Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Saturday, February 03, 2007

Full Cracker Barrel Article Now Online

The full article is now online. I had to leave with about 50 minutes remaining in the cracker barrel, so there may have been significant discussions that I didn't cover, but I had to get my daughter to ju-jitsu lessons, and she takes priority.

In my last blog post, I was pretty blunt about Senator Katus' inability to make a judgment of right or wrong. I wasn't trying to be intentionally blunt just for the sake of it, but I don't know what else to call it but cowardice when someone--a grown, educated man--can't bring themselves to say out loud that some things are right and some things are wrong.

Of course, Katus really doesn't believe that bunk about "I don't judge people" deep down. If he does, he's doing a good job of fooling himself. That, or he completely misunderstands what judgments are all about. Because like everyone on this planet, he judges people and he judges actions. We should try to judge actions, but since people commit actions, it's very hard to separate the two.

Liberals like Katus enjoy feeling morally superior to "moralists" like me or Bob Fischer (incidentally, "moralists" aren't morally superior; we simply try to correct the lie that is often made these days that immorality is okay--we aren't perfect, we sin, we fail, we just recognize that some things are wrong and don't try to pull a snow job and say wrong things are right so we'll feel better about our own moral failures). Liberals pat themselves on the back (as Katus did in public today) for not making judgments, for not being "judgmental," or for those who have a passing familiarity with the Bible, they like to believe they're obeying the Liberal Greatest Commandment: Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged.

Yet that Jesus fellow that he fleetingly mentioned who died on the cross, he made a boat load of judgments. Go ahead, read His Book and see if he didn't identify sin for what it is. Also see if he didn't call people what they are; He was more blunt even than me (snakes, brood of vipers, wicked and adulterous generation, hypocrites, blind guides, sons of hell, blind fools, whitewashed tombs, etc.).

But in his display of nonjudgmentalism today, Katus revealed that he actually does judge, and he judges people. It was plain to see that, while he doesn't want to judge killing your unborn child to be wrong, he does judge calling something wrong to be wrong in itself (twisted, I know, but that's just how liberalism is).

He also judges the death penalty to be wrong, and his tone and body language indicated that he judges those of us who support it to be morally inferior. The same with those opposed to the minimum wage and other Marxist implements.

Katus, like all liberals, judges. He just refuses to judge the things that the Judeo-Christian value system says are wrong: killing innocent human life, failure to execute justice, and other things that undermine the family. He judges the right to kill your unborn child to be so paramount that he formulates a demented definition of "pro life" that involves preschool, wage controls and social programs.

Liberals simply have a value system that says all that traditional morality stuff is okay to disregard, but boy if you don't toe the Marxist line on social programs that try to do for people what people should be doing for themselves...boy, you're going to socialist hell for that!

It was revolting to see such a juvenile display of rebellion in public against what is right, especially from a grown man and one who is a leader in our state. Yet it had value in that it's a good example of how hypocritical the Left really is.


Rapid City Cracker Barrel Coverage

I'll have more on the main Dakota Voice website later today after I've written everything up, but there was an interesting exchange at the cracker barrel today when local businessman and pro-family advocate Bob Fischer asked Senator Tom Katus about (1) his vote on the expulsion of Senator Dan Sutton, (2) why Katus' submitted a bill to repeal the death penalty for "brutal murderers," and (3) if Katus would support protecting innocent human life in the womb.

Without letting too much of the cat out of the bag until my writeup is done, Katus' answer on the death penalty repeal involved the fact that he has different ideas of "justice," citing some African and Native American examples of "restorative justice" and the like.

"In terms of the so-called abortion bills..." Katus said he believed in adopting children, public school, preschool, and various social programs.

He then gave Fischer a brief but pointed statement that seemed to indicate that he was morally superior to Fischer because he (Katus) doesn't "judge" people.

Wow, I wish I'd realized a long time ago that in order to achieve the pinnacle of morality, all I had to do was become a cowardly slug when it comes to acknowledging right and wrong.

I've wasted so much of my life...


Thursday, February 01, 2007

Christians Who Rewrite the Bible in Their Own Image

One of my favorite columnists, Dr. Mike Adams, has a good piece today on why he left the United Methodist denomination.

(Before I go any farther, I want to make it clear that I don't like to bash particular denominations and as a rule I don't do it--as long as they are ostensibly Christian denominations as opposed to a cult or some group masquerading as "Christian." Rather, error and heresy anywhere in the Church universal needs to be pointed out; we Christians should be our own best police. If error is more often found in some denominations than others, then those denominations have chosen to place themselves in the way of criticism. At the same time I recognize there remain some good people even in some of the most rotted denominations in America today, so I don't say that all xxxxx-ists are in error, but sometimes it may be proper to say that the xxxxx-ist denomination as a whole is in error on a particular point because the leadership or dominant portion of that member body is in error. For the record, there are people within my denomination who are in error on some of these same points mentioned below, but they are not in the majority nor are they leading the denomination in these affirmations. I have many friends in denominations other than my own, and many people from various denominations support Dakota Voice--because we all believe in the truth of the Scriptures, regardless of our denominational affiliation, and don't try to rewrite the Bible or put words in God's mouth.)

Having explained (for anyone rational enough to listen and comprehend it) my position on denominational criticism, Adams points out one of the most foundational of heresies:

2. A Methodist preacher makes the statement "We don't like to talk about sin here at (deleted) United Methodist Church." Instead, he likes to talk about "grace." If there is no sin and there is no hell, what was Jesus saving people from? Does silence on the issue of "hell" and "sin" render the term "grace" completely meaningless?


And another point, illustrating what Adams says about some "Christian" groups having a problem acknowledging sexual sin:

4. A church employee becomes pregnant out of wedlock. In the presence of less than five year old Sunday school students she talks about how the father of her child is going to move in with her. Is that really appropriate in front of the little ones? Would it be too "offensive" to talk to her about legitimating the child through an institution called "marriage"?


A point from Adams relevant to our current and ongoing discussion in South Dakota about abortion (and particularly relevant to that scandalous bunch that during the election called themselves by the laughable name "Pastors for Moral Choices"):

6. A United Methodist preacher supports John Kerry for President. She says this is because she opposes war and the killing of innocent children. Is she aware that Kerry thinks life begins at conception but supports abortion anyway? That means he supports 4000 intentional murders in the name of "choice" every day in America. How many children are killed on purpose by U.S. troops every day? Is it less than 4000? Is it time for the Methodists to start talking about abortion?


And another in the same vein of consideration for the "Pastors for Moral Choices:"

9. A United Methodist youth minister circulated a petition supporting gay marriage on the internet. Her pastor does not want the youth leaders talking about creationism because it is too controversial. Why the double-standard
?

Finally, Adams gets to a point of truth which is accurate for any denomination (or church, for that matter) that takes positions similar to the ones Adams has cited:

10. A man gives his testimonial in a United Methodist Church. He says that he likes the church because no one talks about sin and it makes church fun. He says he isn't a religious person. He's only a spiritual person. Why is the preacher seated behind him nodding vigorously in approval? Is the United Methodist Church still a religion? Or is it just whatever you would like it to be?


If a "church" won't stand behind the clear teachings of right and wrong inherent to Christianity, then it doesn't deserve to call itself a "Christian" church. It can call itself the "Happy Hour Church" or whatever, but it doesn't deserve to call itself "Christian" if it disregards or even opposes the teaching of Christ and His Book.

Calling such institutions "Christian" is false advertising at best, and damnable heresy at heart.


Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Text of New South Dakota Abortion Ban Available

I have a new article on the new South Dakota abortion ban, HB 1293, at the Dakota Voice website.

You can read a summary of the bill along with the text of the bill at http://www.dakotavoice.com/200701/20070131_1.html.

It looks like a good bill, with all the stuff many pro-abortion legislators and other people said they'd go for, if only it was in the bill.

Well now it is. And now we'll see if they meant it, or if they'll simply invent new excuses to keep on killing unborn children in the name of convenience and sexual license.


A Look at the New South Dakota Abortion Ban Bill

Pat Powers at the South Dakota War College has an exclusive preview of the new abortion bill expected to hit the streets today.

I only had time to quickly look it over (he has a pdf copy of the new bill, which isn't expected to change from the version he has), but it appears that while there were some changes from what I saw Friday, none were substantial changes.

Pat also got a chance to sit down with four of the main proponents of the bill. An excerpt of Pat's conversation with Rep. Gordon Howe (which says it well for those who, like me, wish we could get the whole enchilada, but need to be patient):

Howie opined that in a fire where two trucks are dispatched, "when the first fire truck arrives, they don't wait for the second to pull people out of a burning building. What this bill is, is a good start." Gordon also noted the position of the Sioux Falls' Diocese Bishop noting that it was acceptable to pass measures that aren't a total ban in order to do the greatest good possible at the time.


According to the 2005 Health Dept. statistics, there were 805 abortions in South Dakota that year. Using those same numbers, this bill could save 773 of them. Since the voters as a group last November wouldn't save all 805, I'll take the 773 if I can get them.

Go read the link he has to the bill draft, and details of his conversation with four of the representatives behind the bill.

Great job, Pat!!!


Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Teen Sex is Harmful

Janice Shaw Crouse's latest column "Teen Sex Leads to Depression and Drug Use" highlights why abstinence education is so important, and why the Integrity Ball and Purity Ball events can help protect our young people.

Now there is solid evidence that teen girls who experiment with risky behaviors (i.e., sex and drugs) are more vulnerable to depression and that teen boys who engage in binge drinking and heavy marijuana use are prone to depression.


So that we're clear, this evidence doesn't come from drooling Bible-thumpers like me, but from what secularists so glorify: science.

In an article published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, five authors from different departments (Psychology, Pediatrics, Maternal and Child Health, Research and Evaluation, and Internal Medicine) at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) explored whether “gender-specific patterns of substance use and sexual behavior precede and predict depression or vice versa.” The data for the UNC-CH study came from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health — well-known for the large sample size and longitudinal design that allows temporal ordering among a nationally representative sample of U.S. adolescents. Further, aspects of the UNC-CH findings were replicated in five other studies. The UNC-CH study, though, moved beyond previous ones by considering typical patterns found during adolescence and by examining gender differences.


So what did they find?

The message is clear: teens engaging in risky behavior are at risk for depression. No wonder teen depression is so widespread when almost half (47 percent) of high school students reported in 2003 (the number has dropped since then) that during the past month they had had intercourse, 45 percent reporting drinking alcohol and 22 percent reported that they had used marijuana. Almost one-third of the students said that their feelings of sadness and hopelessness had kept them from doing normal activities over the past year.

It is important to also note that only four percent of students who abstained from drugs and sex had a problem with either depression or suicide.


The sexual anarchists who love to pooh-pooh wonder why there is often more attention paid to the girls in abstinence efforts:

Not surprisingly, this is another study to report that girls are far more negatively affected by early sexual activity than are boys.


It may seem like a lot of fun, having sex before marriage, but there is a heavy price to be paid, and liberals are lying to kids about that cost.

Better to delay satisfaction and preserve your well being than to risk the misery of depression, STDs and unwed pregnancy.


Monday, January 29, 2007

New Abortion Ban May Be a Keeper

I saw a draft of the new abortion ban bill last Friday, but didn't say anything about it because it was still undergoing some changes and not yet ready for public consumption. However, it appears from reports over the last 24 hours that the cat is at least partially out of the bag already, so I'll offer some thoughts.

If it comes out essentially unchanged from what it was on Friday, it's a bill I can fully endorse. My only caveat is that last year's bill was my #1 choice, being more consistent from a pro-life and scientific perspective, since all human life is sacred, no matter how it was conceived.

This one is intended to have exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother. While traditionally these exceptions have been big enough to drive the space shuttle through, this draft has those exceptions very tightly regulated to prevent misuse and abuse.

The health exception was worded in such a way that it would only allow for a truly serious health issue, not simply "Gee, I'm really upset that I'm pregnant so that threatens my mental health so here, kill it."

The rape exception would only allow a certain amount of time after the crime to report the rape. The child also couldn't be aborted past a certain gestational period (I don't know if any of this has changed, that's why I'm avoiding specifics). Police reports must be filed, and certain other procedures accomplished so that identifying the rapist is facilitated.

The incest exception is similarly worded, with minor and appropriate variation.

While I believe this type of bill ignores the fact that the child conceived in rape/incest is just as sacred as any other child, we tried our best to get the best bill passed last year, yet some people would not have it.

Having made the best attempt and failed, I can fully support this as the next best option. After all, it would save more than 96% of children that would otherwise be aborted, since the latest SD abortion statistics show that the "serious health damage" was a factor in only 2.7% of abortions and rape/incest was the reason for only 1.1% of abortions in the state in 2005.

It isn't the best, but given the choice of saving 96% of the children and saving 0% of the children, I'll take the 96%.

Remember, the vast majority of South Dakotans pined last year that "Oh, if only it had exceptions for rape and incest..." Well, they won't have a leg to stand on this year. They won't have that excuse to hide behind again.

If their real intent is to simply keep abortion on demand available (as it certainly was for many), they'll have to come out in the open this time and reveal their true motives.

Our political arena and our country in general would be a much better place if there was more transparency in motives. But then that's too much to expect, because evil always wants to work in the dark; it's the only place it can thrive.


 
Clicky Web Analytics