New Book on Same-Sex Marriage

,

My new book Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Will Hurt Everyone is now available as an e-book by clicking on the link.  The paperback is coming soon.  Here is the writeup from the back cover:

Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possibly hurt?

Using sound reasoning and evidence—not religion—award-winning author Frank Turek shows that everyone will be hurt including children, the nation, and even homosexuals themselves. Turek provides concise answers to objections about equal rights, discrimination, and being born a certain way, and he exposes the real reason gay activists are trying to impose same-sex marriage on the country without a single vote from the people.Turek’s message is direct but respectful. It is correct, not politically correct. And it is a message that we must not ignore.

/by

What Would Barack Do?

On June 28, 2006 Illinois Senator Barack Obama addressed the Call to Renewal’s “Building a Covenant for a New America” conference.  Call to Renewal publishes Sojourners, a magazine of the Christian left that provides sustenance for those committed to the Social Gospel movement, which began in the late 19th century under Walter Rauschenbusch.  Sojourners routinely publishes articles by members of Christianity’s liberal faction such as its founding editor-in-chief Jim Wallis, along with articles by Emergent Church leaders such as Brian McLaren.

Rauschenbusch was greatly influenced by the writings of Charles Sheldon, such as the classic work In His Steps, which gave rise to the modern maxim”What Would Jesus Do?”  While there is nothing inherently wrong with asking such a question, the Social Gospel movement has strayed from evangelical orthodoxy in its focus on social works to the exclusion of foundational Christian doctrines.  A balanced Christian view can be found in the Evangelical Manifesto of May 7, 2008.  See especially page 6:

http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/docs/Evangelical_Manifesto.pdf

It behooves Christian Evangelicals to read Senator Obama’s speech carefully. 

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/

About 2/3 of the way through the speech, in a paragraph that begins… “And even if we did have only Christians in our midst…” Senator Obama asks, “Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.”

If Senator Obama hadn’t presented this speech three months prior to the publication of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion I would have suggested he borrowed from Dawkins.  He presciently iterates the same misguided rhetoric the New Atheists have now brought into the mainstream.  In any case, his comments make it quite clear that he is among those “folks who haven’t been reading their bibles,” at least not beyond a superficial level.  Sadly, Call to Renewal’s Christian left failed to recognize the blatant error in Barack Obama’s remarks.  As Evangelicals, I suggest we share this speech with any Christian friends who find his candidacy compelling.

/by

Life Begins at Conception

George Weigel writing for NewsWeek points out what we’ve known as a scientific fact for decades:  that human life begins at conception and any other suggested point for its beginning is arbitrary:  http://www.newsweek.com/id/155564/output/print.  This is not a matter of religious faith, but cold hard science.

In my opinion, anyone running for President who thinks that such a fact is “above his pay grade” ought not be seeking the highest political pay grade in the world.

/by

Atheist Diversionary Tactics

The new atheists are a tumescent bunch, unquestionably articulate, yet consummately misguided. Their incendiary rhetoric can’t help but stir the emotions of the majority of America’s religious. Yet why do they ultimately choose to target Christianity above all other religious systems, when radical Islam presents the clear and present danger?

They routinely build a straw man version of Christianity based not upon the Ten Commandments and the morality of the Christ, but rather upon Old Testament Levitical laws that have long since been abrogated. They cannot be so naïve as to believe that Christians condone the murder of back talking children. Yet they must presume their audience is just so naïve, since this is exactly the sort of rhetoric they routinely tout.

In the latest books by avowed atheists, such as Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, Christopher Hitchens’ God is Not Great and Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation, the crux of the problem lies undisturbed. It never seems to surface amongst the pestiferous rhetoric of the atheist leaders.

They call for a secular America that mimics the “least religious societies on earth,” such as Norway, Denmark, Belgium and most of Western Europe, believing that the “end of religion” is an achievable goal. Yet, Western Europe has undergone an unprecedented decline in population that threatens its very existence. Conversely, the Middle East and Africa saw the greatest population growth during the 1990s, in nations that are predominantly Islamic.

The new atheists applaud Western European openness toward matters of gender equality and abortion, yet both of these departures from traditional religious mores have contributed to the dwindling population problem. Sam Harris, in his Letter to a Christian Nation, submits that “seventy percent of the inmates of France’s jails are Muslim.” He obtusely observes that Western European Muslims are generally not atheists, implying that atheists are not part of the “problem.”

However, by not recognizing the real problem, and by diverting attention toward Christianity rather than Islam, neither are they part of the solution. France’s tolerance has permitted their Muslim population to exceed 10%. Their hospitality has already been reciprocated with Islamic car bombings and gang riots. In America, the Muslim population is generally estimated at less than 2% of the population.

The increase in Europe’s Muslim population, along with population decline among European nationals, is changing the demographic climate in the cradle of continental philosophy. Rather than a progressive transformation toward analytic scientism and a consummately secular society, Europe is slowly and methodically regressing by embracing the ancient Mesopotamian culture that has emigrated from the cradle of civilization.

The new atheists aren’t the only ones with an agenda. While Sam Harris wants to see “the end of faith,” Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to see the end of Israel and the United States. Saudi Arabian oil money is pouring into our nation’s colleges and universities, mosques and Islamic day schools, at an alarming rate. Saudi monies don’t fund new science labs, libraries or gymnasiums, but rather Middle Eastern Studies programs, many of which have become bastions of radical jihadist thought. There is one thing virtually all Muslims have the same opinion upon, radical or otherwise. They agree with Shari’a Law and the emergence of an Islamic caliphate that will rule the entire Middle East and, if possible, the entire globe.

President Bush entered Iraq with the goal of liberating the Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, much like President Roosevelt entered Europe to liberate that part of the world from the maniacal control of Adolf Hitler. Our presence in Iraq has two very reasonable purposes: to aid the Iraqis in stabilizing their nation and to keep an eye on their next door neighbor, who unabashedly considers us the “Great Satan.” The new atheists are diverting our attention from America’s real problem by blurring the distinct boundaries between monotheistic religions.

/by

The Presidency is not an Entry-Level Position

In my opinion, both presidential candidates have their problems.  But one has more problems than the other.  Here is a column I wrote for Townhall.com:  The Presidency is not an Entry-Level Position.

/by

If You’re Not a Hypocrite, Maybe Your Standards are too Low

,

Both political parties have their problems, but I thought this was brilliant. http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cartoonist/MikeShelton/2007/09/1

/by

Why You OUGHT to Judge

,

This column is a column I wrote for www.TownHall.com today.

At least one lesbian is not happy with me for the case I made last week against same-sex marriage on our TV program.  She wrote me this ALL CAPS e-mail with “VERY JUDGEMENTAL” in the subject line:

ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE ME AND I AM A CHRISTIAN LESBIAN AND HAVE BEEN FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS. STOP JUDGING AND MOVE ON!!! I AM SO TIRED OF ALL YOU UPTIGHT, DO RIGHT, SINNERS JUDGING PEOPLE.

I wrote her back asking her why she was judging me for judging. It seemed like a fair question.  After all, if I am not to “judge” her, why is it OK for her to judge me?  And if she’s a Christian, doesn’t she know that God has already judged homosexual behavior as immoral?  I mean, I didn’t make the judgment that homosexual behavior was wrong.  God is the standard of morality, not me.

But the main point is that my lesbian pen pal did what most liberals do when they are faced with arguments they don’t like—they misuse Jesus’ apparent command not to “judge” in order to shut you up.  So if you oppose their behavior or their attempt to get the nation to endorse their immorality (i.e. same-sex marriage), you’re sure to hear “Thou shalt not judge!”

As with most slogans shouted by the left, the truth is exactly opposite to what they claim. Liberals take the judgment statements of Jesus out of context because they want to avoid any moral condemnation for their own actions, and they don’t want you to notice that they are making judgments too. Let’s take a look at what Jesus actually said:

Do not judge lest you be judged. ? For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye?  You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. (Mt. 7:1-5)

Notice Jesus isn’t telling us not to judge—Jesus is telling us how to judge.  He actually commands us to take the speck out of our brother’s eye—that involves making a judgment. But he also commands us to stop committing the bigger sins ourselves so we can better help our brother. In other words, when you judge, do so rightly not hypocritically.

Jesus expressed this same idea when he said “stop judging by mere appearances and make a right judgment” (John 7:24). Jesus would never tell us to stop judging– that would be suicide! Just think about how impossible life would be if you didn’t make judgments.  You make hundreds, if not thousands, of judgments every day between good and evil, right and wrong, dangerous choices from safe ones.  You’d be dead already if you didn’t make judgments.

What does this have to do with politics?  Every law is a judgment about what’s best for society.  Homosexual activists are making a judgment that same-sex marriage would be the best law for society. It’s a wrong judgment as I’ve argued in this column before (Gay Marriage:  Even Liberals Know it’s Bad), but it’s a judgment nonetheless.  So in addition to being self-defeating, the belief that we “ought not judge” is completely impractical and even dangerous.  Making judgments is unavoidable both personally and politically.  If you want to meet a sudden and premature demise, just stop making judgments.

Unfortunately, liberals are propelling our society toward a premature demise by making the disastrous judgment that we ought not make judgments about their behavior. They, of course, can judge our behavior as immoral when we oppose same-sex marriage or the killing of the unborn. But we are not to judge their behavior.  This is exactly the kind of hypocrisy that Jesus warned against. The passage they quote actually convicts them!

For folks so concerned about the “separation of church and state,” it’s amazing how fast liberals quote the Bible when they think it helps their case. Don’t let them get away with that.  If they believe the Bible when they think it condemns judging (which it doesn’t), then ask them why they don’t believe the Bible when it certainly condemns homosexuality.  If they want to use the Bible as their standard, then they will be judged by that same standard.

/by

Gay Animals: An Albatross of an Argument

,

In a lame attempt to justify same-sex marriage, Google News linked to this story from an LA Times blog.   According to the story, some female albatrosses may be coupling and caring for offspring together after the dead-beat daddy albatross has left.   This animals-do-it argument is seriously put forth by homosexual activists. Yes, some animals engage in homosexual behavior and perhaps even parenting on occasion.  But some animals eat their young too.  Should we do that as well?

When homosexual activists extol animals as their moral examples, they are looking down rather than up.  The argument is an albatross around their necks.

/by

Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It’s Bad

,

This is my column that is running today at TownHall.com. I’ll post more on this later because 800 words is not enough to cover this very controversial topic.

Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possibly hurt? Children and the rest of society. That’s the conclusion of David Blankenhorn, who is anything but an anti-gay “bigot.” He is a life-long, pro-gay, liberal democrat who disagrees with the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual behavior. Despite this, Blankenhorn makes a powerful case against Same-Sex marriage in his book, The Future of Marriage.

He writes, “Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law.”

How so? The law is a great teacher, and same sex marriage will teach future generations that marriage is not about children but about coupling. When marriage becomes nothing more than coupling, fewer people will get married to have children.

So what? People will still have children, of course, but many more of them out-of wedlock. That’s a disaster for everyone. Children will be hurt because illegitimate parents (there are no illegitimate children) often never form a family, and those that “shack up” break up at a rate two to three times that of married parents. Society will be hurt because illegitimacy starts a chain of negative effects that fall like dominoes—illegitimacy leads to poverty, crime, and higher welfare costs which lead to bigger government, higher taxes, and a slower economy.

Are these just the hysterical cries of an alarmist? No. We can see the connection between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy in Scandinavian countries. Norway, for example, has had de-facto same-sex marriage since the early nineties. In Nordland, the most liberal county of Norway, where they fly “gay” rainbow flags over their churches, out-of-wedlock births have soared—more than 80 percent of women giving birth for the first time, and nearly 70 percent of all children, are born out of wedlock! Across all of Norway, illegitimacy rose from 39 percent to 50 percent in the first decade of same-sex marriage.

Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes, “When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag — the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway — we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared.” He asserts that “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.” But it’s not just Norway. Blankenhorn reports this same trend in other countries. International surveys show that same-sex marriage and the erosion of traditional marriage tend to go together. Traditional marriage is weakest and illegitimacy strongest wherever same-sex marriage is legal.

You might say, “Correlation doesn’t always indicate causation!” Yes, but often it does. Is there any doubt that liberalizing marriage laws impacts society for the worse? You need look no further than the last 40 years of no-fault divorce laws in the United States (family disintegration destroys lives and now costs tax payers $112 billion per year!).

No-fault divorce laws began in one state, California, and then spread to rest of the country. Those liberalized divorce laws helped change our attitudes and behaviors about the permanence of marriage. There’s no question that liberalized marriage laws will help change our attitudes and behaviors about the purpose of marriage. The law is a great teacher, and if same-sex marriage advocates have their way, children will be expelled from the lesson on marriage.

This leads Blankenhorn to assert, “One can believe in same-sex marriage. One can believe that every child deserves a mother and a father. One cannot believe both.”

Blankenhorn is amazed how indifferent homosexual activists are about the negative effects of same-sex marriage on children. Many of them, he documents, say that marriage isn’t about children.

Well, if marriage isn’t about children, what institution is about children? And if we’re going to redefine marriage into mere coupling, then why should the state endorse same-sex marriage at all?

Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the state doesn’t endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. Society gets no benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, only harm as the connection to illegitimacy shows. But the very future of children and a civilized society depends on stable marriages between men and women. That’s why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types of relationships should never be legally equated.

That conclusion has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with what’s best for children and society. Just ask pro-gay, liberal democrat David Blankenhorn.

 

/by

Why Does the State Endorse Marriage?

,

Following the California Supreme Court decision last week, I posed four questions about Same-Sex Marriage that have generated quite a lot of discussion.  It seems many people are operating on emotion rather than reason on this issue.  Most of us know and like homosexuals, and that can cloud our reasoning.

One of the cloudy areas is the purpose the state endorses marriage. Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the state doesn’t endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. Society gets nothing positive, and actually gets additional negatives (I’ll explain in another post), by recognizing the relationship of two homosexuals. But the very future of the state and a civilized society depends on committed relationships between heterosexuals. That’s why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types of relationships should never be legally equated.

I am completing a book on this topic right now, and these short posts may raise more questions than answers.  So for a more detailed response, I thought you might like to hear from a very sound thinker on this topic, Greg Koukl, President of Stand to Reason.  (Greg will be an instructor at our CrossExamined Instructor Academy in August.)  Click here to read his article Same-Sex Marriage:  Challenges and Responses.  I appreciate your feedback on his points.

/by