A Matter of the Heart?

Recently, Keith Obermann of MSNBC make a statement about Proposition 8 in California, the proposition to amend the California state constitution to redefine marriage as between one man and one woman, which passed by a 53% majority of the 73% of the population that voted for it. The Proposition actually adds the statement "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." to the constitution. Arizona and Florida also voted to amend their state constitutions to recognize marriage as only the union of one man and one woman.

(You can view his comments by going to Youtube and typing Keith Obermann Proposition 8)

Looking at the colored map showing the difference, I am surprised that the vote was as close as it was. Most of the counties in the state showed a "yes " vote for the proposition. The counties that voted "no" are mostly coastal counties, of which Los Angeles and San Francisco are included. Big surprise.

Mr Obermann was deeply disappointed by this vote and asked "why do you care?". He seems to think that this is a situation of the heart. There is an old adage, "The heart wants what the heart wants." While this may be true, does our heart always know what is best for us. There is an even older adage which states, "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?". This comes from the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 17:9). who was God's man to speak to a nation in a time of great turmoil. He seemed to know a few things that Keith Obermann doesn't.

One is that we do not always know what is best for us. It may feel good at the time, but the end results we simply cannot see. Just because I want something, does not mean it will benefit me. And as much as my heart will ache over not getting what I want, does that in and of itself justify it as a right? And does this give me the right to enforce my world view on the other 300 million residents of our country? Keith Obermann seems to think that it does.

Mr Obermann speaks about the impermanence of love in this world. Does he understand that a marriage certificate does not change that impermanence? Just because the state or government officially recognizes your union does not mean that it will last. And, by their very nature, homosexual relationships have a much higher rate of dissolution than do heterosexual relationships. The homosexual lifestyle, due to the promiscuity that permeates it, breeds impermanence, with a study showing 43% of white male homosexual having had sex with 500 or more partners and 28% of the same group having had sex with 1000 or more partners. Few homosexual relationships last more than two or three years with many reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.

Mr. Obermann stated that this amendment denies homosexual couples the same opportunity, the opportunity for a permanent relationship that married couples have. To the best of my understanding, there is no law in any of the fifty states in the union limiting the happiness or the permanence of any relationship, be it homosexual or heterosexual, right now. In other words, as long as the people involved want to stay together and work at it to make it mutually beneficial for both parties, they can go on living together, loving each other and being together.

Another point Mr. Obermann makes is that marriage has already be redefined a couple of time, once where interracial couples can now marry, and during the slave years, when a married couple was not married for "as long as you both shall live" but until they were separated by death or the sale of one or the other partner. But even in those marriages it was still always between one man and one woman.

Marriage as an institution has always had a deeper meaning than just a government recognition of a spiritual/sexual union that produces children. It has cultural and societal underpinnings that would be seriously compromised if the basic definition were changed.

Even Canadian scholar Paul Nathanson, who himself is a homosexual, states, "Because homosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, ... every human society has had to promote it actively...Heterosexuality is fostered by a cultural norm..." It seems to me that if homosexuality is such a natural relationship, why does it have to be actively promoted? But I digress. This is not a discussion about the pros and cons of homosexuality, but about whether we should change our culture to adapt to a minority of people in our country.

No one that I know of wants to stop people from being happy. Again, the issue here is NOT other people's happiness, but how a small minority wants to change our cultural views. The homosexual agenda, and yes, there is an agenda here. There always is. The homosexual agenda is not just to enjoy the benefits that traditional family values enjoys. Gay couples already enjoy all the legal and financial freedoms and benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. The homosexual agenda is to make homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle not only equal to the heterosexual lifestyle, but also to promote it as a viable alternative to children and young people. This is not a "live and let live" agenda that homosexual activists have in mind.

Studies have shown that children that are raised with no rules, or rules that can change on a whim, live lives that are less secure and less productive. When the institutions we have known for centuries become nullified because of the whim of a minority of people, our children are the ones to suffer for it.

Mr. Obermann is correct in one aspect. This is a heart issue. And the good people of California, Arizona, and Florida stated, by their vote that they love this country too much to let a small group of people change the definition of an institution that has defined our nation.

We're More Famous Than Jesus

This week, the Vatican officially forgave John Lennon for his comment in 1966 to a London newspaper about the Beatles being more famous than Jesus Christ. Recognizing that this was a youthful boast of a young man who had suddenly come into enormous popularity and fame, the Vatican's newspaper went on to praise the band and their contribution to music and culture.

This was 42 years ago and Christians all over the world reacted with great indignation, having "Beatles burning parties" where albums and Beatles paraphernalia were tossed into the fire in protest. These bonfires were especially popular in the United States, especially in the southern states, where some young evangelist would denounce the band as a "tool of Satan" to encourage their young people to join in the event. I remember watching those bonfires on the nightly news in Houston, Texas, when I was seven years old. And I actually remember, when I was stationed in England in the Air Force, a friend telling me that the Beatles were all demon-possessed. I did not believe it then and I do not believe it today. I was then, and am still, a big Beatles fan.

The real problem with all the hype then is that John Lennon was absolutely correct. Not only were the Beatles more famous, they were also more popular than Jesus Christ. At least the real Jesus Christ. The real Jesus Christ makes demands on people. He is not a "live and let live" type of God. And He is not okay with a lot of the stuff we do because a lot of the stuff we do is called "sin". John Lennon said, "All you need is love". Jesus made, and still makes, tougher demands on us. Jesus even defines what constitutes true, sincere love. Loving your neighbor as yourself, getting up in the middle of the night to give our neighbor a loaf of bread, protecting those least able to protect themselves, giving your life away and living a life where "whether you eat, or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God." (1 Corinthians 10:31)

Those little things called the Ten Commandments? Jesus kind of meant them. But you say, "Wait a minute. Jesus wasn't even born then." Well, if Jesus is called the Son of God (Luke 1:35, 1 Corinthians 1:9), was crucified because he made himself equal with God (John 5:18, Philippians 2:6), and without Him nothing was made that was made (John 1:3), I guess you could say that Jesus was God incarnate (John 1:1), or God in human flesh. So, Jesus, being God, gave Moses the Ten Commandments. After all, God said in the beginning. ""Let us make man in our image, in our likeness..." (Genesis 1:26) He was not speaking in the "royal " vernacular. Basic theology teaches God in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All three are separate, individual personalities. And all three are completely, 100% God.

Notice that they are not called the "Ten Suggestions for a Happy, Healthy Life", even though if you follow them that will probably be the result. Do not lie. Do not steal. Do not overtly desire your neighbor's stuff. Do not commit adultery. Do not murder. Treat you parents with honor and respect. Honor God and the Sabbath Day to keep it holy. Not exactly about feelings and happiness, is it?

Jesus not only makes demands on our actions in life, He gets audacious to take it a bit further to make it about our thoughts and motives. Why we do something is equally important as to doing the deed itself. He equates lust with the actual act of adultery and unjustified anger with murder. Your personal feelings were not exactly a high priority on what Jesus spoke about. And He never once said, "If you feel like it..."

John Lennon only made it about what we did and felt. He said "Imagine there's no heaven, It's easy if you try, No hell below us, Above us only sky, Imagine all the people, Living for today". He said, "All you need is love". He said, "All we are saying is give peace a chance." Those directions are easy to follow. Especially since there are no specific commands to actually do anything. Live however you like as long as you have good, positive feelings towards those around you.

As Christians, we get our dander up pretty easily about some of the dumbest things. We get upset if you make rude comments about us or call us names because of our faith and we call that "persecution". I recall another friend telling me about a time when he was struggling with his relationship with God and he went to his pastor to complain about God. In the conversation, he made some comment about the people in the church, and although his pastor would not defend God's honor (not that God's honor ever needs to be defended), he rose up quickly to defend the honor of the people in his church. He thought that was a bit strange.

Christians in the United States back in 1966 were a large part of the Beatlemania crowd and did not want one part of their society (John Lennon) talking down about another part of their society (Jesus). It's kind of like family. I can talk about my family, but you better not. They just got their feeling hurt. And they reacted like hurt people rather than look inside and see if what was being said contained at least a particle of truth. The sad thing is that most Christians have never come to grips with the reality of who Jesus is and the demands he makes on our live if we choose to "take up our cross and follow after Him." And until we do that, popular music groups will always be more famous and more popular than Jesus.

Election Results Part II

On August 28, 1963, (my 4th birthday, by the way) Dr. Martin Luther King made probably his most famous speech in the civil rights movement, his "I have a dream" speech on the Mall in Washington, DC. One of the more poignant and most quoted lines of that speech goes as follows:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

These are important words that we, as Americans, as human beings, should always remember. It does not really matter who spoke them. Dr. Martin Luther King was simply the person God chose to use to announce this simple truth to men of all color, in all lands where there is the heartache for freedom. We all desire true justice, where every person is given the chance to be free of the condemnation and constraints based on frivolous aspects of who we are, such as the color of our skin, the nation we come from, the religious beliefs we hold, or our gender.

I wish that I could say that this past election saw that 45 year old vision finally come true. I am afraid this did not happen. Barak Obama was not elected because he was the best choice for President of the United States. Of the two candidates for this office, America really did not have much of a choice. The choice, in fact, was really which candidate would do the least amount of damage in the next four years. The sad fact is, Barak Obama's character is pretty much unknown to the majority of the population. He was not judged on the basis of his character, BUT precisely on the color of his skin. Black voters voted him in because he was black and white voters voted him because they did not want to be labeled racist for not voting for a black man.

Now, if a white person votes for a white candidate over an equally or more qualified black candidate only because of the color of his skin, this is a vote based on race. The Left would label this racist and the voter would be labeled racist. Is there any difference if a black voter votes for a black candidate over an equally or more qualified white candidate because of the color of his skin? We are talking Goose and Gander here. You know, what's good for the goose...

Now, I personally have no animosity towards President-Elect Obama. Nor do I have any great enthusiasm for John McCain. These are actually not my words, but the words of my pastor. The thought is still true. I have not problem with a black President. If J.C. Watts, congressman from Oklahoma, was running for president, he would have had my full endorsement and my vote. If Clarence Thomas ran for President (I do not know why he would even consider it over the amount of influence he has on the Supreme Court), I would have voted for him. Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, or Alan Keyes, all distinguished black men, would have received my vote.

I have listened to these black men speak and their character is easily on display for all to see. However, President-Elect Obama has spent the past two years running for president and has successfully hidden, with the help of the main stream media outlets, his true character from everybody. However, January 20th, that all ends. In the Senate, Barak Obama can only do so much damage. But in the White House, the amount of damage he can do will take decades to undo, if it is able to be undone at all. I fully believe that in the next four years, we are going to find out things about Barak H. Obama that will make William Jefferson Clinton look like a boyscout. And our economy will end up looking worse than Jimmy Carter's when he was left office in 1981, replaced by Ronald Wilson Reagan.

But, after all, he made history. He is the first black man elected president of the United States. I think that Dr. King would say now, "I still have a dream."

Election Results

This election was not about the issues. Probably a very small amount of people even knew what the issues even were this time around. And if they did know, most of them did not even care. This election was probably more like "American Idol" than it was about the future of this country. That may sound kind of extreme, but desperate time require desperate words and desperate actions.

Americans showed what they really cared about and who they have become in this election. We have always been a self-centered nation. We don't have championship football games, we have the "Super Bowl". We don't have baseball championships, we have the "World Series". In some ways, this is not such a bad idea, being ego-centric. We are the leaders in most technologies developed in the free world. And when a good idea takes off here, we generally send this technology around the world. Why else would the rest of the world try so hard to come to this country? This is, after all, the land of opportunity where if a person works hard and invests him or herself, they can succeed. We even have the right to fail and start all over again.

One aspect of our selfishness we have unfortunately exported around the globe is the thought that there are no consequences to our actions. Every action has a consequence, whether it be intentional or unintentional. The fact that a woman can casually extinguish a human life just so she will not be inconvenienced is this thought taken to the extreme. A great book that NARAL and Planned Parenthood DO NOT want you to read is "Forbidden Grief; The Unspoken Pain of Abortion" by Theresa Burke with David Reardon. It speaks of the actual physical and emotional damage that women who have abortions endure for the upkeep of the politics of death. Even Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the last surviving founder of NARAL said that abortion was the biggest mistake he ever made and the greatest hoax ever pulled on our nation.

Sadly, in America, which claims to be a Christian nation, 55% of Catholics voted for a man who will do his best to undo all the strides made in the past 35 years to prevent the deaths of the truly innocent even though such actions defy cardinal principles of the Catholic faith. Even 25% of Evangelicals who claim to be "born again", and believe the the Bible is God's Word to His children, and which strictly prohibits murder, voted for Obama and against life. Now that may be considered an inflammatory statement, but the time for mincing words is over. If you call yourself Christian, Evangelical, Catholic, or even spiritual, it's time to put your life where your mouth is. Put up or shut up. Science is proving on a daily basis that the "fetus" is actually a human being. And all the rhetoric in the world will not change that.

All those enlightened people who continue to believe otherwise contrary to the facts need to open their eyes. And for you etymology, or word study, buffs, the word "fetus" is the Latin word for offspring or hatching of young. A pregnant mare has a fetus, an offspring of a horse, or colt, developing within it's womb. A pregnant female dog has a fetus, a litter of offspring, or puppies, in it's womb. Therefore, (or ergo, Latin for therefore) a pregnant woman has a fetus, or offspring of a human, a baby, in her womb. Women don't say, "My fetus just kicked!". They say, "My baby just kicked!". And with today's sonograms being able to view the baby in 3D, and in color, even a 4-year-old knows a baby when it sees one. So why don't the "enlightened ones" see it? Or do they simply choose not to? I guess that your political point of view can blind you from even blatant truth. No wonder Planned Parenthood fights the showing of a sonogram to a potential abortion recipient. Something like 85% of mothers who see their child in a sonogram decide not to have an abortion and kill their baby. And that is bad for business.

Which brings me back to what we have become. This is the second time we have elected a president using our wallets for our moral compass. And when you place your finances at the beginning of all your decisions, without regard to those who will be effected by your decision, you truly have become morally bankrupt. You might have monetary wealth, but what is the true cost of your belief system? There are consequences to the inevitible actions that come from your belief system. And they will be in effect long after all your possessions have turned to ashes.