Down Time

Brief Introduction, in case you scroll right passed it

Due to the end of the semester and potential health issues, I have been forced to take a hiatus from this blog. Since I do have time now, I'll give my quick thoughts on some recent stories.

Michael Brown

Abortion: Curtain Call

Introduction

As any of my previous readers can attest, I often blog while I’m angry. Usually I take to my blog to vent about a major issue that is important to me. My method is often a mix of logic and politics, and then I show how it connects to the Bible. Well, this post is different. This will be my first post calling someone out. Me, an internet nobody, will be burning someone a the stake to show what's wrong with a movement.


But who could it be? The CEO of Planned Parenthood? An author of a neo-feminist website like Jezebel? I'm out of examples so I'll just tell you: Abby Johnson. If you're not familiar with her, she was an employee of Planned Parenthood, saw the light, repented, and is now a major voice in the Christian pro-life movement.

Lest I sound as if I am referring to my own faith in the third person, I mean this distinction for a reason. The pro-life movement can be classified as religious or secular. The most active voices I hear under the religious banner are Christians, which makes sense due to the prevalence of the faith. In this post, I will be contrasting these two main branches, the Christian vs secular pro-life movements.


The Background

If you're familiar with both secular and Christian pro-life groups, skip to the next section.

The main pro-life message is "Life begins at conception." Indeed, the most heated debates are "What counts as life?" Is conception immediate? After the zygote is implanted on the uterus? The main idea is not to destroy potential life. After all, conception occurs but for some reason pregnancy doesn't occur, then that's that. The pro-choice logic of "Well you don't know," is begging the question. Generally, but not in all cases, this "wait and see" approach means things like Abortion and Plan B are out of the question.

The Christian message is usually "life is sacred, thou shalt not kill, Jesus loves you, please reconsider." Or some such form. When I see Christians back off from all four of these factors (or three if you combine the first two), I get anxious. It's the same feeling I get when Christians say to put aside disagreements on doctrine. After all, if putting aside doctrine was so easy there wouldn't be so many denominations.

Go to Abby Johnson's Facebook page. Scroll down if you're reading this at a later date to posts on 14 November. It's right there. I'll even quote the first sentence "If there was ever a time for ALL people of faith to put down their disagreements on religious doctrine, it is now." This is a problem.

Consider that Johnson is a Catholic. If I remember correctly, this means no contraception. So my issue is, what does putting aside doctrine have to do with anything? Some denominations allow contraception, but none that I am aware of allow abortions or Plan B. Additionally, as far as I remember, all denominations are against premarital sex. Catholic doctrine might have material from Popes and other high ranking members of the church, but the message is still the same across Christianity. This isn't to mention the dangers of ignoring doctrine.

It's always a bad idea to ignore doctrine because "set aside" really means ignore. We can't be ignoring the part about being pro-life by default as Christians, after all. I'm guessing if I went to a Catholic church, they wouldn't just set aside doctrine at my demand as a Protestant. There would be no point in being Catholic, or any denomination, if things could just be set aside.

This is all unless she is referring to other people of faith. Are we talking about the “not-mentioneds” like Muslims and Jews? Does it include pagans? If so, this is even less reason to not put aside doctrine. Unity in the pro-life movement is good, we don’t have to set aside doctrine to do it in any case, whether Christian and Atheist, Christian and Muslim, or any pairing.

The entire quote is either dangerous or vacuous. I'm not the FB status police, but there's more to this.


Problems in Paradise

I have taken the liberty of taking a comment on the thread of the aforementioned status (grammatical mistakes in original):

I think the focus needs to be more on not having a woman get to the point where she feels like she needs an abortion. we have no paid maternity leave. not a lot of single moms have a good support system (including child care and housing options). we shame moms who are young, single by telling them they should have kept their legs closed if they didn't want to get pregnant- saying nothing about the man who impregnated them. we tell our girls to say no, but not how to say yes with using protection, we deny our daughters birth control by insisting they take a purity pledge and when they suddenly end up pregnant- wonder why. we have girls who are in abusive relationships, parents who will disown their daughters over a teen pregnancy. women who are up over their heads in student loans who were raped at a party and can't pay their rent let alone raise a child. doesnt take a genius to figure out that socially we have a lot of work to do. instead of just focus on how to save the babies. save the women who have the babies.

It has some good points. Johnson herself liked the comment and replied that she completely agrees. It's the completely part that sent me into mental convulsions.

Maternal leave and support for mothers in general is a good thing. As a conservative, I want such matters taken care of responsibly by business that hire women, but I can see how the more liberal viewpoint is taken. If a business does give leave, it's usually not much. Method aside, the fact is that it's ridiculous to expect a woman to have a family and work the whole time, even while very pregnant. I have no fancy solution for this; I'm just saying I agree. The same goes for support and quality child care.

As for shaming single mothers, I agree that it isn't a very Christian response, which is implied in the comment. On the other hand, as Christians we're not supposed to have premarital sex. Period. Call it as it is. That doesn't mean you don't love the heck out of the single mother and her child and help if possible, but dammit, don't lie. I do agree that if a woman wants to have sex, she should use protection, though as you know I am against things like Plan B*. So here we are, already ignoring doctrine, as in the Bible, as in regardless of denomination.

This is the part where someone says "But Lu, maybe Abby doesn't agree with that part." To that I say "Great, then she should unlike the comment I reproduced, edit the reply comment to only agree with the relevant parts, and get rid of the doctrine part of the status while she’s there."

Moving on with the comment dissection, abusive relationships, being cast out of a family, and rape are touchy subjects. While I am firmly against all three, they are somewhat red herrings. If a woman is raped (God help the rapist, because I won't), or abused (same comment for rapists), I wouldn't want them to have an abortion. Why do we have to set aside doctrine to help them? And how can the person making this comment say how horrible abuse and abortion are, but say use protection? It’s a big mixed message.

May as well drop the Christian part and join the secular pro-life movement. Following the quotes I’ve used, that’s the bottom line.

Closing

If Abby Johnson means what she says, she should continue being Catholic but drop the Christian label from her work. Doctrine is core to Christianity and cannot just be set aside. If a denomination has to set aside doctrine to do pro-life work, it isn't Christian; the same goes as far as interfaith pro-life work.

Endorsement of the popular "If you're going to do it, use protection" is ludicrous. That's what non-Christians are doing with mixed results. It's a bad idea for a Christian and since methods can fail, it's a bad idea for pregnancy. In fact, proposing help sources for pregnant women and that old tagline about protection are the hallmark of the "They're going to do it anyway" approach. Isn't that what got us here in the first place, Christians or not?

Create the resources, yes, but be consistent. Be Christian, or don’t bother. Endorse opposing ideas (use protection vs don’t do it at all) and modern political correctness (put aside doctrine/our differences when it’s not necessary) and you may as well leave the church.



*The research says it doesn't cause abortions is from places like PP; it's not that I'm giving my view the default win because it says the opposite. It's that I'd rather be cautious about something so absolute.

Hobby Lobby and Entitlement

Introduction

I'm sure by now we're all familiar with the SCOTUS decision about Hobby Lobby, and by extension, other closely held companies. Some people, like Wil Wheaton (@wilw), have fantasies about Rastafarians, as seen by his retweet of a @JohnFugelsang. Or to better illustrate, Wheaton's nearly concurrent tweet says that "women need to incorporate, if they want to have things like 'rights' and 'freedom'" No educated individual should conflate such things as "freedom" with "you aren't entitled to a company giving you what you want."

Making an Example

Wil makes the following mistakes: strawman (attacking the ideas of rights and freedom rather than addressing the ruling); makes a red herring (he might have a point, but it's irrelevant to the case and how it was decided), loads the question (or implication, as if women have no rights or freedom at all unless they incorporate); and perhaps some appeal to fear or emotion. In a single tweet, especially with the tone of the other tweet mentioned, Wil Wheaton not only makes a complete ass of himself, but he shows the sense of entitlement I often see in social media.

Perhaps some reductio ad absurdum is in order. Let's say I'm working for a warehouse, as I did a few summers ago. I had no benefits. Likewise, in this pretend example, I sue the company, not only for not having benefits, but because I'm not being provided contraception, let alone something that is an abortifacient. Odds of success: 0%. Odds may increase if I was a woman. I feel dumber just for typing this. Women and men alike can work elsewhere if they don't like what Hobby Lobby or any company does or doesn't offer, including but not limited to,  pay, benefits, time off, and promotions. I am no more entitled to benefits at the warehouse than others are entitled to contraception. Note that this is not a legal argument, but a moral one.

Closing

A great irritant to me is celebrities who do stupid things like Wil Wheaton did. They step out of what they're good at, influence the masses, and are usually much less informed then they think they are. The issue isn't "women's rights." It's that people aren't allowed to follow their conscience. If you'll excuse me, I need to order a cake from a Muslim Bakery with a hot lady on it. After all, I'm entitled to it.

That One Thing

Notice my posts? I mainly cover abortion, LGBT stuff, and evolution. I think I’m missing something, something a bit less mainstream but a bit more in need of coverage. If you answered “mojitos,” then you’re a good guesser, but you’re wrong. No, I’m talking about pornography. For years I’ve debated on posting about this issue. For one, it’s not too popular to sit down and criticize it, especially in today’s more sexualized society. Sadly, it’s also “Christians,” the “puritanical” ones, that make it difficult. As if not speaking about it will make it go away. Or maybe topics about sex are icky. Whatever the case, the main thing preventing me from posting is my future career as a teacher. Now that employers will stalk the crap out of a potential employee through the internet before hiring, I’ve avoided this and other subjects. As can be seen here, I’ve decided to take that risk, along with any other backlash that may come up.

Enough about me. Anyone reading this post is probably wondering how this post will be any different than other posts by Christians about pornography. If you read my last post, it will differ in two ways: first, to make a “secular” argument and show how it supports Scripture instead of the other way around, and secondly, to use real situations and effects of the matter to show the human condition. After all, if porn wasn’t appealing to people or filled a need, I wouldn’t even write about it. It’d still be disgusting and manipulative, but then I could leave it to rot and not worry about legality or other arguments.

To sum up a thesis, I intend to cover two points. First, what is porn? Is it just stuff hidden away or is it more prevalent? And does the content even matter? Second, what effects does it actually have? Is it actually harmless and some people just have a problem with sex, the internet, etc, or does porn have negative effects on the brain?

Watch anything past 9pm, especially on cable. You’re bound to run into a sexy commercial or two. The kind I’ve encountered most are Victoria’s Secret commercials. Notice how such ads have nearly as many effects as a Michael Bay movie. Close ups, wipes, smoky effects, gloss effects, the list goes on. This isn’t to mention the come-hither looks, the body language, and the group shots (I can’t remember a VS commercial with less than three women, and honestly, I’ve tried). I refer only to number due to novelty, of which something porn offers an infinite supply.

Compare this to something more clinical. I distinctly remember a commercial because of the hilarious comment I made to my father while watching it. It was a commercial for a bra for bustier women. Despite the close up, the commercial was short with only a monologue explaining the product. While the VS commercial is sexed up by effects and directing, the latter commercial, despite having underwear and boobs as well, is simply a demonstration.

The point I’m making here is of two things, arousal and intent. While the VS commercials are about sexiness and intent to sell the product for the consumers’ (and their lovers’) enjoyment, the clinical commercial was functional despite sharing some elements. Its intention is to sell a product, yes, but also about comfort and other aspects of the product. Sure, both can be appealing, but the VS commercials attempt to capitalize on that. Some would say because of this, such ads like those of VS, regardless of product and company, are softcore porn. While that may be an extreme conclusion to some, there’s a point to which I’m leading up.

Even more revealing, pun intended, is that VS commercials and their ilk have no nudity, portray no sexual acts, and I’m going to take a shot in the dark and say that the women aren’t in those ads to make porn. No genitals, no sex, nothing like that, yet there’s a case to be made for porn here. To satiate all of the literalists out there, let’s take a look at the definition of pornography. Meriam-Webster defines it as “movies, pictures, magazines, etc., that show or describe naked people or sex in a very open and direct way in order to cause sexual excitement.”

Let’s be real here. The VS commercial doesn’t show naked people or sex, so it’s not porn, right? I’d argue otherwise. Even if the intent isn’t to get men turned on, it probably does. I argue that porn is, metaphysically, “any material causing sexual arousal, not limited to nudity or focus on genitals.” In softcore porn galleries, there are plenty of lewd shots without nudity or sex. Yet it’s still porn. Does removing the nude/sex pictures from such a gallery suddenly make the other pictures not porn? Obviously not. Now, not all comparable cheesecake shots are shot as pornography. But the reaction to the material is the same. If a woman is beautiful, it doesn’t take underwear shots to prove it, and if a man is searching for such material then “porn” becomes completely subjective, hence my broad definition.

This is why Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit issue fares so well. What, you thought guys like checking out expensive swimwear for their girlfriends or wives? Again, the women involved are probably not thinking of producing porn and the photographers are just capitalizing on sex appeal. Yet it is generally consumed as pornography, thus blurring the line most people see. The question isn’t “is it porn?” and becomes instead “can it be used as porn?”, classic cases of porn standing on their own still.

To make a quick disclaimer: first, I’m not calling for the outlawing of sexiness. Second, while I’m using men as the primary examples here, women use porn as well. Third, I’m not saying to use my definition legally. It’s a metaphysical outlook and thus would be a legal mess. I also digress about sexy magazine covers and the like, but that’s a different issue.

Now that we have established that porn is different in intents and perceptions, let’s look at effects porn has on the brain. Is it damaging? Or are mindless surfing, compulsive masturbation, and OCD-like behavior to blame individually or together? 

This article here has technical speak and talks about the reward deal and the chemicals involved. Plasticity does indeed seem to happen with sex addiction as related to porn (read the second and third to last paragraphs of the linked article for that specifically). Addiction to seeking material and/or compulsive masturbation are thus separate issues that may or may not be involved as well.

Anyways, I think I’ve proved my point. Porn is addictive. It makes sense that Christ warned us against adultery in the heart. He doesn’t want us enslaved to sex, which is exactly what porn does in many cases. It seems safe to say that God has it right, and that’s why He tells us sex is for marriage. Thus ends my “secular” case, leading into Scripture as a sort of “soft proof.” You don’t have to be a Christian to accept the argument, but it still supports the biblical view.

Share your thoughts, reblog. Even if you don't agree, let's get a conversation started. It could go places.

The Big Question

Introduction

While taking lunch today, I was reminded of an oft-cited explanation by evolutionists about evolution. It usually goes something like "What you learn in the textbooks isn't evolution/the whole story/what actually goes on," or "Researchers know what it is, even if you don't." There are other variations. This is almost nearly in response to, when used seriously, the question "How did DNA, proteins, and such get more and more complex, as in length, number of pairs, etc?"

The question is within the Theory of Evolution itself. I aim to use ToE only in its own terms to show why such claims fall flat, namely that which I posed above. The answer I usually get is "Copying errors mutate into beneficial things to pass on." This seems a decent explanation at first. Let's ignore copying rate and mutation rate for a moment. Even if this idea is true, let alone demonstrable, there's a huge issue. This series of copy and mutate must happen enough over a course of billions of years to what we see today. Let me explain further.

The Example

Say we have some primitive form of life, whatever the in-thing is now for ToE to work off of after assuming first life. Let's say it gets these copying and mutation errors that end up making it something more advanced. The job is not yet finished! If this lifeform dies, the same series, or at least same sort of series of events must happen to the same kind of primitive lifeform there or elsewhere in a beneficial way. This is to say nothing of how multiple sexes formed or how those different sexes must then survive and pass on enough mutations.This then must repeat, going up Evolution's Tree of Life, which brings me to another point.

The Division

In the ToE, there are two thought camps: one that Evolution is progressive, working towards a goal; the other says it's simply random and we're here. Both fail logically. The latter shows by my example above that the explanation is already ad hoc. We're here, so this sort of thing must have happened numerous times. If Evolution is Progressive, this embodies it with certain qualities of intelligence, a sort of transcendence if you will. Evolution can no more work actively towards a goal any more than Democracy. Those things themselves are labels for a process; they describe, but do not guide how those things act. True, both are things done actively, but they do not work as themselves; they are not autonomous. Humans vote to make a democracy happen by electing officials. Evolution adapts organisms for an immediate need. Neither has some crystal ball revealing why those things are being done in terms of the future. (In the case of democracy, humans rationalize their vote, thus guiding it; Evolution has no such backing).

Conclusion

This is the part where I ask "How is it really supposed to work?" What are people like me missing? Even within its own system, Evolution begs the question "How did we get here?" This isn't some knockout punch. If anything, it reveals that ToE and Creationism are both philosophies and have no place in the classroom. But that's a whole other kettle of fish.

A Quick Note and a Tale

Introduction

This blog post is about an old canard I see regularly. Namely how pro-choice people say conservative Christians are trying to shame women into not having access to or the ability to have an abortion. First, not only conservative Christians are pro-life. It's disrespectful to attack a group you have a problem with when the issue or people involved are much broader.

Disclaimer

Secondly, the only shame involved in abortion is thinking it's okay. Before I continue, allow me this: anyone who has aborted needs support. Do not turn your nose up at a woman who has been damaged by abortion. For God's sake, after such a decision anyone would need support! I cannot bolster this point enough. Supporting abortion is shameful. What can top that shamefulness is scoffing at those who realize the what they've done. Quite simply, if you're more concerned with the child than the woman, you're doing it wrong. A woman won't be able to find forgiveness in herself if her fellow "Christians" are demonizing her. Like any other sin, we should not simply give up on ourselves or each other. Bringing it to Jesus is what we should do.

It has been known that life begins at conception since before Roe v. Wade. I may argue about personhood in a later, expanded post; after all, it really would be a legalistic argument, wouldn't it? For now, consider this: I often hear first trimester abortions are the most common and that the fetus isn't viable. It's important to note that in many cases, first trimester abortions are the only ones legal. This statistic of "most abortions are first trimester" should not then be surprising. Moving on, it still ends a life. Read the following story:

The Tale of the Wilderness

You and I are out in the wilderness. By freak accident, you become grievously injured, unconscious. The supplies we have are barely enough for one person, due to the accident. The rough terrain means that even if you recover, we'll probably be slowed down enough that we won't make it back to civilization. Knowing this, I reason the following: I can't keep you around! You'll take away from my meager standard of living, place a burden on me I didn't ask for, and perhaps even cause my death. I notice that you're unresponsive; you can't function on your own. You need me. But, caring more about myself, I justify murder by throwing you in a nearby lake thereby letting you drown.

Conclusion

I would never do such a thing. Even if I did, I would be guilty of manslaughter or murder if it was ever found out. However, the reasons are the exact same I hear to justify abortion: resources, management, responsibility. The story isn't perfect. You didn't ask to be injured in the wilderness. But this makes the point even more salient: if you choose to have sex, potentially conceiving a child, then you've already created a scenario where someone (the unborn) is "injured in the wilderness." Also, in the story you aren't inside me, but it's demonstrated that the reasoning to kill can still be carried out. Could you justify killing a friend or family member in this wilderness tale?

Lietz Rants: Abortion

Introduction

This summer I fell out of my habit of keeping up on recent events. Luckily I was able to find out what happened with the abortion bill in Texas. This was the most important story I had yet to fully follow. Once I read a few articles about the bill passing I was able to glean some thoughts from the comments posted on each. What I saw was mostly Leftist rhetoric and hateful attacks on the few who don't support abortion that posted.

As this is a rant, it will read more like a newspaper "advice" or "thought" column and I will not be citing statistics or studies. Google is your friend and frankly, I've still been attacked despite having all sorts of numbers and studies to support my point. Pro-abortion  people are often going on such assaults. Well, I'm mad as hell and now it's my turn.

The Bill

First it is important to note that the Texas bill raises standards of abortion mills, forces them to have hospital care at the ready, and makes adoption the first choice that workers are supposed to refer to (though this last point is fuzzy and I cannot pinpoint it). Since 20 weeks is even less than Roe V Wade's ruling, many are in a tizzy. Despite many alleged incidences of unsanitary and poor practice at such clinics, many are bemoaning that hospital care must be available. The list goes on.

The main, over-arcing complaint is that so few Planned Parenthood clinics provide abortions. This may be news to some, but regardless of a single clinic's services, the workers are instructed (and will) reference a woman to a clinic that will perform an abortion. Considering abortions are the moneymaker for PP this shouldn't be such a shocker. Check the tweets of @Defund_PP to find some material on the matter.

The Irony

Growing up, though until I was a certain age I wasn't told precisely what it all was, my mother told me if "woman things" needed taken care of, there was a doctor (OB/GYN) for such cases. Miraculous, huh? Such a doctor isn't just for middle-age and old people. You want more of a walk-in style and such that PP offers? Petition it, don't use it as an excuse to keep PP running.

Never mind that the Leftist rhetoric and their sheep continue to spout "CHOICE OR ELSE!" in various formats. Life begins at conception. That life cannot function on its own for a certain amount of time is a massive slippery slope (this is logically allowed because it is true). It develops in the womb, yet it is unique with its own set of DNA, fingerprints, and other markers that we often use to define a person. But they aren't, apparently, oh no! They are simply "fetuses." While an appropriate medical term, the unborn is still alive. I can call an unborn baby a potato, a tree, a cup, or anything else whether its medically accurate or correct at all. It's still alive. "BUT CHOICE!," I've heard and been yelled at about.

Choice?

What choice are we talking about? Murder, essentially. Here's the clever part: even if life begins at conception, by referring to the baby as a "fetus" and thus not a person yet, the definition of murder doesn't actually apply. Forget that to murder is to kill which is the ending of a life. By deciding on their own definitions, Anti-Women people change that. Really it's just a matter of semantics. Life begins at conception and if that life is stopped at anytime beyond a natural death, it's murder. Telling a woman that it's simply a choice is a lie and disrespectful. Women are the noble ones who carry us and give birth to us. Do not lie to them and make them dishonorable for it.

The rationale is that since a woman carries the baby then she should have the say in what happens to it. First I find this logic abhorrent because it brings up more problems than it solves. Why not apply that to a child in someone's care? What about the elderly? Only difference is that they're outside the womb. Logically, they can be just as much a burden. They take resources, take time out of work (or are more expensive), and they are unique individuals. This left me scratching my head until I heard some women and pro-abortionists as to why abortions are just dandy.

Women should have the choice to get an abortion, they say. But in the case that a woman chooses to have sex, she automatically accepts the consequences, from emotional and physical to spiritual. Usual disclaimer: I'm aware of rape, but the exception should not make the rule, evil as it is. Copping out of that by saying you should be absolved of one of the consequences of your own actions is irresponsible. Last time I checked, I had to take responsibility and be honorable about my own actions. Of course I can't become pregnant so apparently I have no say. Sarcasm aside, there are special cases that come up that are claimed to be legitimate.

The first is physical defect. There are two sides to this, the unborn that will have problems or won't live long, and the defects that would hurt/kill the mother. Children such as those with Down Syndrome fall into the first category. Many people rant about how such children take time, money, and resources. Regardless of disadvantages and the perceived burden they would have, that doesn't make any such children not-people.

If a child won't live long, I question why a woman would want to have an abortion. There are indeed negative side effects of abortion. Why risk those? Yes, giving birth is no rose garden, my mother reminds me of that if I'm complaining too much. My point is that you should not be able to kill even if the targeted person will die anyways. Why be responsible for that? Why not remember even a brief amount of time with your child instead of just killing it? Never mind that there are cases of doctors being wrong about defects. Imagine the horror of finding out you terminated a normally healthy child. I know this borderlines on a scare tactic, but I sincerely mean it. That would not be a great exchange, finding out you did not, in fact, spare a child of suffering.

What About...?

If the birth of the child would endanger the mother, then it is logical that you would not want the child to die or for the mother to die. Perhaps a C-section is viable or some other form of delivery. The bottom line either way is this: if the doctors have to choose a life to save, it is usually the mother, especially if the baby doesn't have much of a chance. This is not an abortion. It is the act of trying to maintain two lives and sadly failing at doing so. I'm sure some people would say that's a lot of trouble to go through, especially a C-section or special birth. Life isn't found on convenience and either way it would be more convenient not to have sex in the first place.

All this build up is to the old canard of pregnancy by rape. Yes, the old canard. You see, if a woman is impregnated by some sick psycho, the child chose not to be born any more than the woman chose to be raped. In case it isn't clear, neither the woman nor the baby asked for such an event to happen. To kill a child based on that is as sick of reasoning as the rapist's. Many would say "But the child would remind her of the rapist!" That's true and a very hard  truth at that. However, consider that killing that child and still having the memory of rape could be far worse. You would be answering one injustice with another, taking action on the helpless, just as the sicko who started it all.

Conclusion

The heart of the issue is abortion is used as birth control. It's seen as a convenience, not the taking of life. That's why abortion providers can't let bills pass that affect their bottom dollar. It's why the arguments that I debunk are made.

On Donnie McClurkin, the Pink Mafia, et al.

While I wish I had more time, I've recently been quite busy. College is about to start and I had many issues to sort out. That said, I wanted to start with a few articles to get some more readers. You know, talk about gaming or something else universal. After much prayer I have decided to write on the following article:

Alvin McEwen writes on Donnie McClurkin

For those unaware, as I was only an hour ago, Donnie McClurkin is an ex-gay, Gospel singer. While he was asked to be a part of the Martin Luther King, Jr. concert in Washington D.C. However, he was cut from the lineup, this by the black mayor of D.C., Vincent Gray. But why? Because of "potential controversy,"  of course. McClurkin has often spoke of God's freeing him from homosexuality, hence why he is ex-gay.

You see, I'm often accused of being a bigot, homophobe, and the list goes on. And yes, before someone comments about blacks and racism and having black friends, I do have both black and gay friends. The important thing is I take the true Biblical stance: homosexuality is condemned as a sin in both the Old Testament and New Testament. It is crucial that you the reader know that I recognize LGBT as people. They are not second-class citizens, nor are they outcasts of some kind. "Love the sinner, hate the sin." Thus I accept the person and tolerate the sin, just as others do for me. 

That does not make the sin right and I disagree with what happened to Donnie McClurkin on these grounds. Rather than tolerate his differing opinion, the Mayor  cut Mr. McClurkin from the MLK events. Thus it must be addressed that regardless of anyone's feelings, preemptively cutting Mr. McClurkin from the show is nothing more than bullying. Those who agree with the decision to cut McClurkin say that he is mistaken.Generally, the opinion is that he is a bigot; however, he has not demonstrated and such behavior. Additionally, McEwen claims that gays are not a result of child molestation and poor or single parenting,a beef he has with what McClurkin says in a video clip. 

As a cadet teacher I'm quite aware when bullying is going on behind the scenes. This occurrence is so blatant it doesn't take a keen observer; simply disagreeing with someone is no reason to discriminate. There are those who claim that McClurkin disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle, and that he was cut for good reason. By that logic, presidential debates would be non-existent or absolutely riotous. But they aren't because bullies aren't in charge, though I digress with recent memory of the last presidential debates in mind.

The real question, with the video in McEwen's article,  is "Is McClurkin right? If not, then he really is lying and that's unprofessional at the least and hateful at worst." Now that's a fair situation. So, do gays result from child molestation or poor/single parenting? There isn't a direct way to measure this; I'm sure no one periodically asks children how gay they feel after an event relating to these criteria. Thus, we must rely on statistics to at least give us an idea. That said, this is not some "nail in the coffin."  If successful, it will only show that there's a strong correlation.

Since I will focus on the child molestation angle, it must be said that poorly parented children do often end up participating in alternative behavior. This is problematic for two reasons: Firstly,  it's common sense but proves nothing specific. Does it blatantly cause homosexuality? It's quite possible. Without proper guidance, many youths take part in behavior from the benign to the irresponsible. Regardless, it is unprovable without a rigorous study. Secondly, there's no real way to measure this without a large sample of kids over a long period of time.  So is it offensive? I can't see how. McClurkin cannot be proven wrong or right without more data and quite frankly his comments aren't inflammatory. The best I can say is that I don't bar people from my get-togethers when they say church makes people into atheists. I don't like it, which I can see in this case, but rather than bully the person I continue with my life. Let's get to the next point and see if Mr. McClurkin is truly being hateful. 

To do this, we must look at the rates of homosexuals that molest children. Some studies claim that up to 10% of the USA's population is gay. While various statistics from 2002 (see link at end) put the number between 1 and 3%, any of these three numbers is useful. Even at 10%, if the majority of an action is done by homosexuals then it would be highly disproportionate to the actions committed by the straight population. See the frc link at the end of the article for the myriad of statistics cited.

"A study of 229 convicted child molesters in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 'eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.'" (frc)

While a small sample, five other studies in the same section corroborate this (#35-39). Still, how does this prove that the actions of the sick-minded (child molestation is sick, regardless of LGBT factors, yes?) makes those children grow up to be gay? This requires further development.

Citations 70-76 in the frc link detail how the abused can become abusers. Of these, 70 and 72 are especially important. By seeing that the abused are at higher risk to abuse it becomes clear that there is some link to child molestation and homosexuality. With so few Americans being gay but such high percentages involved in these activities it is very possible that McClurkin's claims are correct

This does not mean that all gays are as they are because of such situations. Mr. McEwen laments this in his article I linked at the beginning of this post, that McClurkin's comments are unfounded because "Gay men are not the products of child molestation."

Not all are, but statistics are usually telling. It is quite obvious that McEwen is firing from the hip to jump on the 
hating band wagon. Disagree, ignore, chide, but do not show bigotry to someone especially when crying for tolerance. McEwen isn't the only one who can make a claim without backing it up. "But Lietzy!," you might ask, "McEwen shouldn't have to cite a bunch of stats and have a huge write-out for his column!" You're right, dear reader, but he has to know what he's talking about! Now he's the one being unprofessional at the least and hateful at worst!

This is where the term "Pink Mafia" comes from. While I usually use the term "Rainbow Brigade" due to the LGBT flag, "mafia" is a much more telling term. Obviously not all LGBT are like this. Just like all Liberals aren't Communists and Conservatives aren't Nazis. Nonetheless, what happened to Donnie McClurkin is unacceptable. By barring his performance, Mayor Grey has caused discord and controversy, quite the opposite of the harmony he clamors about!


Sources: http://www.frc.org/?i=IS02E3

Afterword

I'd like to take a few lines to put down my inspirations for this blog. Reading Bill Muehlenberg's posts on his site was when I got the urge to start blogging. I enjoy the mathematical side of things and thus combined it with cues from Mr. Muehlenberg's work. Also, RKBentley and A Sure Word, another Blogger, have been a great inspiration. While he talks about Christianity and science I decided "Why not do Christianity and use math to corroborate?" Finally, my brother "Epic Professor" and my mother encouraged me to start this.

While I'm at it, I'll add my commenting guidelines since I haven't set that up quite yet. Be professional! Disagree, critique, congratulate, but be clean, concise and without cursing. Avoid slang and try to use proper grammar and punctuation. It helps me respond better and is easier for other readers to follow.

That's all for now, God Bless, readers!