Friday, April 20, 2007

Letters to the Editor About Danielson's March 10 Verbal Attack on a Citizen

The following links are self explanatory, so I won't add much further comment. The first link is a letter from Alvira Morris, responding to the behavior she observed Senator Danielson exhibit at the March 10, 2007 legislative forum. At the end of the letter is a response that the Waterloo Courier solicited from Danielson.

The second link is a letter from Al Manning, responding to Danielson's response to the first letter, as well as his remarks at the forum.

Alvira Morris' Letter

Al Manning's Letter

Blog Post (Including Video) About Danielson's Tirade at the Forum

Monday, April 9, 2007

Sunday, April 8, 2007

Legislators Won't Call Homosexuality Immoral

In today's Waterloo Courier, in a piece about the proposed addition of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the state's civil rights code titled "Civil rights bill shows shift in political winds", columnist Charlotte Eby observes that "one of the interesting shifts taking place is the refusal of opponents to publicly call homosexuality immoral or distasteful." Unfortunately, she is right.

There are at least four reasons for this:

1) Some people (Christians included) have actually been convinced that perhaps homosexuality is not sinful after all. Many of these people have bought into the argument of the homosexual movement that "God would not create people with same-sex attraction if homosexuality was a sin". They often buy into this argument after learning that a family member or close friend is attracted to same sex. However, knowing someone in this lifestyle--no matter how nice of a person they might be--does not alter the fact that homosexuality IS sinful, and God did NOT create man to lie with man.

2) Many well meaning Christians have come to believe that we cannot use God's word when making arguments in a secular world, instead arguing with statistics about the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle and trying to show that promoting homosexuality is bad for our culture. They think that Bible-based arguments will be rejected out of hand and they will be condemned for basing their arguments on something as archaic and irrelevant to today's society as the Bible. They have also cowed to the false assertion that religious beliefs have no place in the public square (I submit that ALL decisions are based on a person's religious beliefs, even if the person is an atheist). The trouble with this is two-fold: a) the pro-homosexual "rights" crowd will not accept any argument, no matter how many statistics you throw at them, and b) without a moral foundation like the Bible--if there is no objective truth and unchanging view of right and wrong--people who might be open to considering both sides of the argument will see no more validity in our view than in the view of the pro-homosexual crowd. We will be left to appeal on the basis of emotion and compassion, and we have seen that the pro-homosexual crowd has had much more success in that arena than we have.

There is spiritual power in God's word. There is no spiritual power in statistics. Most often, we will be rejected anyway, but it is better to be rejected for Christ, rather than for our secular arguments. All we can do is tell people what God says and leave the results up to Him. They may boo, hiss, and laugh when we try to use biblical arguments, but didn't Jesus tell us that's what we would face when we professed to be His followers? Why, then, should be be surprised, and why should we cringe from what we have been commanded to do?

3) The majority of people who think homosexuality is a sin are not willing to publicly state that view, because the homosexual movement has been very effective in portraying their members as helpless victims in need of protection, and portraying anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong as "homophobic", "bigoted", "hateful", "fascist", and other nice names. No one wants to be called one of those nasty names, so most keep silent, which was the goal of the homosexual movement all along. They weren't able to win the debate on the basis of morality, or any other basis, so their strategy was to silence the opposition by making them appear hateful, intolerant, and even dangerous. In almost every case where people have been able to express their opinion privately, they say homosexuality is wrong. Witness the fact that out of 28 states that have voted for an amendment to define marriage as only between one man and one woman, 27 have approved it, by margins that are not even close.

4) Contributing to the previous three reasons, is the fact that few pastors teach that homosexuality is a sin anymore. Most churches either avoid the subject entirely or, in the case of liberal churches, they (wrongly) teach that same-sex attraction is a trait given us by God, and therefore just as normal as opposite-sex attraction. One could make that same argument about all kinds of sinful behavior that people are predisposed to. In fact, just that fact that we are all sinful could be used as an argument that God doesn't condemn sin. The truth is that we are born with a sinful nature because of the sin of the first man, Adam. We all sin; it is a choice we make. That does not mean that God created us to sin, nor that He condones sin of any kind.

There has been no credible scientific research showing that some people are born with same-sex attraction. And, even if a "gay gene" were to be found, that does not mean homosexuality is virtuous, or that God created us to be that way. People are born with birth defects and other genetic abnormalities, a predisposition toward alcoholism, etc., but that does not mean they are good. We live in a fallen world, and have imperfect bodies with imperfect genes.

I believe we are probably past the point of no return concerning our society's acceptance of homosexuality (Heaven help us all), but we must still be faithful and not be afraid to call homosexuality what it is--a sin--even if we are part a very small minority that is willing to do so. This applies to all sins, not just homosexuality. The reason homosexuality seems to have so much attention directed toward it is because no other sinful behavior has such a well-funded, well-organized, well-strategized, and successful movement behind it that is focused on getting the behavior not only legitimized and written into law, but also silencing any contrary views and indoctrinating our children a positive view of homosexuality, starting in Kindergarten.

When people in a supposedly free society are afraid to call something wrong that IS wrong, for fear of backlash from the politically-correct, elitist, thought police, that's scary! We are not moving toward enlightenment, but toward facism.

Saturday, April 7, 2007

Proposed Bill Protects Road Map From Being Defaced

The new Iowa road maps are being widely distributed across the state, but to mixed reviews. It is not accuracy or readability issues that have some people up in arms, but the pictures of Governor Culver and Lt. Governor Judge on the back of the map. Some citizens, upset with all the socialistic bills the Governor has signed this year, don't think they should have to have pictures of him and his lieutenant in their cars.

In response to reports that some motorists are blotting out, or otherwise covering up or defacing (no pun intended) these pictures, Senator Mike Connolly (D-Dubuque) has sponsored bill SF 590 which would make it a serious misdemeanor for anyone to "mark, cover, or otherwise alter" these pictures.

In a rare display of dissent in the Senate Democratic caucus, and a refreshing development for proponents of less government intrusion in the lives of citizens, Senator Frank Wood (D-Scott) has filed an amendment (S-3300) which would allow marking or covering of the pictures, as long as it doesn't bleed through the map. Explaining the reason for his amendment, Wood said, "I don't think the climate is such in Iowa that residents are ready for the government to tell them they cannot cover a picture on a road map." Investigation by this blogger has uncovered the fact that Wood's district is the one most affected by bleed through (see graphic above). Connolly has vowed to have the amendment ruled not germane to the bill when it comes to the floor for debate. Senator Roger Stewart (D-Jackson), whose district is very close to the reverse side of the pictures, is considering offering an amendment to the amendment which would also prohibit tearing the pictures off the map.

Senator Herman Quirmbach (D-Story) filed amendment S-3301, which would change the penalty in the proposed bill from a misdemeanor to a Class D Felony. Explaining the reasoning behind his amendment, Quirmach stated, "Once you allow defacing of one official state document, where does it end? We must send a strong message that we will not tolerate having our state publications defaced by political dissenters." On a related note, Quirmbach revealed that next week he plans to introduce a bill that would make possession of any book, magazine, document, or other publication that contains unfavorable references to homosexuality, gender identity, or related sexual behavior an aggravated misdemeanor.

***OK, calm down! It's political satire, people! I find myself having to add these disclaimers because there are some people who think something like the above (and the previous post about this blog being locked) is not out of the realm of possibility, given the laws we have already seen passed this session!***