a known gathering place for “left-wing groups” and not on UN property. Further, according to the article, the event was “sponsored by non-government organizations, and did not feature representatives of any UN member states.”

The controversy over conversion therapy is not new. In fact, just a few months ago California passed a law banning conversion therapy for minors. That law, however, is on hold, following an injunction from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals until the matter can be argued before the courts.

The premise behind conversion therapy is that individuals can be “converted” from homosexual to heterosexual with therapy. The American Psychological Association says on its web site that there is “no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective.” The APA also says that “the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons.”

On the other side of the argument are groups like the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, which argue that the conversion therapy is legitimate, safe and effective. Exodus International used to advocate the therapy as well, though its president, Alan chambers, made news last summer upon announcing that Exodus would no longer use the therapy because it “sets the person seeking therapy up for failure by giving him or her unrealistic expectations.” Chambers told the Gay Christian Network last summer than 99.9 percent of all of the people he has met through Exodus International are still attracted to individuals of the same sex and still struggle with temptation.

Never wanting to miss out on an opportunity to address a hot-button social issue that has nothing to do with its founding, the Southern Poverty Law Center has stated that conversion therapy “is a dangerous practice based on the premise that people can change their sexual orientation, literally ‘converting’ from gay to straight.” Of course the SPLC also calls many conservative Christian groups “hate groups” because of their “intolerance.”

ReligiousTolerance.org is “a multi-faith group” claiming to include members that are Atheist, Agnositc, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist,” and includes on its web site a study of studies, purporting that conversion therapy fails 99.5% of the time.

Now, what point am I trying to make? First of all, there is no therapy known to man that is always effective. Secondly, I doubt that there is any way to accurately measure the “success” of conversion therapy. After all, if someone “cured” if they never engage in homosexual behavior, or only if they never think about engaging in homosexual behavior? Temptation, may I remind you, is not sin. Third, no one is suggesting that homosexuals should be forced to endure conversion therapy. If an individual wants conversion therapy he or she must surely be unhappy with the homosexual tendencies he/she is feeling. Why would we argue against, even suggest banning, a form of therapy that someone wants? After all, people go to therapy to address all kinds of behaviors they do not wish to continue, from smoking to shoplifting to fill-in-the-blank-with-the-troubling-behavior-of-your-choice.

So part of my point is that it makes no sense to ban conversion therapy, and any attempt to do so should be considered a violation of a number of constitutionally-protected rights.

What I found most interesting about the article on the “UN discussion” though was that Rebecca Jordan-Young, a researcher at Barnard College who addressed the group and was “deeply in agreement with the premise of [the] meeting, that sexual orientation change efforts are in fact a human rights violation and a problem” also said that no one should use science to defend such a position. Why? “We don’t really know how sexual orientation develops” she said, despite the fact that many people “think of sexual orientation as something that’s fundamentally biologically driven….” Specifically, Jordan-Young stated that there is no modern scientific research to support such a position.

So, if sexual orientation is not a “just born that way” issue, then it cannot be a civil rights issue. What then should it be? Maybe something more like religion, Jordan-Young suggested, “the freedom of conviction, the freedom of one’s conscience….”

I would actually be comfortable with that analogy, because, while I believe that homosexuality is a sin, I do not believe that it should be criminalized. (I do, however, believe that homosexual marriage should not be permitted). If someone wants to think that homosexuality is okay, he or she has that right. If someone wants to engage in homosexual or bisexual behavior, he or she also has that right. But insisting on redefining marriage based on that thought–conviction, even, if you want to go that far–would not be permissible…for exactly the same reasons that I have argued here before: if we are going to redefine marriage based on what one group of people thinks or believes, we have absolutely no defense against redefining it how any other group may think or believe.

What’s more, the idea that homosexuality is a “freedom of conscience” issue throws wide open the door to allow conversion therapy and efforts to persuade individuals that homosexuality is wrong. After all, the freedom of speech protects my right to try to persuade anyone else to believe the same way I do, whether my ideas are popular of “scientifically verifiable” or not. Even the UN’s own Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief said last October that member states should protect the freedom of religion as well as the right of individuals to convert to another religion and “the right to try to convert others by means of non-coercive persuasion.”

And Toiko Kleppe, the UN’s senior counsel on LGBT issues at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the sole UN representative at the gathering mentioned at the start of this entry, stated that conversion therapy is “unscientific…potentially harmful…and definitely a violation of human rights” before also saying that such therapy would not be a human rights violation “if the patient was able to give informed consent to the therapy.”

Therein lies the rub…the opponents of conversion therapy are making waves and drawing attention to an issue that does not even exist. No one that I know of or have ever heard of is suggesting forced therapy for homosexuals. I do not know of anyone that would condone such practice. No intelligent person wants to go back to the United States of the 1920s when states passed laws permitting forced sterilization of the mentally handicapped, and I do not know any intelligent person that wants to make homosexuality illegal or force conversion therapy on anyone.

So…look beyond the headlines, because usually those who are screaming the loudest are spinning the story for their own benefit. The UN rep makes headlines for saying that conversion therapy is a human rights violation, but little attention is given to her statement that it is not a violation when consent is given. A college researcher tells the group that conversion therapy is a human rights violation, but her statement that sexual orientation is not an innate quality people are born with is ignored.

Boundaries

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Carl Trueman wrote an excellent article for the July 2012 issue of Tabletalk magazine entitled “Why Do We Draw the Line?” Trueman starts the article by highlighting the recent trend toward “uniting around the center”–focusing on the doctrines and beliefs around which believers agree rather than highlighting the areas of disagreement. Trueman states–correctly, I would have to say–“Frequently, those who talk of the center as all-important contrast themselves favorably with those they see as emphasizing boundaries.” But then that is culture we love in; Trueman continues, “…evangelical talk of centers rather than boundaries has a lot to commend it. To make the point concisely: it is consonant with both the desire of Christians for unity and the cultural, political and psychological aesthetics of our time.”

The remainder of the article, though, is spent explaining why boundaries are indeed important. Trueman mentions that the “world at large” seems usually to consider boundaries as “something to be transgressed, and that continuously.” Trueman explains that the boundaries God has given in His Word, though, are put in place not to stifle or restrict us, not to quash our fun, but to “enable us to be truly human.” Boundaries from the Lord serve the same function as boundaries from state to citizen, from parent to child–to protect. Parents do not allow their children to run out into traffic, despite the fact that prohibiting them from doing so is a boundary, because the potential consequences are lethal. States do not allow citizens to shout “Fire!” in crowded theaters or to shoot guns in populated areas, because the potential consequences are dangerous. Similarly, God has given each human being a free will, and we have the ability to choose to do whatever we want. But God has instituted boundaries to protect us from the potential dangers that we likely would not consider before plunging into whatever seems like fun or seems the best thing to do at the time. Using the “hedonism of Hugh Hefner” as example, Trueman writes that “…one cannot simply cross a boundary and then stop: that merely establishes a new boundary, which others will transgress in more radical and extreme ways.”

Trueman also argues–again, rightly–that boundaries can in fact liberate. The “exclusion from wider society of serial killers and pedophiles” is not “bad or oppressive” he writes; on the contrary, there is greater freedom for all by knowing that those individuals (at least once they are known) will be prohibited from being inside the boundaries of “regular society.”

Numerous studies have shown that children actually thrive when boundaries are present, contrary though that may be to what most people would claim to expect. For example, children who are inside an enclosed playground area are likely to run around and play freely throughout the entire enclosed area, whereas children on a playground without boundaries (such as a fence) tend to stick closer to each other and to the playground equipment. Why? Because the fence–the boundary–provides a sense of safety and security that is unknown where there is no fence.

That is, after all, why boundaries exist–to help us know where we are safe and where we would be in danger. Boundaries, when observed, prevent all manner of possible injury and heartbreak. Ravi Zacharias writes wisely about the benefits of boundaries in marriage in his book I, Isaac, Take Thee Rebekah: “Lines must be drawn not at the level of acting but at the level of thinking. Lines must be drawn not at the level of doing but at the level of desiring. Lines must be drawn not at the level of contact but at the level of sight.” Zacharias recognizes what so many of us prefer to ignore–that is we do not allow ourselves to think about getting inappropriately involved with another, there is almost no chance that we will actually do so. If we do not look lustfully or longingly at another, there is very little likelihood that we will get involved in inappropriate contact. Without the boundaries in place we might still know where the edge is, but our human tendency is to delight in getting as close as we can to the edge, boasting in our ability to hang precariously over the edge without plummeting. The problem is, when we spend so much time hanging over the edge almost anything could cause us to fall–and when we fall over the edge it will be too late. Boundaries serve to keep us a safe distance from the edge so that even if we do fall, we fall within the boundaries–we fall somewhere where we are still safe.

Trueman also highlights another aspect of the boundaries discussion which is very often overlooked or ignored: “[C]enters and boundaries are ultimately dependent on each other–one cannot meaningfully talk of one without assuming the existence of the other. In a circle, the central point is a function of the perimeter. I know where the center is only when I see the circle as a whole and judge its location on the basis of the circumference.” Discussion of abandoning boundaries then, or of allowing each person to decide his or her own boundaries, is to deny the existence of a center…something surely no believer would ever claim to want to do.

Let us beware, then, to appreciate the boundaries rather than seek ways to expand, stretch, avoid, circumvent or remove them. God has placed them there because He loves us, and there is nothing beyond the boundaries that we need.