The Boy Scout Shift Was Inevitable, in Hindsight

I realize that the title makes it sound like I was surprised at the change in policy. Not so. I simply want to draw attention to the fact that one can predict things over longer periods of time if an effort is made to keep track of unfolding events and properly extrapolate.

For instance, consider the placement of the BSA change of policy with respect to gay youth, gay leaders, and the disregard and repeal of DOMA.

February 2011 -- Obama orders the DOJ to stop defending DOMA in court.
January 2013 -- ban on women in combat roles lifted by military leaders
May 2013 -- BSA removes ban on gay youth  (scouts)
June 2013 -- SCOTUS rules DOMA unconstitutional
July 2015 -- BSA removes ban on gay adult leaders (scouters)

What's the significance? Only that the purpose of Scouting, from its inception in the UK as well as the BSA's founding ~10 years later, was to prepare youth with outdoor survival skills so that they would transition better into military service. Scouting has always been a recruitment center, of sorts, for all branches of the US military.

So when the military now recruits homosexuals, what logic is there for the military's primary enlistment-driving organization to have restrictions on who may serve, which the military itself does not have?

It was obvious, that when the Military began to permit openly homosexual soldiers, that the BSA would follow suit. After all, because of the close relationship, many campouts and jamborees are held on or near military bases or on public land, and it's to be expected that the US GOVT would rescind their favorable treatment/sponsorship of the BSA if the organization didn't submit to the new morality.

The BSA capitulated without a fight, though, indicating that the leadership is all too keen to please. In light of the rapidity with which they changed to match popular culture, I am truly curious as to whether or not the BSA will soon become 100% coeducational. Will there be a Title IX claim coming soon? What if the girls who want to join claim to be boys (i.e. transgender)?

Hindsight is always 20/20. I'm ready...surprise me.

~ Rak Chazak

A Tale of Two Pain-Killer Advertisements.

I've always found myself offended by commercials that don't actually explain why their product is better than another -- let alone prove it -- because I realize that they operate on the concept of impressions. That is, they hope that the commercial itself will be memorable, so that when you remember the commercial -- because it was amusing, exciting, original, etc -- your mind associates the memory with the product. For a simple example, someone trying to cheer up someone else by saying "put a smile on" could result in that person saying, "hmmm, you know I am actually in the mood for some McDonald's."

The business incentive is that what people remember better are images and feelings (what something on TV looked like, or how it made you feel) than they do specifics of nitty-gritty facts, like whether Flonase blocks neutrophils, leukotrienes, histamines, etc (these all show up on the screen for their commercial but the persuasion is far less heady than that. It's a simple "we have 6, the competition has 1. We're better, yay! Buy our product").

The idea that someone's trying to get around my conscious decision-making apparatus and try to get me to buy something not because it's a good choice, but because it's the only product in that category that I can remember by recalling commercials, is insulting to me, because I've always preferentially gravitated toward what I can determine to be true and right and good, rather than what merely makes me feel good or what seems popular.

Plot Twist

Similarly insulting is the "identity politics" of various political movements in vogue at the moment. This is not limited to liberal/leftist/democrat agendas, but they are by far more invested in splitting their constituent demographics into groups and targeting single-issue messages to each one of them. When a political figure says "I think you're too dumb to think about more than one issue at a time," it insults me. But it must work, because candidates for both parties generate massive applause by doing what's called "doling out red meat." The primary season for the Republican 2016 field is getting ramped up, and examples of this include people shouting "God bless America" at the end of the speech, as if that's supposed to make every Christian want to vote for them, regardless of what else they said. But democrats are even more insidious, because they don't just utilize identity politics, they are far more effective than republicans at capitalizing on resentment, envy, hatred of 'the other,' often playing their constituent groups against each other. 

One way they insult you is by pretending that seeing more people "like you" represented somewhere, be it among Olympic sports teams (how many Americans are Olympians?), on television (how many of us are TV stars?), on news broadcasts (how many of us are journalists?), etc, that this will somehow improve your life. This is the insulting lie they tell women, blacks, hispanics and homosexuals, among other groups: that without doing anything significant to improve real life for the vast majority of Americans belonging to those groups, they agitate for rich CEOs to increase the amount of women news anchors, or black film leads, or homosexual sitcom actors, and they do this by telling the constituency to be angry that there aren't "more of them" represented in those positions.

The rich people shuffle the deck, the democrats claim victory, and the constituency feels satisfied with the result of something that does diddly squat to improve their life or liberty. And one simply must ask, "do they really think people are that dumb?"

Apparently they do. Whether people are that dumb depends on how representative the many people who happily follow along with this identity politicking are of the sum of the constituent groups in question.

My Point
And that's why a marketing department can propose this advertisement for an over-the-counter painkiller.

A lot of the promotion of homosexuality in television has been seen as "brave" or "bold," ostensibly because so many people are against it that it must be difficult or risky to endeavor. I suppose that means that the makers of this advertisement likewise think that there must be wide swaths of America that are Adoption-Racists, who don't think people should adopt kids who aren't of the same "race," judging by the still shot alone. It's hard to figure out the reasoning of people who don't expect you to be intelligent. What are they really expecting the response to be?

Well, the clear intent of this Tylenol commercial is to say "gay men raising children are just as good of a family dynamic as a man and woman, therefore, buy our product."

What does a painkiller have to do with homosexual households? Shouldn't I get a painkiller based on whether it reduces my pain? But nope, not according to Tylenol. They're banking on the fact that you don't buy painkillers for any scientific reason, but because you want to support the message and corporate policy of the company that creates the painkiller. They are hoping that you will think, "this company advocates for a single issue that I happen to agree with, so I will buy their product to increase their quarterly profits, to send the message that the American people supports their political views."

In contrast, another common painkiller, Aleve, uses this argument:

Aleve works better than Tylenol or Advil. All day long, all day strong.

It might be true, it might not be, but at least they're making the case that you should buy their product because it works.

Perhaps Aleve's corporate bigwigs are just as pro-ssm as Tylenol's are. That's not the point I'm making here. The point I'm making is, the way in which large companies advertise their products is based on how they are rewarded.

If an ad spot generates more revenue by making a scientific argument: "our product works and is better than the competition's," then they will keep doing that.

If an ad spot generates more revenue by making a political statement: "gay marriage, yay!" then they will keep doing that.

Takeaway:
The increase in recent days of similar ads, which portray happy homosexual couples (together with blended families and "interracial" couples, as if those things were morally controversial) being 'just like everyone else,' bottle-feeding babies and living the American Dream, seem to demonstrate that when it comes to the Public's response to advertisements, the People are thoroughly committed to rewarding rich people who treat them according to "identity politics," rather than rewarding people who encourage them to think and make decisions based on what works.

The consequences are readily apparent to that proportion of us which prefers to think.

~ Rak Chazak

Something to think about, regarding whether people are born with sexual preferences

I figured I'd tag on to my previous post and look up other candidates a little.

At this point, there's not much people are saying publicly to define their positions on issues, likely because they're not strongly motivated to do so. In that context, there was a somewhat vague response that Marco Rubio gave to a same-sex marriage question:

I also don’t believe that your sexual preferences are a choice for the vast and enormous majority of people. In fact, the bottom line is, I believe that sexual preference is something people are born with. source

That can be taken in at least two different directions. On the one hand, it could reveal sympathy for the SSM cause, while on the other hand, it could indicate compassion and a rejection of the contemporary popular belief in the naturalist fallacy, that "what is some way by nature, is therefore morally right."

The question of what Rubio meant is answered by whether he believes in the naturalist fallacy or not.

Here is an example of someone making the same observation, but being much more explicit in their presentation:

So, was Rubio just being a politician, or was he hinting at a more nuanced understanding of the issue, where just because someone's desires are fixed, it doesn't mean that pursuing them is appropriate? Time will tell.

~ Rak Chazak

PS according to Wikipedia, there's a distinction in technical terminology between "naturalist fallacy" and "appeal to nature," the latter of which is what I was referencing here. Colloquially, I think it's nevertheless suitable and doesn't require editing the article.

Christian Satire, Courtesy of a UK Pastor on the Spiritual Front Lines

I came across this via a post on The End Time. The author is one Andrew Wilson, and it was posted a few days ago under the title "The Case for Idolatry: Why Evangelical Christians Can Worship Idols." I recommend it to you. It rehashes a lot of common arguments that professing christians make in justifying their stance in favor of homosexuality. Note that it is not a sarcastic sneer at homosexuals but a satirical representation of these alleged christians. Their frequent reasoning as seen in far too many editorials etc is reduced to absurdity by substituting the notion of idolatry--made more poignant by the fact that idolatry is at the heart of every claim that "the god I believe in would not condemn [name of favorite sin or family member who is slave to sin]"

I've decided to quote just one section:

With all of these preliminary ideas in place, we can finally turn to Paul, who has sadly been used as a judgmental battering ram by monolaters for centuries. When we do, what immediately strikes us is that in the ultimate “clobber passage”, namely Romans 1, the problem isn’t really idol-worship at all! The problem, as Paul puts it, is not that people worship idols, but that they “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images” (1:23). Paul isn’t talking about people who are idolatrous by nature. He is talking about people who were naturally worshippers of Israel’s God, and exchanged it for the worship of idols. What else could the word “exchange” here possibly mean? ... In other words, when Paul talks about idolatry, he is not talking about the worship of idols as we know it today.

It's genius. It takes the claim that Romans 1 does not condemn homosexuality per se, only that homosexual behavior by heterosexuals is wrong, but homosexual behavior by homosexuals is fine, and shows how ridiculous it is by comparison. But the best and final word on this came from the comments:

James Bejon • 3 days ago   I agree with your reading of Paul, Andrew. It's important to remember that, for Paul, idolatry was inextricably linked to homosexual practices. And Paul's major issue was, of course, with the latter. (See Von Straussenhaus’s important work, ‘Götzendienst, Sexualität, und Ein Haar Ball Großes’.) Idolatry in and of itself wasn't a problem for him.

Did you catch it? It's bitingly insightful. The pro-homosexual claim has been that homosexuality is not what is condemned in the Bible, but idolatry of homosexual behavior. This is supposed to be on parallel with idolatry of food, money, power, etc, things which are not evil in themselves but become so when made an idol. The genius of this commentor was to make the opposite claim for maximum satire: that when Paul condemns idolatry and homosexuality in Romans 1, he's really only condemning homosexual idolatry, not other forms of idolatry. That argument makes as much sense as the reverse.

This by itself is a powerful deconstruction of the faux-Biblical argument to legitimize homosexuality by pretending that Paul is only concerned with idolatry. Decimated, in one fell swoop.

Congratulations, gentlemen.

~ Rak Chazak

Texting Treatise: Pride, Lies and Murder

I sent the following to Hank the Homosexual (altered name), after it became apparent that he was receptive to at least reading lengthy theological pontifications from me, about a month or so ago. For background on how I met Hank the Homosexual, see this blog post: http://singlechristian1.blogspot.com/2014/03/ive-finally-arrived.html

Text Treatise: Pride, Lies and Murder

There is a passage that starts, “these six things the Lord hates, yea, seven are an abomination to Him,” and it singles out 7 particular sins. While I could get the interpretation off on 2-ish of them, I can easily understand the rest, which are basically pride, lies and murder. There is no mention of sexual sins of any kind in the list, nor is there a mention of gluttony, greed, jealousy or anger. In short, there’s a list of sins God hates in particular but they aren’t = “the 7 deadly sins,” which though they are sins, are not the worst. That list is actually an invention of the first Pope.

To wit, all sins are equally sinful, in the sense that all result in separation from God and merit His righteous judgment. But 3 x infinity is still infinity, and God does hate some sins more than others, which is further justified by the passage (I forget the location) that says that there are degrees of punishment in hell.

Justifying that not all sins are equally evil is Jesus Himself, who said to Pilate, “he who delivered Me over to you has the greater sin.” Seems pretty clear cut.

Why these more than others?

Why should God hate pride, lies and murder more than other sins? I think it’s of interest to note that these sins strike at God’s character more than others. Pride is literally having a higher opinion of yourself than you ought and thereby a lower opinion of God than you ought. Pride is a lack of acknowledgement of how great God is. If a person understands God’s greatness, they can’t logically believe that they deserve anythng from Him, so thinking that you deserve what you don’t is basically saying that God owes you something, and that He is subservient to you and that you can require Him to obey you. How offensive this must be to a holy God, since it’s so obviously offensive even to us, if someone behaved that way toward us without warrant.

Lies.

Then you get to lies, which attack God’s character as being Truth—not just truthful, but Truth itself and the source and foundation for all truth. Further there’s the fact that lies deceive people and by the very nature of causing them to make wrong decisions, hurt people. Lies are fundamentally tied to murder because lies that prevent a person from repenting and seeking Christ lead people to damnation. Lies are also connected to pride because it’s pride that fuels lies. If you think you’re above or beyond the rules, you can do what you want with impunity. Since pride is itself a lie (I am greater than I am, God owes me life and happiness etc), it’s clear why pride leads to more lies. It’s a snowball effect. Once you lie, you have to keep telling more lies to protect your central lie. The only alternative is telling the truth, which would require giving up your pride. See how it hangs together?

Murder.

And then you get to murder, which is offensive to God because man is made in His image—therefore a murder is literally an attack on God’s image. It’s as if by killing a person, you are vicariously attempting to symbolically kill God. There’s also the sense in which a person’s death deprives God of that which He deserves (not to say that God’s impotent—this is in the context of Him sovereignly allowing events to come to pass through personal choices). Whereas a person is prideful by thinking he deserves what he does not, God actually does deserve everything, so the refusal to submit in faith to Christ and the act of murder are both essentially the wrongful refusal to allow God to be given that which is due Him. Hence how murder is also fundamentally a lie. God deserves a man’s life’s work in life and a man’s life in death, but to cut his life short on earth or to send him to hell by killing him before he’s repented and thereby depriving God of his soul in death, the lie is the prideful assertion, implicitly, that God does not deserve what belongs to Him. As you can see, this is outrageously offensive, all these things. They are unfair denials and refusals of the truth.

And it’s essentially then to wrongfully treat God, treat Him unfairly. To act unjustly toward the just Judge of the universe. See how backwards it is? SO in short, Pride and Lies and Murder are among the most hated sins of God because of how directly they attack Him and how Offensive they are to His character.

Wrap-up

Sex before marriage, homosexuality, pedophilia, rape, pornography, sex with multiple people, cheating etc are all sexual sins that are very offensive to God, too, and I didn’t name all (oh no. That list is nearly endless). But they are less direct in their perversion of truth (though they still symbolize/represent lies about God) and less direct in their assault on God’s character (though still they attack it). It is fundamentally, I think, sins of an intellectual sort, the kind that make people consciously choose damnation over reconciliation, that are the worst of them all. I think that’s the distinction.

~ Rak Chazak

Don't Say "I Don't Have A Problem With Gay People"

The people who say this are invariably those opposed to homosexual marriage, or homosexuality per se. Yet, since behavior and identity are closely intertwined among people in this part of society, it seems to them as if you really do have a problem with them, and are being a lying hypocrite.

                So, don’t say “I have no problem with gay people” because it makes you look like a hypocrite to them. They think that if you have no problem with them, you won’t have a problem with their homosexuality, because they personally identify with it, and don’t separate it like you do. So it’s unhelpful to allow them to conveniently write you off as a doublespeaking bigot. 

Let's put it the other way. There are some who will say that they have no problem with Christians, or that they value the First Amendment, but then turn and say that they don't think Christian faith and doctrine should influence government policy, and that "you can believe whatever you like, as long as you keep it to yourself." This is essentially the same experience that homosexuals have had with others telling them to "stay in the closet" and hide a part of who they are out of shame.

Why would we treat others the way we don't want to be treated? This is the opposite of the Golden Rule, which is that we should treat others the way we DO want to be treated, even if we are not treated that way. The fairness toward others is a witnessing tool. When people realize you're treating them kindly and that you're not obligated to (or even that they're not deserving of it), they are more apt to listen to you.

But saying that you don't have a problem with gay people is not a kindness. It is confusion. True kindness would be to say in unequivocal terms, "I believe homosexuality is a sin, but I do not hate you for who you are. Instead, I love you in spite of who you are, because that was what Jesus Christ did for me." Then go on to say that because you believe it's wrong, it would be unloving to encourage someone to do or be proud of what is wrong and harmful for them. True love shows itself in correction. When you demonstrate that you love them to the point of being hated and harassed for pleadingly showing them the way to be saved, you give the Holy Spirit an avenue to open their hearts to the Gospel. They'll see that you're not motivated by love of self but that you sincerely care. And some will still reject you. But at least they will not do so because you were an offense, but because the Gospel is what offended them.

~ Rak Chazak

I've Finally Arrived

Because of my personal history of not being frequently immersed in social situations with people my age outside of school, sports, or places where adults congregated, I've had far less experience in terms of the types of encounters I've heard from others that they were having or have had. 

Some personal information, non-explicit nor personally identifiable. Discusses being 'hit on' and romantic crushes.

It wasn't until after graduating high school that I had the experience of unrequited emotions toward me by other people. Well, that's not entirely accurate, because I was aware of a few crushes in middle school (I was cuter then), but they were overtly declared and fizzled, they've just taken me more and more by surprise as time has gone on. 

-  A girl who avoided me ever after touching me inappropriately (and not getting the reaction she was expecting, I guess) wrote a suggestive note in my yearbook indicating she had tender feelings for me.

-  A girl in my freshman year of college brought a movie over to watch in my dorm room. When we said goodbye, she kissed me on the neck. I was totally oblivious to the presence of any physical attraction up to that point, and I think my 'failure to reciprocate' explains why she and her three friends always seemed to interact with me awkwardly, though they would acknowledge me and wave if we passed each other on campus. 

-  Another girl that year sent me an email to say she was avoiding me because she liked me. Nothing came of that, for obvious reasons.

-  Someone I hadn't spoken to in two years, because she had asked me "do you hate me?" which I took as an offensive insult and said 'yes' in desperation to end her insecure texting, emailed me to try to reconnect, and shared that she'd really liked me/had a strong crush for some time. She again persisted with the "do you dislike me?" questioning, my best guess is because she wanted me to say I liked her, but I refused to take her lead, and she became offended and ragequit.

-  I went on a casual 'date' with a girl I'd flirted with in Fall 2011, and after talking for a long time she revealed that she had a boyfriend and was most interested in seeing 'what I was like,' because of persistent negative rumors about me on campus [as a result of presenting Biblical Christianity on the university forum] that she had become aware of. 

Nothing like being ambush-kissed or having to constantly defend your friend/family/partner in court because of false allegations by a 'crazy ex,' or being propositioned for a threesome, or going to a social gathering where a fight occurs or police arrive for whatever reason. Just a bunch of people failing to consider that their assumptions about how people respond to certain behaviors might be..let's say limited. 

*   *   *   *   *

Piggybacking off that last idea, I now come to the topic of discussion. A friend of mine had once informed me that they've been 'hit on' by people of "all 3" claimed orientations, i.e. hetero, bi and homosexual, both males and females. To me, I'd just assumed it was something that wouldn't happen because I just don't go out to places like clubs or parties or wherever else one might expect to be hit on (oh, almost forgot bars). The lack-of-alcohol factor also would play a role, since slightly inebriated people might be less inhibited and feel more confident or flamboyant. For that reason, I wasn't expecting to get handed a note by a coworker (from a guest) one day that said 'call me' (or 'text me?') with a number attached. A few days later, sitting at home, I let my curiosity lead me to send off a text.

It went sort of like this:

-Initial Contact
-Who's this? response
-Explanation; so we don't know each other?
-Respondent feigns uncertainty
-I suggest it was someone playing a prank giving me his number
-Suddenly remembers who I am
-Tells me I'm "seriously attractive."
-I reassure him and thank him for the compliment, then ask if he got the impression I had 'an animus, condemnation, disgust, meanness, lack of respect etc or made you suspicious that I harbor those emotions toward you'
-He replies no, tells me I'm nice, 'obviously very intelligent' and deserves 'props for being as respectful as you are.'
-I tell him "You happen to have stumbled upon one of the most conservative Christian 24-year-olds this side of D.C." and explain that my kindness is not in spite of my Christianity, but as a result, a derivative of my beliefs which "leave no part of life uninfluenced."

I decided to tell him that, I explained, "because tomorrow is not promised. There is no better moment than the present," to talk about such a serious subject.

This is the conversation, summarized. I'm including his final text as a whole, as an anecdotal evidence for any Christians out there who aren't sure/confident about whether they should be up-front with the fact that they are Christian and "preach" to people when they've just gotten to know them a little bit. I wasn't sure how he would react, because chances are he could be like the homosexual activists at my university who have gone out of their way to try to destroy for me, academically, professionally and otherwise. But I stepped out in faith. Here's his response:

I really think you're honestly an awesome person [Hakam]. I'm really glad you've been openly honest with me about this all. It brings a lot to mind, because a lot of people have reacted very negatively. & you being a Christian, & reacting as respectful as you possibly could, is sure a powerful thing to see. I'm more then open to answering any questions & talking to you about anything at anytime you'd like. In my personal opinion someone as intelligent & awesome as you should not be working at [Restaurant]. Keep up the good work & push for what you want, [Hakam]. I believe in you. You're for sure an awesome dude.  & again, I'll just say if there's any possibility of us becoming friends, I'd be more then happy too. You seem like a really cool guy with a great outlook on life. & I see you going big & making it just from the little I know about you! 

- Results not typical. Faithful witness is required by God of Christians regardless of the end result. -

I appear to have an open door for further witnessing, with a person who's now in a position to listen and care about what I tell them.

"Imitate me as I imitate Christ."
~ Paul
1 Corinthians 11:1

~ Rak Chazak

Sarcastic Apologetic Response of the Day

One of the characters that I met through my university forum had an excellent response to a few aggressive feminists and postmodern pro-"transgender" debaters on a discussion thread a while back. I think it was succinct and powerful enough to be worth sharing here.

If I may demand of society how it perceives me in one way, then why not in another way? What limits that principle to gender?
Why can't I demand to be perceived as a different species? So my DNA says I'm human. Who cares? Species is a social construct, just like gender. Species is genetic, while species expression is external. I choose to live as a T-Rex.

…

[omitted for conciseness]

…

[OPPONENT], if I or my ancestors make money and I become wealthy, then I am wealthy according to the natural order. If I run for office and get elected President, then I am President according to the natural order. If I am born genetically human, then I am human according to the natural order. And so on. If I am born with XY sex chromosomes, then I am a man by the natural order.

I'm a middle class male human being. Economic and genetic reality dictate those facts beyond any doubt. So if I were to declare right now that "I am a millionaire" or "I am a T-Rex" or "I am a woman", why would the first two statements be nonsense while the third wouldn't?

~ Rak Chazak

The Unfairness Trap: BSA On A Collision Course

The BSA National Council held a secret ballot vote to decide if the organization would allow openly gay boys into the organization. 757 voted for, 475 voted against. 

Timeless Values?

Albert Mohler summarizes this succinctly (link at bottom):

In 2000, the B.S.A. prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court when the nation’s highest court ruled that the Boy Scouts had a constitutional right to exclude openly gay boys and leaders from the organization, so long as that exclusion is based in one of the organization’s core convictions — an “expressive message.” The B.S.A. won the case because that is exactly what they claimed. They argued that excluding openly homosexual boys and leaders from Scouting was necessary and required by the Scout Oath. [emphasis added]

In my previous article about the BSA policy change, I said this:

If the Boy Scouts of America lifts the ban on homosexuals, then it will be saying that its rules were not based on timeless values, but on arbitrary prejudice. Arbitrary prejudice can be arbitrarily abandoned. Timeless values cannot. If the BSA is built on values, then it cannot compromise those values. If the BSA compromises on homosexuality, it will be admitting that it does not stand on values but will give in to pressure. An interesting consequence is that the BSA will open itself up to lawsuits alleging wrongful discrimination, since lifting the ban would necessarily mean that the organization discriminated against homosexuals in the past without any reason to do so.

So now we know the answer to that. The BSA National Council has decided that its creeds are not timeless, but arbitrary. It is thereby implicitly admitting to wrongful discrimination against homosexuals for over two decades, since the policy was enacted. Let the litigation begin!

A Time to Tell

The BSA commissioned a video in the '80s which at the time I joined was required watching for all boys entering the program. This was called "A Time To Tell," and acted out 3 specific scenarios which were introduced through the context of a conversation between three friends after school. Its purpose was to educate the young boys (ages 10-12 when entering the program) to "Recognize, Resist and Report" sexual molestation. I think it might be worth introducing to the general public. It largely speaks for itself.

More info: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/boy_scouts_and_sexual_abuse_what_will_happen_to_it_happened_to_me.html

Unfairness

Now that the BSA has opened up its doors to homosexual youth, it's unfair to keep the doors shut to atheists any longer. It's actually ludicrous to allow the former and not the latter. Atheists can, at least in theory, be just as moral as any monotheist, with the only difference being their rejection of belief in a deity. Meanwhile, homosexuality is an evil in each of those religions, and so if those who break the law should be allowed in, by what standard do you aim to keep out those who do not break the law? Maybe one could suppose that even if "morally straight" has been abandoned, the BSA will still attempt to uphold "duty to God" as a point of the Scout Oath. This would exclude atheists, certainly. But isn't moral straightness part of one's duty to God? To purport that active homosexuals honor the God of any faith--Christianity, Judaism or Islam; even the Eastern religions (Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism) seem largely to oppose the notion that homosexual activity can coexist with religious piety -- to thus purport that homosexuals can honor the "duty to God" aspect of the Scout Oath is ludicrous, and therefore if they can be allowed into the program while rejecting this "timeless value," then so can atheists, by the same standard. We have thus utterly destroyed the Scout Oath. All that's left is this:

"Oh my honor, I will do my duty to my country, and to keep myself physically strong." 

Permit me to scoff derisively.

Prediction: the BSA will soon have to give in to further pressure and allow atheists to join. 

The question is, will atheist boys be allowed in first, or homosexual leaders? We could start a betting pool. Anyone interested? I'll stake my claim on homosexual adults. Any takers?

Further Reading 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/05/25/BSA-and-gay-phase1
http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/05/22/boy-scouts-at-the-brink-the-moment-of-decision-arrives/
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/rip-boy-scouts-of-america/

~ Rak Chazak

How Could Sexual Urges Be God-Given?

Culture tells us that there's two main ways to approach sex: as something shameful, or as just something people do. Yeah, there are some who have the idea that sex is something beautiful or romantic or special, but these are unilaterally presented as a minority and as being sheltered, naive and simply wrong. My suspicion is that those who have had sex very young because they saw it as something they 'had' to do, probably take the view that sex isn't special subsequent to having a less-than-wonderful first experience. Upon wondering "was that it?" they don't want to face up to that they did something wrong, so instead they blame the whole concept of sex itself. 

There's a better way.

I am one of those that Hollywood(movies) and New York(sitcoms) pretend don't exist: the romantic. The person who surely must be hopelessly naive if he thinks that sex can be something beautiful and exciting, not just prior to the first time, but every time from then on. But if I simply believed this about sex in general, I would be naive. Instead, my actual view, as with most of my personal beliefs, is very conditional. Depending on the situation, something can be very good or very bad.

Sex is a tool. Like any tool, it has the capacity to be used to create amazing things. But if used wrongly, it can cause horrific injury and even death. (I'm thinking of a circle saw as the metaphor, in case anyone's wondering :D ). If I approach a deadly tool thinking of it as an innocent toy that can only bring me pleasure, then it is inevitable that I will hurt myself, possibly severely, because I had no respect for the tool; I had not submitted my mind to the knowledge of how to use it properly. Sex, if used properly as it should, within a loving, committed-for-life, relationship between only one man and only one woman, then it can bring great blessings to the both of them -- even the greatest blessing of all, life. Sex, if used improperly, becomes an instrument of abuse and defilement, destroying the honor of both men and women and devastating the lives of single mothers and the offspring of men who were too cowardly to stand up and raise their families, as is the man's duty.

If there's a place for sex, then there's a place for sexual desires. And while the line between good desire and lust is nearly impossible for man to toe, and therefore should not be attempted, the fact that we have sexual urges is a divine message to us, telling us something very important about who we are and what our purpose is. 

Watch these two short videos. They'll explain the purpose of sexual desire from a Biblical perspective.

If you want more, here's a bit of further background from Josh Harris.

Taken together, these clips give great advice. The message is this: your sexual desires are not supposed to be an obstacle to you living a godly life. Instead, they are given to you as a motivation to get your life in order so that you can marry and fulfill those desires within the appropriate context. Imagine your desires as rain. It does no good if the rain falls in the ocean, but if it falls on fertile ground it can enable plants to grow -- it can create life. If you have sexual desires, you know you're not called to a life of singleness. Consequently, then, when you pour your energies into the appropriate pursuit, you will reap amazing rewards and be so much more fulfilled than you could possibly be if you had chosen a promiscuous lifestyle.

Just like Ecclesiastes says, "there is a time for every purpose under heaven." There is a time and a place to "glut" on your sexual lusts, as RW Glenn says in his clip above, and that time will come when you have laid the groundwork and entered into a lifelong covenantal marriage relationship. Don't sell your future spouse short by wasting your sexuality on other people, real or imaginary. Pour yourself into them. Enrich their life and yours will be enriched also.

~ Rak Chazak 

ESPN Regrets Christian Speech... Full-Blown Persecution Is On Our Doorstep

We have entered an era where it is a liability to be a Christian, and a boost to your popularity and career to boast of your secret sins. Or not so secret.

The Homosexual Revolution

You've likely heard of the news regarding the basketball player who recently "came out" (I can't remember his name, and I frankly don't feel the need to; why give him more press?). He was greeted with congratulations and accolades from every corner. The President, who couldn't be bothered to comment on the Kermit Gosnell trial (likely because his voting record shows that he thinks the murderer's actions should be legal), nevertheless made a personal phone call to the now out-and-proud homosexual to CONGRATULATE him on his supposed "bravery."

Stop for a second. If coming out of the closet gets you nationwide media attention, widespread encouragement and support throughout the media and the public, and even a presidential phone call to congratulate you, what's brave about it? Even a USA Today column this week made the admission that this could only be a net benefit to his career.

Can anyone look at this particular case and honestly say that homosexuals are oppressed in this country?

Broussard Brouhaha

Flip the issue. A Christian ESPN commentator, Chris Broussard, takes a public stand for Christ by saying that homosexuality is a sin and that unrepentant homosexuals can't be true Christians.

ESPN hasn't immediately fired him, but it's early, yet. Supposedly, the website issued an apology for letting their tv coverage get 'nasty,' with apparent reference to the fact that someone who dared to disagree got airtime. Keep your eyes open for possible future contract termination. Persecutors of Christians in this country tend to try to be subtle...but they're getting bolder.

What's interesting is the response. While the backlash among the populace is vocal and aggressive, as is a typical product of internet anonymity, the fact that Mr. Broussard is able to clearly show that he's not hateful of homosexuals, that he's not behaving like an elitist or a hypocrite either, and his responsible and frequent bringing-up of Scripture to support his case, seems to have had the effect--if temporary--of actually stifling the animosity from the other side. He actually has gotten his critics to shut their mouths. Partially.  And you know why that is? The Word of God. 

Analysis

Todd Friel is a Georgia-based Christian radio host who comments on culture from a theologically Christian conservative point of view. Here is his analysis of the initial event:

http://www.wretchedradio.com/podcast.cfm?h=E6E7FF801F595092DC829C929E2981FD&page=1

Just recently, Mr. Broussard did a radio interview where he excellently exegeted Scripture and stood his ground. If you want to be encouraged that God is raising up true believers in public places to be salt and light, this second clip from today is must-hear radio:

http://www.wretchedradio.com/podcast.cfm?h=96399C6B6BB75AC77CDF8CCA9C7D5E6A&page=1

The first link is a little more cynical. I won't say pessimistic. In my view, pessimism is cynicism combined with a touch of fatalism (the feeling that there's no point because everything you do is futile). Cynicism is realism, namely the realization that things are bad, and the correct understanding of how you relate to it -- you have a purpose and things are never totally hopeless. You don't know what God's working on outside of your sphere of knowledge. Todd is cynical in his perception that persecution is on the way, but he's not a pessimist--the very fact that he has this radio show and that he goes to preach on "Witness Wednesdays," and his "Biggest Project" DVD-tracting ministry all show that he thinks his efforts -- and that of those who join ranks with him -- have the potential to be used by God to accomplish revival if it is in His sovereign will to do so. Pessimism leads to fatalism, which leads to a lack of action and motivation toward action. I don't see that in Todd, and I don't recognize it in myself, either. This blog is my personal attempt to do something about the situation in our nation today. I don't have the following of Wretched, Answers in Genesis, Way of the Master, or Grace to You, but to underestimate the impact that I as an individual can have is to ignore the implications of the Butterfly Effect -- that minor events can have huge consequences down the road due to the cascading ripple effect.

A USA Today column I read about the issue said it all. The writer, pro-gay, admitted that coming out of the closet was bound to be "a net benefit to his career," and I agree. I already questioned the notion that homosexuals are being oppressed by the greater society at large above, and I won't keep beating that dead horse. The irony here is that whereas homosexuality used to have a stigma, it really doesn't any more. Now the stigma is centered on Christianity. The news story of the week ought rather to be that Chris Broussard "came out of the closet" as a Christian on national television (not technically true, as he has been outspoken about his faith in the past). 

Todd pointed out something interesting in the second clip: that Broussard, by bringing up Scripture, was able to "shut them up," them being the hosts interviewing him. The takeaway lesson is that we won't have an impact on the culture by being witty or by promoting ad campaigns or joining with unbelievers in social activism. No, the one thing that has the power to accomplish God's plan is none other than God's own Word. The Bible.

In keeping with Todd's observation, here are two typically-leftist major online news websites' articles about Chris Broussard. What strikes me is, (in contrast to the comments at HuffPo), the seeming lack of animus in the writings. It really does seem as if Chris, by rightly handling the Word of Truth (2 Timothy 2:15), has managed to stifle the anti-Christian sentiment, at least temporarily. This should encourage all of us to, when dealing with unbelievers, to not rely on our own intuition or cleverness, but to always bring the discussion back to the Gospel and to bring up Scripture. No matter how much the person we're talking to hates it. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/chris-broussard-jason-collins-ask-forgiveness-gays_n_3202418.html?utm_hp_ref=sports&ir=Sports

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-espn-chris-broussard-sparks-uproar-after-jason-collins-remarks-20130429,0,1157118.story

Bonus:

A final tidbit, somewhat unrelated:

Homosexuality leads to the degrading of women. The logic goes, since relationships aren't about the man taking responsibility to lead and sacrificially love and serve his wife, and the wife respecting and submitting to her husband....if relationships are just about "happiness" and sexual pleasure, then as homosexuality gets mainstreamed, more people will think, since we don't need women for our sexual pleasure, what use is there for them? They're only good for one thing--making babies. Consequently, societies that have been sexually and homosexually promiscuous have not historically honored women. This is where we're going, now. Nothing is more anti-woman than the philosophy of 3rd-wave feminism that seeks to remove gender distinctions and mainstream homosexual behavior.

Another point Todd makes, in one of the three links I've given here, is that if it's really true that homosexuality isn't something people are born with--if it's a learned behavior--then you can expect that it's going to vastly increase in prevalence as it becomes accepted and mainstreamed by our society. 

Scary stuff. But I'm encouraged that God is raising up Christians like Chris Broussard in public places to be salt and light and accomplish His divine purposes.

His parents named him well. "Christopher," after all, is a name that means "Christ-bearer."

~ Rak Chazak

Eagle Scout Perspective on the BSA Policy Change

I figure my opinion might be worth something.

I was in the Boy Scouts of America from 2001 to 2008, becoming a "heartbreak Eagle" by turning in the completed binder for my Eagle Project just two days prior to my 18th birthday. My Eagle Board of Review was a few months later and then voila! I passed and about a year later, I had a joint Eagle Ceremony with four other guys in my age range from the same troop. The senator for our district came by and everything. Now I've been out for 5 years, but as they say, you never "were" an Eagle Scout. You are an Eagle Scout, for life.

At your Board of Review, you're asked a number of questions by the adult interviewers for the purpose of determining that you didn't fake your way through the system. They typically begin by having you recite the Scout Oath:

On my honor
I will do my best
To do my duty 
To God and my country,
To obey the Scout Law,
To keep myself physically strong
mentally awake
and morally straight. 

The second most commonly recited memorized dogma of Scouting is the Law:

A Scout is:
Trustworthy
Loyal
Helpful
Friendly
Courteous
Kind
Obedient
Cheerful
Thrifty
Brave
Clean
and Reverent.

"Morally straight" does not merely refer to sexual behavior, but it includes it. This moral straightness refers to one's duty to God. A Scout is Reverent--that means that he does not merely acknowledge the existence of a higher power, but that he honors and worships God through his thoughts, words, deeds and lifestyle. I am ashamed to say that I've known several guys, some who made Eagle, who were clearly not a believer in any orthodox religion, much less Christianity, and furthermore who engaged in premarital sex and illicit drug use. Many boys join Scouts because they want the opportunity to go camping or get to explore their pyrotechnic leanings, whereas others are forced to by their parents, and don't have any internal motivation to use the experience for character development.

This is no different for homosexuals. While atheists and anybody practicing premarital sex should also be sternly rebuked and risk banishment, the fact that these sins are winked at by a tolerant leadership does not mean that homosexuality should also get a free pass. What the three have in common is that people who break the rules still want to get the benefits of being part of something without having enough integrity to abide by the established rules in order to do so. They have an entitlement mentality, where, like the doping athlete, they think they deserve to be given an award despite their unsportsmanlike behavior. 

A homosexual isn't reverent to God. If a Scout must be, then he cannot be a Scout. By definition. Changing the rules to allow rulebreakers into the organization doesn't make the rulebreakers legitimate, it makes the organization increasingly illegitimate.

It's been pointed out before, but here's the fundamental logical reason, which even nonChristians can understand, why the BSA should not lift the ban on gays, whether boys or adults, lest it destroy itself: 

If the Boy Scouts of America lifts the ban on homosexuals, then it will be saying that its rules were not based on timeless values, but on arbitrary prejudice. Arbitrary prejudice can be arbitrarily abandoned. Timeless values cannot. If the BSA is built on values, then it cannot compromise those values. If the BSA compromises on homosexuality, it will be admitting that it does not stand on values but will give in to pressure. An interesting consequence is that the BSA will open itself up to lawsuits alleging wrongful discrimination, since lifting the ban would necessarily mean that the organization discriminated against homosexuals in the past without any reason to do so.

God doesn't change. His righteous judgments endure forever (Psalm 119:160). Truth is from God, therefore truth never changes, because God never changes. Changing rules is truthless and therefore godless. If the BSA compromises its position then it might as well throw out the part of the Oath and Law that reference God and moral straightness, or honor, loyalty and bravery for that matter. In other words, the whole thing. If the BSA does this thing, it will destroy itself. Some organization may remain, but it won't be the Boy Scouts of America, any longer.

Another Scout saying which Eagle candidates may be told to recite at their Board of Review is the Motto: "Be prepared." I can hardly imagine that the national leadership was prepared to deal with the challenge posed by mob intimidation by businesses and media on behalf of a minority of society that has no part in their mission and seeks to undermine it. Being prepared means planning ahead so that you do the right thing when you come under fire, rather than scatter and rout like undisciplined cowards.

Regroup. Reorganize. Fall-in. The Boy Scouts of America needs to reaffirm its charter, which has stood for 103 years. If it does not stand the test of time and bear the burden of criticism from an increasingly godless nation, it will cease to remain a force for good in the culture.

I fear that this is the way the chips will fall. When I am old enough to put my own children through a similar program, there may no longer be an existing structure that I can tolerate committing them to. I may have to make an attempt to start my own.

Persecution isn't coming, Christian. It's here.

~ Rak Chazak

How Churches Can Avoid Persecution Over Gay Marriage

I waited a bit too long to get moving on this post, and so I'm not going to give a summary, because I've forgotten the complete details. 

The complete podcasts are below: they contain Todd Friel's musings on coming persecution of Christians by the state religion for not acknowledging their sacrament of homosexuality.

http://www.wretchedradio.com/podcast.cfm?h=6F6CB65ADC908ABCBBD1E85A79DB4C57&page=1

http://www.wretchedradio.com/podcast.cfm?h=6306D4DF10E3CA5486B832D380D9F9B6&page=1

Here was an important point he made for pastors, which I'll recall from memory:

The government is going to require that you don't discriminate against gays, or else you'll lose your 501(c)3 status or maybe be sued for violating the law, etc etc. So how does a church avoid this, without violating Biblical principles? 

Todd's advice is this: churches should adapt their bylaws to say that they will a) not marry anyone who is not a member of that church, and b) to be a member, one must be in good standing. To be a member in good standing with the church, of course, one would have to submit to God's Law. A homosexual couple would not be capable of being a member in good standing and could thus not be married. 

Todd's other point in the podcasts linked above is that, judging by how John the Baptist challenged Herod (he said that his marriage to his sister was sinful, not that it was invalid and not a real marriage), we should conclude that gay marriage is nevertheless a real marriage, as is a marriage that occurs through adulterous means. The point the Church should make is that the marriage is sinful, but still submit to the government's authority.

He explains it a little better than I did here, in the podcasts. Mostly the first; the second is follow-up. They're approximately 10-15 minutes long, each. I encourage you to listen to them. And forward this link, or the link to the podcasts themselves, to your pastors and deacons. Because this is an issue that they're going to have to anticipate NOW, so that they are not taken by surprise later on.

~ Rak Chazak

Where Is the Intolerance?

I still remember the first time I was "cut off" by someone because they didn't tolerate my political or religious views (if you do it right, they're essentially one and the same).

I encountered a lot of information I'd never known before, in the Spring of 2010, and I was excited to share it -- surely others would want to know the truth as well! I was naive. I posted articles from Answers in Genesis and ICR that I found interesting. Many other web articles from obscure sites I don't remember, also. 

One time, I posted some quotes by Margaret Sanger that definitively proved her to be racist, on Facebook. A "friend" of mine immediately left a comment under the link, chiding me for not being open minded to the truth, and telling me "you are being unfriended. Do not approach me on campus."  Another time, I made a comment to the effect that I had just learned that a "drag show" was not a car racing competition, after all, and that I didn't like how a particular segment of the population would reappropriate words for their own use, defying their given definitions (by which I was referring to other words like "queer," "faggot," "gay," etc). This inspired another person to post "wow. Unfriended," under that post.

Shortly after that, I encountered online mobbing and did not feel that I could trust many of the people who had access to my private information via Facebook, so I slowly purged most of the people and eventually closed the account for about a year. Consequently, I wasn't publicly defriended by anyone else after that. If there were others who did it quietly, I never found out.

Today, I was having an extensive debate over email about feminism and gender roles with a young woman my age. I was surprised when she suddenly made this comment:

I see no point in continuing a discussion with someone who does not believe that I am capable of rational thought just because I am a woman, worthy of questioning him because I am a woman, or capable of debating him. In fact, we are not having a debate. You are simply attempting to instruct me so that you can feel more manly, and that thought frankly makes me want to vomit. If I want instruction from men, I have a wonderful father who can give me advise, and I have a number of male professors whom I respect very highly. If you feel that that you are being oppressed, I am sorry, but I assure you that you are not being systematically oppressed by women because you are a man. If some women don't like you, it's because of the way that you view them and the way that you imagine an ideal relationship with them would go. If gay people don't like you, it's because you think that their sexual orientation is a choice, that their sexual orientation is evil, that they deserve to be lonely for the rest of their lives or else that some heterosexual person deserves to spend the rest of their lives married to somebody who isn't attracted to them just so that your jerkass version of the Judeo-Christian God will be happy, that they do not deserve the same opportunities that you do, and that their sexual orientation makes them irrational and violent. So, you're not being oppressed, if oppressed you are really being at all, for your maleness or your sexual orientation. You are just pissing off people because of your ridiculous prejudices.

Nice unknowing you,

Of course, many of the statements she made in that diatribe are willful misunderstandings of what I had said to her. It is certainly more convenient to reject an imaginary version of something than to deal with a complicated reality that doesn't suit your expectations.

It made me think. I have never angrily cut contact with someone else because of their strong beliefs. On the contrary, it appears that those who angrily cut others out of their lives are those who are politically liberal and theologically unBiblical.

Alfonzo Rachel, a black conservative Christian commentator, made an observation in a Youtube video to the effect that "democrats tend to believe what makes them angry. I believe what I believe, and it doesn't make me angry," and that that serves as one additional confirmation of the correctness of his belief. I have to agree. It's not so much a logically impervious argument, but it's a good point to consider -- wouldn't the truth, on some level, be emotionally satisfying? If your belief system makes you angry, maybe it's not a good belief system.

Those who are not Christian tend to be the intolerant ones. The irony of conservatives and Christians being accused of bigotry and intolerance would be laughable if it weren't for the sad fact that the people who make these statements are either trying to excuse themselves, or severely deluded. It's only funny at first. Then the realization makes me sad. 

~ Rak Chazak

Journal Entry: Dr. Phil, Open Marriages and Homosexuality

There's a connection? 

Yup.

As you may have noticed if you've been reading from the bottom of the blog to the top, I'm gathering some initial material for the blog by going through my Journal and pasting certain entries I've made over the past year or so. Here is my reaction to a Dr. Phil episode I watched (I rarely watch t.v. at all, and this is why):

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

                        I turned on Dr. Phil for the first time in a long time (just after coming out of the bathroom, having read the first 30-some pages of Hadji, which is the Swedish title of The Hajj, by Leon Uris. I’d started reading it last year but only made it through the first 2 chapters), and he had on two african-american couples who were involved in an “open marriage.” The arrogant ignorance coming out of their mouths was disturbing. The wife is apparently a blogger, and she loves to run her mouth—she interrupted Dr. Phil multiple times and she even got shouted down by the audience. 

The husband said he thought the #1 thing that causes STDs is fear. Because fear causes stress which compromises your immune system. I kid you not. The wife was boastful, touting her ‘list of accomplishments,’ (i.e. they had a tough life, and if the kids turn out messed up it could be from any one of the other things—their house burning, moving, etc, rather than their very open ‘marriage’ that their kids know about) and talked about how she watched porn with her daughter (the point was to be ‘educational,’ but that doesn’t excuse it. She didn’t see a problem with showing her that). She ended her soliloquy by trying to make the point that their household was ‘good,’ or ‘inclusive,’ accepting, etc. by proudly stating that they’ll be totally okay with their children bringing home girlfriends or boyfriends that they’re having sex with. She’s so blind to her own lusts that she doesn’t realize this is not something that earns you points for being a good parent. Quite the opposite. 

The thing that stood out about her and her husband was that they reminded me of the other African-american couple that I had encountered in Borders (the bookstore) that were so sold on astrology and tried to justify to me how remarkable and personally enlightening it was, and then, how blind and ignorant I was for not believing it. This woman did the same to the audience. She was defensive and puffed herself up with accolades to justify her desire to be allowed to do what she’s doing without consequence, without anyone telling her she’s doing something wrong. 

Which reminds me, one point she made was “there are 33,000 religions in this country—which one should I teach my kids?” to her mother-in-law, who repeatedly said on the show that she was concerned for the children. Naturally, that makes all the sense in the world—it is the rejection of the Biblical God and His perfect law that leads people to justify these perversions. Noteworthy is the fact that she tried to refer to society’s acceptance of homosexual relationships in order to justify her ‘open marriage’ arrangement. Ultimately, those who accept and promote homosexuality have no ground to stand on to oppose having multiple partners, because the only ground to stand on is the Bible, and it must be rejected in order to embrace homosexuality.

~ Rak Chazak