The Midwest Region Leadership of the Society of Christian Philosophers, Richard Swinburne, and Homosexuality

Leave a comment

Distinguished Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne spoke at the Midwest Regional Meeting of the Society of Christian philosophers and defended the view that homosexual acts were objectively disordered and morally wrong. This has been the traditional Christian position from the beginning, until pseudo-sophisticated contemporary “Christians” decided to oppose traditional Christian morality. For Swinburne’s sin against “diversity” and political correctness, Michael Rea, president of the Midwest Region of the SCP, on his Facebook page, sharply criticized Swinburne, stating that Swinburne’s views “are not that of the SCP” and that he (Rea) is committed to “diversity” and “inclusion.” Disappointingly, the Evangelical philosopher Tom Morris and the Thomist, Eleonore Stump, praised Rea’s post. The latter is a particular disappointment, for I have long admired her treatment of St. Thomas, and in the past she was wholly orthodox (with a small “o”) in her beliefs. I hope I am misunderstanding her point.

Rea’s statement that Swinburne’s views do not reflect those of the SCP is misleading–Christina van Dyke argued in a response to Rea’s post that the point was that the SCP does not have official positions on issues.  Van Dyke’s statement is disingenuous, since the tone of Professor Rea’s message was clearly negative toward Professor Swinburne’s positions, and the sense was that any member of the SCP should agree with Rea’s commitment to “inclusion” and “diversity.”

It is a shame that Christian philosophers have decided to exclude people because of their positions on issues, clearly a form of exclusion and a denial of diversity. I hope that orthodox Christians are not forced to form their own separate organization for the protection of their academic freedom, but they may be driven to that point.

So here is my own heresy against political correctness on the issue of homosexual practice: Homosexual orientation itself is not sinful, but is contrary to nature (objectively disordered). However, acting on homosexual desires is morally wrong and a sin against God. It is not the worst of sins; people who hate homosexuals are sinning far worse than homosexuals who act on their feelings. But bad behavior by Christians who oppose homosexual behavior does not make homosexual practice right. That has been the historic teaching of the church, and despite Pope Francis’ ambiguous statements, it is still the official position of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the Eastern Orthodox Churches and a number of conservative Protestant denominations. I will never apologize for this position.

 

Curt Shilling and Corporate Support of Perversion

Leave a comment

It is no surprise to me that ESPN fired Curt Shilling over his Facebook post criticizing “transgendered” people. While the photo Shilling used was a bit risque, his comments were in line with natural law and common sense. Despite those academics and leftists who believe in the “social construction of reality” and that “sex is biological, but gender is socially constructed,” reality continues to rise above the grave the Left has tried to dig for it.

Leftists claim that since there are some people born as hermaphrodites, and the doctor “chooses” their gender for them, this means that gender distinctions are wholly social in nature. However, this is not the case–it is inaccurate to look for standards of normality in the aberrant. No one does this in ordinary life. If a child is born with a heart defect, no one says, “This is normal, so we should accept the child as is and do nothing for her.” Instead, surgeons correct the problem. If a schizophrenic cannot function due to paranoid delusions, we do not say, “That’s just normal for him; we can let him be as is and protect his schizophrenic status.” Instead, we give him medication to regulate his serotonin levels. If someone says, “I was born as a man but feel like a woman,” then the best thing for that person is treatment of his delusion rather than celebrating his alleged “self-chosen gender.”

Gender is sex. That is a biological fact, and no amount of slick language by social constructionists can change that face. Transgendered people are pretending they are something they are not. They are men play-acting at being women and vice-versa. Their behavior is a perversion of human nature. The contemporary “acceptance” of such perversion as “normal” is insane and a denial of reality.

Mr. Shilling’s comments, while stated in rather colloquial language, were on the spot. They are true. ESPN cannot hide that truth by firing Mr. Shilling. ESPN and other multinational corporations have become supporters of perversion. They oppose North Carolina keeping the common-sense distinction between men’s and women’s restrooms. They bully states who pass such laws or who try to pass such laws, attempting to force them into submission–or they make policies forcing their radical social agenda on the public. An example is Target’s recent decision to allow “transgendered” men and women to use restrooms of the opposite sex.

As James Kalb has noted, Corporations desire human beings to be machines who can be molded at will into tools for the corporations to make money. They promote a libertine attitude toward perversion because people who “exclude” get in the way of a “harmonious workforce,” that is, a group of interchangeable parts.

States must resist such corporate pressure. North Carolina is doing the right thing in holding firm to the law requiring separate restrooms for the sexes. It is time for states where most people still hold to some kind of natural law view of human beings to resist the corporations. Support small business and much as possible. Stop giving mega corporations tax breaks. If companies bully over “the transgendered,” ban those companies from doing business in the state. We are submissive to corporate support of evil because we have willingly submitted ourselves as de facto slaves to powerful multinational corporations. It is time for people who have not been brainwashed by academia, the media, and Hollywood to stand against corporations who desire to force the anti-natural down people’s throats.

ESPN, like most media, is controlled by Leftists who are reshaping the United States into a twisted wasteland of moral relativism and sexual perversion. Mr. Shilling should be proud of standing for the truth, even though he lost his job. If enough people stand for the truth, perhaps corporate profits can be cut, and that is the one factor that matters to corporate executives. This was shown when Cracker Barrel reversed its decision to avoid carrying “Duck Dynasty” products after Phil Robertson’s statements against homosexual activity. Many of its customers were Christians, and they stood up in mass against the new policy–and their voices mattered. More Christians and other people of all backgrounds who oppose sanctioning perversion should stand up to corporate moguls and say, “No more!”

How Obergefell Really Happened – Crisis Magazine

Leave a comment

Without a doubt Obergefell was crammed down our throats, as were all the lower court decisions that overturned 34 state laws and constitutional changes voted upon by citizens. But, it is hard to see that Obergefell would have ever happened if the ground had not been prepared, if those five Supreme Court justices could not …

Source: How Obergefell Really Happened – Crisis Magazine

A Failed Experiment

Leave a comment

On June 26, 2015, the United States of America became a failed political and social experiment. With the legalization of homosexual marriage by the United States Supreme Court, the destruction of the American family via law came to final fruition. The destruction began with easy divorce, which had already occurred in some jurisdictions as early as the late nineteenth century. This trend was completed by “no-fault” divorce in the 1970s. Easy access to new birth control techniques led to a separation of marriage from procreation. Such separation need not have occurred; society should have affirmed that a marriage should be open to children at some point even if birth control were used at other times in the marriage. That did not happen, and marriage became a matter of “feelings” rather than a sacred institution surrounded by particular rules and expectations. The only rules and expectations now allowed are feelings of “love;” thus the obscene phrase used in some contemporary weddings that the couple stay married “as long as love shall last.” Marriage became separated from permission to have sexual intercourse, and millions of people took that point to its logical conclusion and practiced premarital sex. Abortion was legalized in case birth control failed or was not used. Longer-lasting relationships became what used to be called “shacking up.” With marriage only a voluntary contract involving love between two people, the next logical step was the legalization of marriage between homosexuals. The majority opinion by SCOTUS followed the trends in societal “development” to their logical conclusion.

The social harm caused by easy divorce and rampant illegitimacy is clear to anyone who is not blind. Rising crime rates, children without a sense of identity or purpose, heartbroken spouses and children after a divorce, abortion used merely as birth control, the loss of a coherent sense of family, the redefinition of “family” to include almost any voluntary association, and lonely old people are all the products of this social revolution.

Modern people believe that they can redefine natural relationships by the exercise of their wills. Thus, many moderns believe that if they call gay unions “marriages” that they are marriages. For thousands of years human societies have defined marriage as between a man and a women (or a man and women or a woman and men in polygamous and polyandrous societies). Marriage was rightly thought to be a natural relationship, and at its best this understanding emphasized both procreation and the union between one man and one woman. Marriage cannot be as easily separated from procreation as the so-called “progressives” claim. This is because a man and a woman are essential for the formation of new human life. Even if homosexuals adopt or use artificial insemination to have children related at least to one partner, a woman must carry the child to term. There are differences between men and women’s emotional responses to children that are complementary to one another. The terms “maternal instinct” and “maternal bond” did not arise out of mere imagination. There have already been studies revealing that children of homosexual couples do not fare as well emotionally as children from a man-woman home. The Left tries to discount or suppress these studies–or they attribute the difficulty of such children to societal prejudice against homosexuals–yet any violation of the natural order will harm people–inevitably.

The United States (as well as Canada and some countries in Western Europe) are engaging in a social experiment that is bound to fail. The fall of Western society may not take a year or five years, but without a fundamental turning back from the course it is taking its collapse is inevitable. President Putin of Russia understands this and understands that rampant homosexuality is one of the causes (though not by any means the only or main cause) of Russia’s population decline.

Advocates of homosexual marriage become angry when opponents use the slippery slope argument, but they should take it more seriously. If marriage is only related to “love” to “feelings” between two individuals, why can’t a fifty year old man and a fifteen year old girl get married if they are in love? How about children even younger? Why can’t a man marry his sister or mother or aunt? What about animals? Some people are fond of animals and engage in sexual intercourse with them. In Western Europe, animal brothels, in which people pay for sex with animals, are becoming more common. While everyone may condemn animal brothels, what if the animal is a beloved pet who does not mind sex with the human being. Why not hold a marriage ceremony? A chimpanzee can use sign language; it might even “assent” to a marriage. These are indeed horrible things, but their legalization follows from the same logic that generated the legalization of homosexual marriage.

There is also a danger that traditional Christians who oppose homosexual marriage will be persecuted for their beliefs. What if a homosexual “married” couple tries to join a church that opposes homosexual practice? Suppose this couple is told of the church’s teaching and continues to affirm that they are right and the church is wrong. If the church excommunicates or disfellowships the couple, can it be sued for discrimination? Can a minister or rabbi that refuses to marry a gay couple be arrested? Given the invention of a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, is the written constitution really a guarantee against laws discriminating against traditional Christians and Jews (and Muslims as well, though the Left tends to make them an exception since they are not Christian)?

The country in which I was reared no longer exists. In the meantime, I will in my garden, pick my crops, can, and be outside in a world where natural law operates despite human will. I will go to church and worship the Trinitarian God. These things help me keep sane in a world that has gone mad.

The Supreme Court Abuses Power Yet Again

Leave a comment

English: The United States Supreme Court, the ...

English: The United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States, in 2009. Top row (left to right): Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer, and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Bottom row (left to right): Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Antonin G. Scalia, and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Although I can understand why the Supreme Court would invalidate the Defense of Marriage Act (marriage has been traditionally a state, rather than a federal, matter), I do not understand its voiding of California’s Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage. That act was passed by the majority of the people of the state of California–yet the majority of the Supreme Court (with Justice Kennedy getting up on the left side of bed this time) once again imposed its radical view of morality onto the American people.This ruling is a clear violation of state’s rights (if the term has any meaning left after being gutted by the federal courts). With the 14th Amendment imposing de facto slavery on the states to federal decrees, any other state that tries to ban same sex marriage will probably not be able to do so without its law being overturned by dictatorial decree. Any attempt to defy federal law via nullification will result in a stiff monetary–or worse–penalty by the overarching federal government onto the states. The United States is, in effect, a dictatorship in which the majority of people have been overwhelmed by elitist academics, Hollywood radicals, and their supporters in government. The federal government has the long arm of power enforced by tax policy, by federal law enforcement agencies, and by perhaps one of the greatest threats to American freedom, a large standing army.

The Supreme Court ruling affirmed a lower court ruling that described moral views on marriage as private matters not to be imposed on all people. To call marriage, a fundamental institution of all human societies, a private matter and not a matter of public policy is absurd. The radical individualism ensconced in the Enlightenment has finally come home to roost.

Traditionalists of all religions and ideologies who oppose this ruling may find themselves subject to persecution in the future. In academia, such persecution is already in place in some colleges, universities, and in the public school system. The radicals who, since 1969, have been pushing a homosexual lifestyle down the American people’s throats (pun intended), have won politically. They should focus on changing the culture, and if persecuted, pray and live virtuous lives, as the ancient Christians in the Roman Empire attempted to do. At least Christians know that evil–whether it be the evil of federal abuse of power or of radicals finishing off the destruction of traditional marriage that had already begun with easing divorce laws in the nineteenth century–will not finally triumph over good.

In a fallen world, even the best of intentions for good government go wrong over time. The United States has outspent its time as a republic, and with the virtue of people falling and the family failing, the end of the nation as those of my age has known it is only a matter of time (and a short time, I believe). May God strengthen those who have not bowed their knees to Baal.

The Tennessee Democratic Party and Mark Clayton

Leave a comment

Democratic Donkey - Icon

The Tennessee Democratic Party disavowed its own candidate for the United States senate in Tennessee, Mark Clayton. The party claimed that Clayton was a member of “an anti-gay hate group,” Public Advocate of the United States, based in Falls Church, Virginia. Now Clayton is a member of Public Advocate, but there is nothing I have seen when looking over their website and Facebook pages that indicates this it is a “hate group.” It defends the traditional view that marriage is between one man and one woman and opposes the agenda of the homosexual rights groups. While to the liberal elite, those may seem to be extreme positions, much of middle American and the majority of Evangelical Christians would accept them. However, numbers do not make a position true or false. The problem is that the left labels any group that opposes the homosexual agenda to push accepting their lifestyle as morally acceptable as a “hate group.” The Southern Poverty Law Center, a group composed of Marxists and radical leftists, has a history of labeling legitimate organizations as bigoted. The SPLC has labeled Public Advocate as a hate group, but it does not follow from their labeling that it is a hate group. There is no evidence that Public Advocate hates homosexual people. They do believe that practicing homosexuality is morally wrong, which was the position of the Christian Church from the beginning until the late twentieth century–and even now, the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and most Evangelical Protestant would agree that homosexual orientation is unnatural and its practice sinful. Is the SPLC willing to label the Roman Catholic Church as a “hate group”? What about the Orthodox Churches? Evangelical Protestant churches? In the case of Public Advocate I would take the SPLC’s condemnation with a grain of salt. “Hate” has become a political tool to try to silence opposition to the radical left’s attempt to reconstruct society in its own image. The Tennessee Democratic Party has become part of that radical leftist agenda by condemning Mr. Clayton. I am a registered Republican, but if I lived in Tennessee again, I would vote for Mr. Clayton above the Republican candidate Mr. Corker, not just due to this issue but due to Mr. Clayton’s consistent small government position. It is a sad day when a major political party can slander a man and an organization due to the party’s radicalism.

Why I am Eating at Chick-Fil-A Tomorrow (August 1)

2 Comments

Chick-fil-A

Chick-fil-A (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Dan Cathy, owner of the Chick-Fil-A chain of restaurants, recently voiced support for the traditional view of marriage as being only between a man and a woman. Because of this, some supporters of same-sex marriage called for a boycott of Chick-Fil-A, and the chain has been banned in Boston, Chicago, San Francisco and at Indiana University South Bend–those are the places about which I know–there may be others. Now any citizen who wants to boycott Chick-Fil-A because they disagree with Mr. Cathy’s views may do so–that is that citizen’s right as an American. Any citizen who wishes to eat at Chick-Fil-A for the food or to support free speech can do so without penalty. Frankly, I am tired of the intimidation tactics used by some supporters of same-sex marriage to try to close any public debate on the topic by force. Any officer in any company has the right to state the principles behind the organization. The attempt by some governments to punish Chick-Fil-A is the product of the totalitarian view that government can force a private business to go against its fundamental values–or at least to remain silent. One good thing about the backlash is that it has finally awakened not only conservative Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others who oppose same-sex marriage; it has also forced secular civil libertarians to rethink their views or at least squirm in their seats when they support a forced ban of Chick-Fil-A. The problem with traditional Christians is that too many are not willing to make the same effort in the culture wars as those who support sexual immorality and a false view of marriage. Perhaps from now on they will be more alert to the threats to their freedom of expression by the secularists and revisionists “Christians” who support same-sex marriage.

It is to support freedom of expression for Mr. Cathy and others in business that I will follow Mike Huckabee‘s lead and purchase food at Chick-Fil-A tomorrow. Those on the other side of the issue who wish to peacefully protest without harassing customers may, of course, do so. This is a small step for traditional Christians who are in more danger of having their freedoms taken away than they realize, not only by politicians in the Obama administration but also by means of intimidation and bullying by opponents of traditional Christianity. I am proud that Mr. Cathy has been open about his Christian views. Other Christians should follow his good example–and I encourage all people who support freedom of expression to eat at Chick-Fil-A tomorrow, August 1.

Older Entries