Category: Politics/Current Events

Which one doesn’t belong?

~ jbwatson ~ 3 Comments

Do you remember those puzzles you would do as a child, where there was a sequence of pictures and you were supposed to determine which one did not belong? There might be a glove, a baseball, a hockey stick and a bat, for example; clearly the hockey stick does not belong because it is not related to baseball. Well, I felt a bit like I was doing one of those puzzles as I listened to Barack Obama’s second inaugural address. In it, he said this:

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths — that all of us are created equal — is the star that guides us still, just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall, just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone, to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.

The president’s alliterated reference to defining moments in the fight for equality likely went either unnoticed or not understood by many who heard it–especially those of younger generations. As a student and teacher of history, though, it did not escape me.

Seneca Falls is where the first convention focused on women’s rights was held in 1848. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were the most notable names involved probably, but the Declaration of Sentiments that emerged from the convention made it abundantly clear that women wanted the right to vote. Years later, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified these women were up in arms since, for the first time, the Constitution now included the word male when addressing voting rights.

Selma, of course, is the town in Alabama that is usually considered to be the launching pad of the civil rights movement.

But what about Stonewall? Most of us thinking of Confederate general T.J. “Stonewall” Jackson when we think of any historical significance to that term, but the is certainly not what the president had in mind on Monday. Instead, he was referring to the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in New York City where a riot occurred in 1969. The riot was sparked by a police raid on the bar, apparently one of the few bars in the city where homosexuals could gather. Not only were gays openly discriminated against at the time, but it was a crime to serve alcohol to homosexuals. Police were there with a search warrant to investigate reports on the illegal sale of liquor. The result was a riot in which the bar’s patrons began throwing just about anything they could find at the police officers, four of which were injured in the melee. Rioting continued for the better part of a week.

According to Martin Duberman, a professor, author and gay-rights activist who founded the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies at City University of New York, Stonewall became symbolic for the gay rights movement. In 1999, the Stonewall Inn was added to the National Register of Historic Places.

My contention is that Stonewall doesn’t fit with Seneca Falls and Selma. I am not suggesting that discrimination against homosexuals is okay in the areas of basic rights–making it a crime to serve alcohol to them, for example–but the connection that President Obama was trying to make was that because gay marriage is still not permitted, homosexuals are still being discriminated against. Not too long after the excerpt above, Obama said,

Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.

Notice he said nothing about housing, employment, voting, even drinking alcohol. I do not know anyone who reasonably and rationally believes that homosexuals should be denied any of those rights. Rather, the president was focused on gay marriage–“the love we commit to one another” he called it. And for it to “be equal as well” he wants marriage to be redefined to include homosexual marriage.

I have addressed this issue in this blog before; homosexuality and gay rights is not the civil rights issue of our day, as so many people like to assert that it is, and as the president seemed to be suggesting in his speech. Why not? Because gay marriage is not a civil right. Homosexuality is not the same as gender or race. Homosexuality is not an irreversible fact of life over which individuals have no control. Even if I were to grant the argument that there is such a thing as a “gay gene” and homosexuals are born homosexual (something I do not grant, by the way) engaging in homosexual behavior is still optional; being a woman or being black is not optional.

Perhaps it should not surprise me, but it does, that Benjamin Todd Jealous, the president and CEO of the NAACP, had this to say in response to Obama’s remarks:

In his speech, I think the president did ultimately what he does best, which is to really speak to the commonality across so many different groups in our society, the commonality across so many different struggles for rights, and get right down to the core that at the end of the day, what we’re all seeking to do — and what the freedom fighters at Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall are all trying to do — is just simply move our country towards the realization of its own pledge, that this be one nation, with liberty and justice for all.

We need to wake up. The “commonality across so many different struggles for rights” is no commonality at all when it comes to the issue of gay marriage. Gay marriage is not included in the founder’s embrace of “liberty and justice for all.” Gay marriage is not a right, it is not a civil rights issue, and if it ever becomes the law of the land it will result in a fundamental redefinition of the basic unit of humanity. Oh, and it will throw wide open the doorway to redefining just about anything else, too; if homosexuals are granted the right to marry, after all, how can we deny polygamists the right to marry multiple wives? That is but one example of where that doorway might lead; the others are addressed elsewhere on this site, and for the sake of time and space and climbing out of the mud I will not elaborate here.

Bottom line…Stonewall does not belong, and never will belong, with Seneca Falls and Selma.

And we wonder…

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

The December 15 issue of WORLD magazine included a page with short articles about education issues (page 72). Collectively, these three articles reveal quite a bit about the problems with public education in America today.

The first article is entitled “School’s Out,” and looks at the battles going on in Chicago and Washington, D.C. over school closings. Of course, Michelle Rhee faced incredible pressure over closing underperforming (a very polite way to say “failing”) schools during her tenure as chancellor of D.C. schools. But the reality is that Chicago and D.C. are losing students at a considerable rate–Chicago’s student is down 6% over the last decade, but D.C. is down around 35%. (And while the percentages are staggeringly different, the difference in number of students is small: 25,270 students lost in Chicago, 27,681 lost in D.C.).

There are, of course, many factors that may contribute to the decrease in enrollment in urban areas, including families moving into the suburbs, more families choosing nonpublic schools, and the poor quality of the public school systems.

Regardless of the reason, though, anyone with any knowledge about business operations would recognize that maintaining things “as they are” in light of a 6% or 35% decrease in consumers is a recipe for failure. What restaurant would maintain the same number of locations or the same staffing levels after a 35% decrease in customers, for example? And yet the Chicago Teachers Union is vehemently opposing the closing of any schools. Of course this should not come as a huge surprise after Chicago teachers went on strike early this school year, and had the audacity to claim that their demands were in the interests of students. CTU vice president Jesse Sharkey stated, “If you close our schools, there will be no peace in the city.” Ah…how refreshing to see such a spirit of compromise, or even a willingness to acknowledge that sometimes tough decisions have to be made in order to save a sinking ship.

In Chicago half of the students drop out; in D.C. the figure is 40%. Eighty percent of fourth graders in both cities struggle to read. And in D.C. the opposition to embracing reality is not only among the public school teachers, but among city council members, who strenuously oppose the closing of schools in their wards, despite the fact that new Chancellor Kaya Henderson says that many schools are half-empty, resulting in a considerable waste of money.

Moving on, beneath “School’s Out” is an article entitled “Musical chairs.” This article begins by introducing Jessica Keskitalo, a high school history teacher in Beaverton, Oregon who is teaching seventh-grade math this year, after all of a “half day of math training.” And Keskitalo is not alone as she spends the year in unfamiliar territory; according to the article, she is one of 365 teachers in the Beaverton district who were “shifted by seniority” to replace teachers who were laid off. In other words, the school district needed to make cuts, and they did. But, “Oregon requires districts to lay off teachers with the least experience first, instead of assessing expertise and classroom needs.” Oh good…another example of putting the needs of the students first! (Sorry, sarcasm seems to be dripping out of me today).

According to Beaverton officials, some 160 teachers were placed in “significantly different positions” this year. Keskitalo, for example, had never taught mathematics, and her only experience teaching middle school students came during one month of her student teaching. The article states that neither the principals in Beaverton nor the teachers had any say over the new assignments. Another example provided? Beaverton “transferred district librarian Jenny Takeda into a third-grade classroom one week before the Oregon Association of School Libraries named her the Librarian of the Year.” Takeda opted not to accept the assignment, so she is now a substitute teacher as she tries to figure out what her future holds.

The National Council on Teacher Quality, as cited in the article, reports that, “the overwhelming majority of school districts use seniority as the only determinant of teacher layoff decisions.”

Lastly, the right column of the page contains an article entitled “Fox in the Henhouse.” This one describes the fact that union official Glenda Ritz was chosen by voters to be the new state superintendent of Indiana schools, ousting Tony Bennett (not the singer, but a “nationally recognized school reformer”). Why is that a problem? Because Indiana has in place one of the “biggest statewide voucher program[s], teacher evaluations tied to student test scores, and new grade-by-grade tests and curriculum requirements shared by 46 states.” Ritz, however, “dislikes evaluating schools.” Hmmm…I wonder why? As a union official, her focus was undoubtedly on maintaining teacher jobs and increasing teacher salary and benefits, not on student achievement.

If this news is illustrative of the condition of public education in America is it any wonder that our students consistently lag behind students on other countries on tests? Should we be surprised that so many students drop out when council members and superintendents are focused more on teacher jobs than on student learning? Should we be surprised that students struggle to learn when teachers are randomly placed in classrooms because they have tenure, not because they have any training or even any clue how to teach the age and/or subject matter they have been assigned? I think there are a lot of very capable and very dedicated teachers in the nation’s public schools…but I think, for the most part, they’re swimming against the tide. They’re trying to do something that, despite the rhetoric, simply has not been made a priority–actually teaching students to learn.

“We can’t tolerate this anymore”

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

If you were watching Sunday night football this past Sunday you were taken from the game to President Obama speaking at a prayer vigil for the victims of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. That is the only way I happened to see it. I am sure, though, that other channels too showed the speech, and the full text of the address is available on washingtonpost.com (as well as many other sites I am sure). If you pay much attention to politics in America than you were probably as surprised as my wife and I were to hear how frequently and apparently-sincerely the President quoted Scripture and referred to God and even Jesus. Indeed right off the bat, immediately after the obligatory nod to the governor, the families, the first responders and guests, Mr. Obama quoted 2 Corinthians 4:17-18. In their entirety. He did not provide the reference, but he did say, “Scripture tells us” before reciting them.

Shortly thereafter Mr. Obama said, “Here in Newtown, I come to offer the love and prayers of a nation.” After outlining the brave actions of teachers and students alike, naming the teachers who lost their lives and even sharing what the simultaneously touching and funny account of one student offering to lead the way out because he knows karate, and commending the town for their the President said, “This is how Newtown will be remembered, and with time and God’s grace, that love will see you through.”

Mr. Obama was wise to draw from Scripture during such a time of intense grief and inexplicable tragedy. After all, when confronted with the reality of man’s inhumanity to man, where else is there to go for comfort? Relativism offers nothing even remotely comforting. Saying, “that’s just part of life” is not a good way to win friends and influence people. The truth is that when tragedies like the one in Newtown take place humans everywhere shift their attention to God. Some look to Him in anger, some with genuine perplexity, and many with sorrow that is seeking consolation. There is a part of every human that knows that God is there, and that only is He is big enough to wrap His arms around these situations and provide, if not easy-to-understand answers, at least a refuge and a safe place.

Unfortunately Mr. Obama strayed some as his comments continued. He said, “We know that, no matter how good our intentions, we’ll all stumble sometimes in some way.” I agree; absolutely. Immediately thereafter, though, he said, “We’ll make mistakes, we’ll experience hardships and even when we’re trying to do the right thing, we know that much of our time will be spent groping through the darkness, so often unable to discern God’s heavenly plans.” I agree as well that there are many times when it is difficult to discern God’s plans, individually and corporately. It is difficult even for those who diligently seek Him. But in the middle of this conversation Mr. Obama used these as examples of what we humans strive for: “wealth or power or fame or just simple comfort.” Sadly, he is not off the mark. Is it any wonder, though, that we have trouble discerning God’s plan when we spend our time focused on making more money, accumulating more toys and/or building a following for ourselves?

It is then that Mr. Obama misses the target completely, though. After citing Scripture and making reference to God’s plans, the President said, “There’s only one thing we can be sure of, and that is the love that we have for our children, for our families, for each other.” At least he did not go so far as to say that there is nothing that we can be sure of. But if the love of a parent for a child is the only thing that we can be sure of, we are in trouble. What hope can we have in that? After all, I doubt a day goes by that we cannot find a story of a parent committing horrible offenses against a child. I do not doubt for one moment that the parents of the children who died in Newtown loved their children and will miss them terribly. I cannot imagine the pain they are experiencing. I cannot, though, find comfort in the statement that the only thing we can be sure of is a parent’s love.

Taken as a whole, I thought that the President’s comments were heartfelt and appropriate. For most of the speech he spoke as a father far more than he did as a politician. And I do not want to use Newtown as an instrument for any agenda. But the President’s remarks serve only to reinforce the fact that Mike Huckabee was right; we cannot expect to teach morality and accountability and responsibility without God any more than we can hope to comfort those who grieve without God. Why is the latter okay but the former is a violation of religious freedom?

Mr. Obama wants to put an end to these tragedies. “We can’t tolerate this anymore,” he said. “These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change.”

He is right. It will not happen though until we realize, collectively, that we will have to continually comfort grieving hearts if we never try to reach the hearts of those who would commit horrific acts…and attempts to do that without God will continue to be futile. Bringing God and His morality back into the discussion…that is the change we need.

“It’s because of the way the media reports it.”

~ jbwatson ~ 2 Comments

If you read the blogosphere (besides this blog, which you obviously do read…and I appreciate that you do!), have a Facebook account, or read news items that you see on your browser home page when you come online then you have probably seen or at least heard of the statement that was allegedly made by acting legend Morgan Freeman. I say “allegedly” because I have seen a variety of accounts online, some confirming that he did make the statement, others saying he did not, that someone else did and attributed them to him. I have not been able to find anything definitive either way. Many people consider Snopes.com to be the expert on such questions, and that site says that the statement did not come from Freeman. But, regardless of who made the statement, I think it has plenty of truth in it and it is worthy of consideration and discussion… Here is the statement, in response to why the Connecticut school shooting and other similar tragedies happen:

You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here’s why. It’s because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single victim of Columbine?

Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he’ll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN’s article says that if the body count “holds up”, this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer’s face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer’s identity? None that I’ve seen yet. Because they don’t sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you’ve just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man’s name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem.

Now as I said, I don’t know who actually made this statement, but it does contain a lot of truth, I think. The media absolutely does sensationalize these events. I have seen some articles now that have focused on some of the victims, but that certainly is not the focus of most of the coverage. And I understand that the media has a responsibility to report the news. But there are many different ways one can report the news. Yes, the media needs to let us know that the tragedy occurred, and yes there are insights that can be gained from some investigative reporting. But the statement above accurately points out that the media pays far too much attention to the perpetrators of such incidents, and the amount of coverage that they receive absolutely could play into the motivation of someone to commit such acts of violence. If they do end up killing themselves or getting killed, they go out “famous.” If they live through it, the media will pay attention to them that much longer. (Think about it…not too much time goes by without the perpetrator of the Fort Hood shooting making the news). It cannot be coincidental that there have been more of these kinds of tragedies in the thirteen years since Columbine than there were in decades before Columbine. I do not have any scientific data on how many tragedies like that there were before Columbine, but there were few if any, I am confident of that. And as I discussed in yesterday’s post, the problem cannot be attributed to guns; after all, guns have been around for centuries.

I am not going to say that the media is responsible solely. Neither are the increasingly realistic and increasingly violent video games that are so popular, nor the movies that glorify violence. But all of these things are contributing factors, and the power of their contribution is strengthened by the decline of the marriage-based two- parent family, the denial of absolute truth, and the ever-increasing attempt to keep morality out of the public sphere. See the comments made by Mike Huckabee that I quoted in yesterday’s post on that note. As I’ve said before…it comes back to the law of the harvest, and we will continue to reap what we sow.

“This is a heart issue”

~ jbwatson ~ 1 Comment

Yesterday’s shooting in an elementary school in Colorado is a tragedy, and there is absolutely no other word for it. I have addressed here before the question of why God would allow such things to happen (see my September 27 post, “Why Does God Allow Tragedy and Suffering?”) but that question is on many lips and in many minds again now. I do not, at the moment, have anything new to add to the answers I provided on that question three months ago. I do, however, want to chime in on the answers given in response to that very question by Mike Huckabee on FOX News on Friday evening. His comments have already generated a fire storm of online commentary, mostly against. But I think what Mr. Huckabee said has considerable merit.

First, what exactly did he say? When asked about the shooting, and why God would allow such a thing, Huckabee said, “When we ask why there is violence in our schools, but we’ve systematically removed God from our schools, should we be so surprised that schools have become a place for carnage because we’ve made it a place where we don’t want to talk about eternity, life, responsibility, accountability?”

Elliot Friar, on Policymic.com, took Huckabee to task for these comments (he did the same in response to comments Huckabee made after the shooting in the Colorado theater last summer). Friar writes, “What makes you so sure that your God is the answer to all evils? Over and over you say that people kill people, guns don’t. Well, we supply the people that kill people with guns that do, in fact, kill people. Between 2006 and 2010, a staggering 47,856 people were killed by firearms in the U.S. More than any other way of killing. Guns do kill, and they kill a lot. … How dare you blame their deaths on the absence of religion in our schools and in their lives. Even God himself, any God, could not prevent the easy purchase of multiple assault rifles to murder elementary school students.”

Well Mr. Friar, first of all, God Himself could prevent the easy purchase of guns if He wanted to. That gets into the questions I addressed in September, so I won’t elaborate on that here. But you’re also missing Huckabee’s point. He is not denying that the bullets and the guns do the actual killing. He is denying that it is the guns themselves that are the problem. If somehow the United States eliminated all privately owned guns with the snap of a finger, the thoughts and desires that lead people to kills dozens of innocent people, whether adults or children, in a theater or a school, would not also disappear. There was another tragedy in a school yesterday too; a man in China stabbed 22 children. Should China ban knives, Mr. Friar?

Mr. Huckabee’s point is that when we make everything relative, when we refuse to teach children that there are such things as absolutes, when we make excuses for wrongs rather than holding wrongdoers accountable…that is how we “set the stage” for these kinds of tragedies. No one thinks about the possible consequences of taking ideas to their extremes. Instead, we think about lovely it would be to eliminate the rules and let everyone do whatever they want. After all, why should any one person, group of people, or even God, have the right to tell me or anyone else what I can and cannot do? That sounds dandy in theory. But in reality, when boundaries are eliminated and right and wrong cease to exist, chaos results. Anarchy is an incredibly frightening thing. If there are no rules, no absolutes, how can we say that the perpetrator in Connecticut was wrong? He was, of course, but I can only say that because I believe in right and wrong. Interestingly, everyone seems to believe in right and wrong moments after a tragedy. But then it’s too late…the damage has been done.

Prior to make the statements cited above, Mr. Huckabee said, “Ultimately, you can take away every gun in America and somebody will use a gun. When somebody has an intent to do incredible damage, they’re going to find a way to do it.
People will want to pass new laws…. This is a heart issue — laws don’t change this kind of thing.” At the conclusion of his remarks Huckabee said of God, “Maybe we oughta let him in on the front and we wouldn’t have to call him when it’s all said and done on the back end.”

That’s the irony, I’m afraid. As Huckabee suggested, America has been engaged in a systematic effort to remove God from the public square for decades; all efforts at insisting on and teaching morality are met with cries of Puritanism or extreme right wing religious zealotry. Why, then, when our culture wants nothing to do with God, seldom even bothering to acknowledge His existence, is the first instinct to look at Him and ask why He would let this happen? God is a God of love…but we cannot ignore Him all the time and then blame Him when things don’t work out. The law of the harvest still exists…we will reap what we sow.

Evidence Not Necessary

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Perhaps you saw the newscast or read about it online… Underwater explorer Robert Ballard, who found the Titanic, among other underwater finds, says he may have found evidence for Noah’s Ark and the biblical account of the flood. In an interview with Christiane Amanpour, Ballard discussed his efforts in Turkey to find the ark, or at least evidence of the flood. Said Ballard, “We went in there to look for the flood. Not just a slow moving, advancing rise of sea level, but a really big flood that then stayed… The land that went under stayed under.”

Finding the ark has been akin to the Holy Grail for many explorers for a long time, but no one has ever been able to find the ship, or any evidence of it. In the 1990s two geologists did find credible evidence that a flood had occurred in the Middle East about 7,500 years ago.

According to MSN.com, “Robert Ballard says he now supports a theory floated by two Columbia University scientists, which holds that the Black Sea was once a freshwater lake overrun thousands of years ago ‘by an enormous wall of water from the rising Mediterranean Sea.’ Ballard found evidence of that inundation 400 feet below the surface of the modern-day Black Sea — an ancient shoreline. He now believes the ‘great flood’ may have taken place in 5,000 B.C.E.”

UK’s The Telegraph spins the story a bit, citing Ballard’s findings (which do not, to this point anyway, suggest a global flood, I should mention) before concluding with this statement: “As the theory goes, the story was then passed down over the years, with the story of Noah eventually forming.”

Therein lies the point I would like to make… If science does eventually find conclusive evidence that a flood occurred or finds evidence of the ark, that would be, for lack of a better word, neat, but will it really change any minds? Those who believe the Bible believe it in faith, not in scientific evidence, and those who do not believe it are likely to spin any evidence supporting Scripture by giving it some alternative explanation (like The Telegraph suggests).

Scripture makes it clear that the “wise men” of earth are not usually going to be the ones who will believe Scripture. Contrary to what might seem to make sense, these individuals are usually too smart for their own good, and they wind up “claiming to be wise” but in actuality are fools (Romans 1:22).

Cause and Effect

~ jbwatson ~ 1 Comment

Unless you live under the proverbial rock, you have surely heard about the David Petraeus’ resignation as director of the CIA. In his resignation letter Petraeus gave the main reason for his decision as “poor judgment.” There are accusations, rumors, speculations…the internet, newspapers and television talking heads are all staying plenty busy these days with this topic. I am not by any means suggesting that it is not a serious issue, especially if there was classified information that was compromised, but it also seems to me that there is an unusual amount of “shock and awe” being directed toward this situation when compared with similar stories in U.S. history.

Apparently, Cal Thomas agrees. In an editorial entitled “Changing standards?” posted yesterday on worldmag.com, Thomas asks why Petraeus had to resign. He (correctly) points out that Bill Clinton did not resign after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and Ted Kennedy never resigned despite a well-known reputation for philandering. After asking why Petraeus should have resigned, Thomas comments, “I am always amused when journalists use the words ‘sex scandal’ when writing about such things. Having abandoned most standards for what used to be called ‘upright behavior,’ culture now ‘tsk-tsks’ when someone is caught in a compromising position.”

A case-in-point would seem to be the statement made by HLN’s Kyra Phillips. As a reporter, she says she has had a good professional relationship with General Petraeus over the years, and that Petraeus and Phillips have had great mutual respect for each other. Then she said, “Needless to say, I’m shocked by his behavior.”

The Huffington Post ran an article on November 12 entitled, “David Petraeus Affair Causes Media Soul-Searching.” What were some of the details of this article, published by this definitely-left-leaning internet news site? Spencer Ackerman, a reporter for Wired, said that he had been drawn into “the cult of David Petraeus” and wrote,
“I played a role in the creation of the legend around David Petraeus.” He went on to say that, looking back now in light of the affair revelation, “he had given Petraeus a pass too many times.” The HP article said that the news of the affair was “greeted with an almost grief-stricken tone by many in the press.”

Now, again, I am absolutely not making light of the affair. I believe such behavior is a sin, and it violates the marriage vows that Petraeus took with his wife. But I think that Thomas raises legitimate questions, and I think the reaction of the media to this story is almost odd given the way other such stories are handled, and given the sexually-saturated society in which we live. Howard Kurtz ended his opinion piece on cnn.com on Monday like this: “News flash: Even top officials are human. They succumb to temptation. And they get a lot more sympathy in times of trouble from journalists they have befriended.” Totally true. Top officials are certainly just as human as everyone else, and while we often hold them a higher standard, the temptations that they face are perhaps stronger, and the opportunities for succumbing are perhaps greater, than those for “the rest of us.” But Kurtz is also right about favorable coverage–or it would make sense for him to be right. But is he? After all, the statements made by Phillips and Ackerman and others seem to suggest that they are judging Petraeus more harshly because of their relationship with him.

Later in his piece, Cal Thomas writes, “Culture promotes all sorts of pre- and extramarital activity as exciting, even commonplace. So how is a high-profile public official to know what is tolerable and what is an offense that can lead to resignation, firing, or impeachment? Divorce is another matter, as most spouses don’t tolerate adultery well.”

Valid points, all. Our culture glamorizes sexual relationships of all kinds, from premarital to extramarital to polygamous to open. There is a even an internet dating service targeted at married individuals; its motto is “Life is short. Have an affair.” The site has even offered a guarantee that its members will have an affair.

At the end of the day, this issue is about much more than David Petraeus (or Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy or any other well-known adulterer). The issue is really about our culture. Why do we think we can advertise, promote, display and glamorize certain behaviors and simultaneously express outrage when people actually live their lives that way? What could be more hypocritical? The answer is not to become more accepting of adultery or other behaviors we have celebrated. No, the answer is to return to teaching, modeling and encouraging personal integrity and values and consistency…and to show the real consequences of personal choices rather than those so often depicted by Hollywood, Madison Avenue and others. And ultimately, of course, the answer is a heart change…a recognition of our depravity, a recognition that we all mess up, and a recognition that we simply cannot fix that by ourselves.

New York, we have a problem…

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

My title, of course, is a play on the famous line from the Apollo 13 astronaut who informed Houston of the serious mechanical problem the shuttle crew had discovered…a problem that seriously jeopardized the likelihood that the crew would be able to return safely to earth. I chose to use that line as the title for this posting not to diminish the seriousness of the challenge faced by the Apollo 13 crew, but rather to emphasize the seriousness of the challenge faced by New York specifically, and America generally.

To what am I referring? New York’s CATCH initiative. CATCH stands for “Connecting Adolescents to Comprehensive Healthcare.” On its face that sounds noble, doesn’t it? After all, who would not want teenagers (or anyone, for that matter) to have access to comprehensive health care? Comprehensive means extensive, full or broad. Many people have comprehensive insurance on their automobiles, for example, so that a wide range of potential damage to the vehicle will be covered by insurance. The problem is, “healthcare” in America has been expanded way beyond the treatment of injuries and illnesses. In this instance, specifically, CATCH is a program that provides birth control pills and abortifacient Plan B to teenage girls as young as 14, and does not even tell the girls’ parents. The plan began in January 2011, and costs the city $100,000 per month. Not until the New York Post did an article on the program in September 2012 did it get much attention, though.

According to what I have read, CATCH marks the first time that Plan B has been provided to students directly by the city of New York (though privately run clinics at city high schools have apparently been offering it for several years). Called by some an “emergency contraceptive,” Plan B can prevent an embryo from being implanted if it is taken within 72 hours of intercourse. In other words, the pill causes an abortion, by killing a fertilized egg.

There are several interesting thing one discovers by exploring the web site for Plan B. First of all, it is advertised as “a simple, effective back-up plan” to “regular birth control.” The FAQ’s on the web site state that the drug contains the “the same hormone found in many birth control pills, levonorgestrel, to help prevent pregnancy. Plan B One-Step® works in a similar way to prevent pregnancy. Plan B One-Step® is not the abortion pill (RU-486), and should not affect or terminate an existing pregnancy.”

So what is the difference between Plan B and RU-486? A pregnancy is considered to be “existing” once the embryo has attached to the uterine wall. Since Plan B prevents that from happening, what the pill does is not considered abortion by definition, because there was never a pregnancy.

While this may be a true medical distinction, it is likely not one that comforts those who look at abortion as a moral issue rather than a woman’s personal choice about her body.

Even if one agrees with the technical definition used on the Plan B web site, though (which I don’t), this entire issue raises serious questions. First of all, the public schools in New York involved in this program supposedly informed all of the parents by letter and explained that they could opt out of the program. Remember the uproar over Texas governor Rick Perry’s defense of the HPV vaccination program? He argued that since parents could opt out, there was no problem. Many argued, however, that this was an overreach by the state, and that if anything parents should have the choice to opt in. I suggest that the same is true with CATCH.

Furthermore, even the Plan B web site states multiple times throughout the site that Plan B is available over the counter for consumers 17 and over, but that a prescription is required for anyone under 17. How does CATCH get around that? Doctors working with the schools sign prescriptions for the students who are given the pill. That should raise red flags all over the place! These doctors are being permitted to sign a prescription–more than likely for students they do not know and have never even seen before–and are not even required to inform the students’ parents. Yet, schools in New York (and around the country) are required to have signed parental consent on file to even give students an over-the-counter medication like Tylenol. So if a girl has a headache, the school can’t do anything without asking mom or dad first, but if she had sex last night and wants to make sure she doesn’t get pregnant, that’s fine.

So, back to the title, what is the problem? The problem is that the CATCH program is but a part of a growing trend in the U.S. that diminishes the sanctity of life and that allows children and medical personnel to bypass the parent in making serious, potentially-life-altering decisions, and unless we address this problem now, and reverse course, it will continue to get worse. And that should be a truly scary thought….

Unless and Until

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

In yesterday’s post I mentioned that there is one exception to the Christian’s responsibility to submit to the government. I also mentioned that I would “get to that in a moment,” and then I never did…so I am getting to it now.

When Peter and John stood before the Sanhedrin (the Jewish governing authority) they were told to stop preaching Christ. Peter and John responded by telling the Sanhedrin that they could not do that–that they had to obey God rather than man. This is Exhibit A in explaining when Christians are not only not responsible to yield to the government’s authority, but are in fact compelled to disobey the government. If you want it in one sentence, here it is: Christians are called to respect and submit to the governing authorities unless and until those authorities require something that God forbids or forbid something that God commands.

Peter and John are an excellent example, but there are others throughout the Scripture. Some of the most well-known Sunday school stories are about Old Testament saints refusing to yield to ungodly commands from human government. Daniel, for example, refused to follow a law which said he could pray only to the king, because he knew that obedience to that law would be disobedience to God. Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego refused to bow before the golden statue of Nebuchadnezzar because they knew that doing so would violate God’s commandments. Esther broke the law against approaching the king without permission because she knew that her responsibility to intercede on behalf of the Jews in defense of Haman’s evil scheming was greater than her responsibility to wait quietly and see if she was summoned.

Fortunately in America we have seldom been placed in positions of having to disobey the human government in order to obey God, but that time may come. There have been some examples, of course. Military chaplains have faced instructions that may require them to disobey a command from their superiors or to disobey God’s commands regarding homosexual marriage. Recent healthcare legislation has presented challenges to many Christian businesses and Catholic institutions regarding contraception and abortion. Some states have passed laws that some have argued could be construed as outlawing spanking, a practice many Christians believe the Bible teaches as a necessary part of raising godly children. These are some examples, but there are others, and there will likely be more to come. We must be vigilant to stay aware of human government’s attempts to compel actions or behaviors that violate God’s Word. If such laws exist, then and only then are Christians in the right to disobey those human laws.

Will disobedience to human laws bring consequences? It might. But we are not to fear the consequences that human governments can inflict upon us. When Daniel continued to pray to God he was thrown into a lion’s den. When his three friends refused to bow before the golden image, they were cast into a fiery furnace. In both of those instances God spared their lives. He may not always choose to do so, however; sometimes, for reasons we may not understand, God allows His people to suffer persecution, imprisonment, even death, at the hands of human government. Nevertheless, we need not fear. Matthew 10:28 commands us not to fear those who can kill the body but not the soul. Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego were spared, but they did not know they would be. They told Nebuchadnezzar that their God could spare them from death in the furnace, but even if He chose not to they still would not bow to his image. May we have the same power of convictions that those young men did.

In keeping with yesterday’s post, let me also mention that even when human governments may institute laws that violate God’s will for His people, there is no justification for speaking evil against the government. Yes, disobedience is then warranted, but it should be respectful disobedience. Daniel did not scream obscenities against the king or his conniving advisers when the law was passed requiring prayer to the king only. Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego did not announce to the crowd how stupid Nebuchadnezzar’s law was, or shout threats against the king, or even ask God to reign down punishment on the king or the nation. No; they calmly but confidently, respectfully but resolutely explained why they could not obey the king’s law. Their lives and actions were salt and light even in the midst of disobedience!

Let us pray that we will never have to choose to disobey the government in order to obey God, but let us pray as well that should we have to do so, that we will have the faith and courage to do so with dignity, confidence and respect.

Submissive to Rulers

~ jbwatson ~ 2 Comments

Today is election day…and contrary to what you might expect or even hope for I am not going to argue for or against any particular candidate. I’ll leave my clearly-political message to this: be sure you vote. While I have definite opinions and convictions and which candidate should be elected president, the tremendous thing about our country is that we have the right to disagree and the freedom to let our voice be heard.

I will also say this, though: regardless of who wins the election today, you and I have the responsibility to submit to the government tomorrow.

Titus 3:1-2b says, “Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one….” Paul, writing to Titus with instructions for pastoring the church in Crete, reminds us all that Christians have the responsibility to respect and submit to the government regardless of who is in office and whether or not we like him or her. This, of course, is not the only passage where Paul addresses this issue–he talks about it in Romans and in 1 Timothy. Peter addresses it, too. Jesus taught–and modeled–submission to human government.

It is interesting to consider the fact that throughout Scripture the followers of Christ encountered persecution and punishment from human government, yet no where does Scripture allow for speaking against the government or refusing to yield to its authority–with one exception, that I will get to in a moment.

Think about it… Jesus began His earthly life fleeing to Egypt because Herod–the government–wanted all of the infant and toddler boys killed in order to rid himself of this new king. At the end of His life, Jesus stood before Pilate and willingly accepted the death sentence. When Pilate asked Jesus, “Don’t you know that I hold your life in my hands–that I have the power to put you to death?” Jesus responded by informing Pilate that he had no power at all other than that which God allowed him to have.

If any New Testament believer had a legitimate reason to despise and resist human government it was Paul. He was imprisoned, stoned, whipped and more by governmental authorities because he preached the gospel. Peter, too, suffered at the hands of government; he was crucified upside down for his testimony. Yet, Jesus, Paul and peter all taught and modeled submission to government.

And not only submission, but respect. Notice that immediately after Paul tells Titus to remind his church to be submissive to authority, he says to speak evil of no one. As I mentioned in this space a few days ago, Christians sometimes struggle in this area. Many Christians tend to have very strong political opinions, which is fine. What is not fine is that many of those same Christians tend to speak in nasty, vicious, offensive ways about those on the other side of the debate. Just last week I read something written on a social networking site by a professing Christian that contained the most despicable, disrespectful, disgusting language I have ever seen directed at a politician. Such language only reflects poorly on the individual using it, it reflects poorly on Christ and damages the cause of Christ. It is difficult if not impossible to maintain an effective Christian testimony while simultaneously ripping someone apart verbally who is in a position of authority. In Titus 2 Paul instructs older men, older women, younger men, younger women and slaves regarding their responsibilities. In each instance Paul also points out that the main reason for acting as he described is to avoid giving opportunity to attack Christ and the message of Christianity. The same principle holds true here regarding political speech.

So when you wake up tomorrow morning, regardless of who the president is, remember that he is only in office because God has allowed him to be. Remember that the office itself is worthy of respect. Remember that God has called us to respect and submit to those in positions of authority and yes, that even includes presidents we did not vote for. And if the candidate you wanted to win did not, thank God anyway for the privilege you had to vote, remember to pray for the president…and resist any temptation to speak evil of him.