Archive for the 'Politically Incorrect' Category

Freedom of the press

Tuesday, March 28th, 2006 at 6:12 pm

In Amendment I of the Bill of Rights, we read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is the oft misinterpreted part of the U.S. Constitution in regards to the separation of church and state. At this time, I will not address the misapplication of this amendment to prevent any public demonstration of Christianity. The part I want to focus on now is the freedom of the press.

The freedom of the press has been wrongly applied in today’s society as well. Today, people think the newspaper reporters and TV crews should be granted unrestricted access to just about everything. This was not the intent of the First Amendment. In fact, it probably wasn’t even a consideration. Our founding fathers passed the First Amendment because of religious concerns. They did not want to establish a federal church like the Church of England (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion). As part of this concern, Baptist preachers wanted to be able to preach the gospel without being arrested as they frequently were during colonial times (…or abridging the freedom of speech). They also wanted freedom to print Bibles and Gospel tracts – which is what “freedom of the press” was intended to protect. Freedom of the press was not meant as a protection to newspapers, magazines, radio, or television. Baptists wanted protection from the government so they could print the Bible and print Gospel tracts.

We need to understand the U.S. Constitution based on what the writers intended – not based on what it means to us today.

by Gordy

More stem cell success – with adult stem cells

Tuesday, December 13th, 2005 at 7:19 am

According to this article, researchers show promising results from adult stem cells – not the controversial embryonic stem cells which require the destruction of a life prior to harvesting.

Hopefully, now people will begin to see that respecting life is the best route to take.

by Gordy

See if you can pass the test no one else has

Monday, November 28th, 2005 at 4:42 pm

Many have tried, but no one has passed this test. Can you?

Take the test now – just 10 short questions.

by Gordy

Stem Cell Success Again!

Wednesday, September 28th, 2005 at 9:30 pm

As was the case on an earlier post I made about a successful use of stem cells, this case also was a successful use of adult stem cells. World Net Daily reports on a paraplegic woman who was treated with umbilical cord stem cells (considered adult stem cells). Just over two weeks after the treatment, feeling and movement had been restored in her hips.

The truly amazing part about this story though is that we won’t see any mention of it in the mainstream media – that might hurt their agenda of killing babies for the sake of harvesting embryonic stem cells.

by Gordy

Protecting the children

Thursday, June 2nd, 2005 at 2:48 pm

One activist group is calling on people to help “protect kids from pentagon recruiters.” This is in reference to part of the No Child Left Behind program that lets military recruiters in to the schools. Now, I find this kind of silly. To allow a group in to our schools to encourage children to perform a very honorable duty in serving their country is a great danger but to allow groups in to our schools to encourage our children to engage in risky sexual behaviour (sodomy, promiscuous sex, etc.) is perfectly acceptable? Do we have our definition of danger mixed up?

by Gordy

Myth of Global Warming

Thursday, May 5th, 2005 at 8:40 pm

We keep hearing over and over and over again about the coming doom caused by global warming brought about by the plague we call humanity. People are treated as a disease on planet Earth. Science tells us global warming is true. Or does it? Read this article disputing the "fact" of global warming.

Evolution is treated in like manner. The media and atheists push evolution on us and say it is a proven fact but they try to hide all the problems and censor anything they don’t want people to know.

by Gordy

Respect for Life

Saturday, March 19th, 2005 at 8:10 pm

She wouldn’t want to live like this. Is that a good reason to kill someone? Apparently, Michael Schiavo thinks that is a good reason to kill his wife and he even has judges who agree with him. His wife Terri is unable to speak – but she is not brain-dead. She is not even in a coma. She is conscious and breathing on her own. She responds to her family. She only needs a feeding tube for nourishment. Mr. Schiavo claims his wife once told him that she would not wish to live in such a state – presumably giving him permission to remove the feeding tube. Even though she supposedly said this – while she was in good health, does he know for sure she hasn’t changed her mind now that she finds herself in this situation? How many times have people made a statement about how they would handle a particular situation and then when actually faced with the situation handled it differently? When the tube was removed, it has been reported that someone told her that if she wanted to live that she needed to express that. She mustered all her strength and blurted out “I want!” This woman has a desire to live. She has a right to life. Her husband wants her dead so he doesn’t have to live in the guilt of his adulterous affair. If Congress does not intervene and she dies because the tube was removed, her blood will be upon her husband’s hands. Michael Schiavo will be guilty of murder.

by Gordy

Evolution is a religion

Saturday, January 22nd, 2005 at 11:28 am

Recently, a U.S. District Judge ordered the removal of a sticker from Cobb County, Georgia science textbooks. The following is the text of the sticker that the Cobb County, Georgia Board of Education had developed and approved for placement on the science textbooks:

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

The judge ordered the removal of the sticker because he claims it is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. This sticker does no such thing. It simply stated the truth. After all, don’t scientists claim they approach their work with an open mind, study the evidence carefully, and critically consider the results of their experiments? Isn’t that what scientists do? This ruling reveals the real nature of belief in evolution – evolution is a religion believed by its adherents not because there is overwhelming, hard evidence to support it but rather because they know if evolution is not true there is only one alternative and that alternative is unacceptable to them.

It’s time our courts quit forcing the religion of evolution on us.

by Gordy

Stem Cell Success!

Tuesday, December 7th, 2004 at 3:26 pm

This article tells of another medical success with the use of stem cells – ADULT stem cells:

So many people in this culture of death are trying to cause more death by pushing embryonic stem cell research when the use of adult stem cells is already bringing many advances and success stories. Respect life and God will bless.

by Gordy

God makes the rules

Tuesday, December 7th, 2004 at 12:12 pm

In Behind The Beauty, Cracks Appear, Eric Meyer lamented about homosexual marriage and the ten states who voted for amendments that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. I posted a response to that and Mr. Meyer took exception to some of my comments in a new article, Once With Heads Held High.

He missed my point about the demolition derbies and I admit I did not explicitly state the point. In his original article, he was lamenting about denying homosexuals the pursuit of happiness.

As for the American dream, well, your crusade has tarnished that as well. Remember �life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”? So much for the last of the three. When two people love each other enough to commit their lives to each other, why should anyone else stand in the way of their happiness? And yet we do, as a society. In the name of our discomfort, we impair their happiness. Life and liberty are still mostly assured, although it�s likely Matthew Shepard would choose to disagree, if only he could.

This is what I said in response:

Mr. Meyer then laments how conservatives have shattered the American dream of the pursuit of happiness. I really hope he is not trying to say that every citizen of this country should be unlimited in his or her pursuit of happiness – but that is how his statement seems. I’ve watched a few demolition derbies at the county fair. That looks like it would be fun to do and would make me happy. Does that mean I should be allowed to drive around on the streets and smash into cars? Why was John Wayne Gacy locked up for only doing that which made him happy? Polygamists are happy when they have multiple wives. Why is that prohibited? Men of NAMBLA are happy with little boys. Should we allow those men to pursue their happiness? My children are happy when I let them eat ice cream, cake, cookies, and candy. Am I keeping them from the American dream when I don’t let them eat those things all the time?

The point I was trying to make is there indeed has to be limits on such a pursuit – such as does the pursuit of happiness for one individual cause harm to another. So here explicitly is the point I was trying to make: If what makes one happy causes harm to another, the government has the duty to balance and limit individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Now, one may argue, and many have, that allowing homosexuals to marry harms no one. Evidence to the contrary does indeed exist. Evidence shows that homosexual acts are indeed physically harmful to the participants. Some may argue that well at least they are only hurting themselves and they are consenting adults. First, when they seek healthcare, it affects more than just themselves. Do we then only allow homosexual acts for the rich who can pay for the required healthcare? Second, should we legalize cocaine for those who agree that they will only use cocaine in their own home when they are by themselves? After all, that would be an activity by a consenting adult and no one else is getting hurt. In fact, one could argue that snorting cocaine in the privacy of one’s own house is a better activity than homosexual acts because at least the drug dealer is benefiting from the activity whereas no third party benefits from the homosexual act. That’s where the logic of “two consenting adults” leads. To parallel Mr. Meyer’s extension of my demolition derby example, he said it would be OK to smash up cars on the street if I got permission from all the car owners. Does he believe the drug user should be allowed to use because he received permission from the drug dealer? Is his mantra Sex, Drugs, & Rock & Roll? Thirdly, in some European countries, homosexual marriages have been legal for many years. Today, we see the results: fewer marriages and more children born out of wedlock in those countries. Studies have shown that children do better in homes with a mother and a father. People want to sacrifice the future generations for their own personal happiness.

In his argument that polygamy won’t be an issue brought on by allowing homosexuals to marry he offers personal opinions as support. He says universities won’t offer free tuition to six spouses of an employee. What happens when the first university does and that university attracts all the top people because of the benefits? Other universities will follow suit. Same with insurance companies. None may have policies for multiple spouses now – mostly because polygamy is illegal – but if it were to become legal because polygamists assert their right to the pursuit of happiness, insurance companies would change. It’s the simple economic law of supply and demand. No supply now because no demand.

He then somehow tries to say polygamy would be OK anyway because most of the Old Testament patriarchs had multiple wives. This would be comical if it wasn’t so sad. I guess he is saying that God approves of it because it is mentioned in the Bible. God did not command those men to marry multiple wives. God never condoned it. In fact in the New Testament, Jesus, the son of God, said that marriage was between one man and one woman.

Mark 10:6-8 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

For those who don’t know, twain means two. Just because something is mentioned in the Bible does not mean God condoned or commanded it. If Mr. Meyer were to read all the Old Testament, he would read about King David and how King David committed adultery and then murder in an attempt to cover up the adultery. Does Mr. Meyer think God condones adultery and murder because it is mentioned in the Bible? I certainly hope not.

Mr. Meyer goes on in an attempt to justify homosexual marriage by saying that a homosexual marriage does not weaken an already existing heterosexual marriage. I concede that my marriage to my wife is not affected by a homosexual marriage in San Francisco. However, if homosexual marriages were allowed, it is not the existing marriages I am concerned about. I am concerned about my children’s generation and grandchildren’s (if the Lord wills I have any) generation. If they grow up in a culture that has a more open view on marriage and thus a more open view on child-rearing, then that generation’s attitude is certainly affected. Marriages are weakened with a more liberal view towards them – for who is to say what limits if any can be imposed on a marriage? The more you expand something, the more it will continue to expand. With weakened marriages, child-rearing is thus affected and future generations will not receive the best upbringing possible. Some may receive adequate upbringing – but not the best. Don’t we all want the best for children?

Mr. Meyer then goes on to quote a court case dealing with marriages based on race and equates marriages based on gender to that. First, different skin color (there is only one human race) is a far cry from different behaviour. People are not born homosexual. People choose their actions. We are not pre-programmed robots with no will. One can argue that people are in fact born with predispositions towards certain things but predisposition towards something is different from being incapable of doing anything else. Because of genetics, some people have a predisposition towards diabetes, but those people can avoid diabetes through a proper diet. Being born a sinner, I have a predisposition to sin. But I am not powerless to avoid sinning. Having trusted Jesus Christ as my saviour, I can overcome temptations and avoid sin. Many times I do not overcome; nevertheless, I am capable. People who are born with dark skin cannot overcome this and thus should be protected by the courts. Equating special rights for homosexuals is demeaning to those who suffered because of skin color and fought the civil rights battle for equal rights.

Bottom line though is that God created us and he sets the rules. We are answerable to God – whether you believe he exists or not, whether you are Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, Christian, Catholic, atheist, humanist, Satanist, or whatever. God created them male and female from the beginning. Don’t get mad at me. God made the rules.

by Gordy