The battle for Same Sex Marriage

         Tuesday and Wednesday of this week SCOTUS (the Supreme Court Of The United States) will hear arguments for and against same sex marriage. The two cases before the courts are California's Proposition 8 and the Federal Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA).  This is perhaps one of the most important cases this court has heard in a decade or more. This trial has the potential to be the Roe v. Wade of my generation. I hope and pray that the Supreme Court will have the wisdom to reject redefining marriage.
         It seems that the pro-homosexual marriage groups have done a good job at swaying some public opinion to their side by equating same sex marriage with the civil rights movement. From their perspective this is a smart move, because it gets results. However, from my perspective I see this as just another lie. The same sex marriage movement is not a civil rights issue. This is clearly seen in states where very strong civil union laws are passed that grant same sex civil unions all the same legal rights and privileges, because these laws do not satisfy the same sex marriage agenda. The phrase "civil rights" implies an issue that is about rights. This argument is mostly over wording/labels. They want the word marriage redefined to included same sex couples. This is just totally uncalled for. Homosexuals deserve to be treated like human beings and to have legal rights, but that doesn't mean that words have to be redefined to accommodate their desires.
       If I sell oranges and I perceive that oranges sales are down due to placement and treatment, I may lobby to put oranges on equal footing with apples, but to ask that the word apple be redefined to include oranges so that I can place my product in the apple section is just not warranted. This would be like the civil rights movement not just requesting equal treatment/status for blacks and minorities, but also pushing to have the color white redefined to include the color black.
       Regarding this trial (and our culture), I fear the worst, but hope for the best.



Is same sex marriage truly the next step in the "civil rights" movement? I think the answer is no. This article talks about this concept some:

Hypocrisy in the Black Church? A Same-Sex Marriage Debate
http://www.blogos.org/compellingtruth/same-sex-marriage-debate.html

What is liberty?

         There is a lot of confusion out there about what liberty is and what a libertarian is. I hope to share with you in this article my perspective on what true liberty is. Like any good concept in our culture, that are always people who claim to be a part of something, but do not hold true to the ideals it espouses. Some people will even claim to be a participant in a good concept, but act in the exact opposite way of what true participants should act.
        Then there are people who do not like liberty or libertarian views so they mistakenly or purposefully convince the culture to associate negative terms with liberty. This is essentially name calling or poor interpretation done so to further an agenda.

    So how do I define liberty? Lets start with a definition of liberty from the Merriam-Webster dictionary (online). Here is what definition number one (the definition relevant to this topic) says:

1) the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice

Most of these definitions do a decent job of describing my view of liberty, however, definition "a" does a horrible job.

   It is important to realize that true liberty is difficult to define with a single short phrase. I see liberty as a more complex concept that combines definitions b,c,d, e, and some additional attributes. Liberty should be and, in my opinion, must be defined and interpreted within a framework. Often people with the wrong idea about what liberty is have acquired that view by trying to define liberty as definition "a"  describes and then expanding it to the extreme. The phrase "the power to do as one pleases" is significantly different than "the power to do as one pleases, as long as it is responsible, just, honorable, and reasonable". Taking the first phrase to the extreme is where labels like "anarchy" and "marxism" come from. However, these labels are incorrect and irresponsible when they are applied to liberty. If liberty was truly anarchy or marxism, then we would not need the word liberty!! The second phrase maybe not be perfect either, but liberty is a complex concept.

     Liberty is perhaps easiest to discuss when placed in an appropriate context. Liberty in the United States of America is about admitting that the government authority has a limit and that individual authority has a limit. In America individual liberties are often destroyed or discarded when government powers abuse their authority and over step their proper limits. When an individual denies that their authority has limits, and they state or act as if they should be able to do as they please no matter what, then they are enacting anarchy not liberty. Liberty ceases to be liberty when you remove it from a proper framework and disregard all limits.

     Now that you understand the difference between anarchy and liberty, who defines the proper limits of liberty? This is a questions which people have written volumes of text about. Many people see this question as requiring a lengthy answer. My worldview has a clear framework and clear limits, because I am a Christ follower and I try to conform to the standards and limits of the Bible. The US declaration of indepence says it well:

 "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

    Since the creator has given us liberty, we must exercise proper responsibility when using our liberty, otherwise we abuse the concept and it becomes something entirely different.

What is a Christ Follower?

            Christian is an over used term often applied by a person to themselves or to others without much thought. The conditions necessary to be labeled or to label one's self a Christian are very minimal.  Therefore a new term, Christ Follower, is starting to gain some ground among authentic Christians who want to use a more accurate term to describe themselves.  The term "Christian" is a noun where as "Christ Follower" is a verb. It may not be a verb according to your english teacher, but the term Christ Follower implies action. You can be a Christian by applying certain views, values, or attributes to yourself, but to be a Christ Follower you have to be actively pursing a lifestyle that is more like Jesus Christ and less like your old, sinful self.
           It does not mean you are perfect, or that you are shouting Bible verses on the street. It does mean that you will not knowingly tolerate any part of your life being out of the bounds of a biblical view for very long. In other words, a self-labeled Christian may be satisfied to have some parts of their life conform to biblical standards and other parts not, but a Christ Follower admits that certain parts of their life do not conform to biblical standards and they begin (and continue) a journey to bring that area of their life into line with God's views.
           Many people, leaders, and politicians claim to be a Christian (or maybe even claim to be a Christ Follower), but they are not followers of Christ unless they are actively becoming more like Jesus Christ. If they hold unbiblical core values (or proudly proclaim unbiblical values) for extended periods of time with no intent to change them, then they are stating with their actions that they do not want to be like Christ. This by definition excludes them from a proper definition of a Christ Follower or of a truly authentic Christian.
         What are the values that I refer to in the previous paragraph when I say, "core values?"   I do not dictate the core values of a biblical worldview or of Jesus Christ. However, I would assert that a proper interpretation of the Bible would includes these core values, to name just a few:

- Believing that the Bible is the true word of God
- That the universe was created by God
- Trust in Jesus Christ as savior and LORD
- Accepting the trinity as true
- That God created the basic family unit (marriage) to be a union of one man and one woman
- That murder is wrong and sinful (including unborn babies)
- Acceptance of the 10 commandments (including the one just mentioned)
- any many more that I should have listed...........

             It is important to note that you do not have to immediately accept all these things as true to be a Christian or a Christ Follower. However, you should (and I would argue must) consider what the bible says on each of these areas and settle for nothing less than having the same view of these issues as Jesus Christ himself. If you accept any view in these areas that does not match the view of Jesus Christ (read the Bible), then you are not actively seeking to live a lifestyle more like Jesus Christ.

Did the Universe Create Itself?

I am currently reading the book, "GOD and Stephen Hawking: Whose design is it anyway?"

   I have found the book most interesting so far. Here are a few quotes I want to share:

        The author, referring to Stephen Hawking's book, The Grand Design: "Thus, the main conclusion of the book turns out not simply to be a self-contradiction, which would be disaster enough, but to be a triple self-contradiction. Philosophers  just might be tempted to comment: so that is what comes of saying philosophy is dead!"

       Referring to this statement made in Hawking's book: "because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing."

        Another quote from the author, "What this all goes to show is that nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists. What serves to obscure the illogicality of such statements is the fact that they are made by scientists; and the general public, not surprisingly, assumes that they are statements of science and takes them on authority. That is why it is important to pint out that they are not statements of science, and any statement, whether made by a scientist or not, should be open to logical analysis. Immense prestige and authority does not compensate for faulty logic."

        Anyways, I recommend the book. To see how the author can make these statements you should read through the thought process he uses.

Obamacare: Can a Business Have Religious Views?

When I read news articles like this one:

Judge rejects Mennonite firm's healthcare law challenge
http://www.onenewsnow.com/ap/legal/judge-rejects-mennonite-firms-healthcare-law-challenge

It makes me wonder why people often claim a for profit company cannot have religious views. There is plenty of precedent for businesses have other personal attributes and constitutional protections.

My Business, Myself: Piercing the Corporate Veil | Culture | Religion Dispatches
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/6708/my_business__myself__piercing_the_corporate_veil/

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

Corporate personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Corporations_as_persons_in_the_United_States

The above articles show that businesses sometimes get personal rights and sometimes they do not. Obviously, from a legal perspective, this is still a gray area that will change as the future progresses. In my opinion religious liberty is worthy of being protected even when attributed to a business.
        However, I do see a slippery slope of non-religious businesses taking advantage of religious exemptions or protections. Therefore, I think a reasonable compromise would be that exempt businesses: must sign an affidavit, display a mission statement with clear religious goals (on their website and place of business), post a sign stating, "this is a religious organization.", and lose their exemption if fraud/dishonesty of their mission statement/affidavit is detected. This would make abuse a lot less likely. Potential abusers of exemptions would have to be willing to publicize their choice to their patrons and possibly deal with negative public reactions.
     Obviously, my proposal with have weaknesses of its own, but I think there is a way to reasonably accommodate religious liberty for a business. If you disagree, just take your money to the non-religious businesses. We still have the right (at least for now) to choose what businesses we shop at.

Radiometric Dating: Clear or Foggy?

         Radiometric dating of rocks may not be as black and white as you may think. Often, mainstream science mentions the results of radiometric dating in publications without mentioning that it may be off significantly of just plain wrong. They present this persona that radiometric dating is absolute, authoritative,  not to be challenged, and always accurate. If you read closely you can find publications that mention how they had to date something numerous times to get the date they expected or that they had to try a different radiometric dating method. If you look you can also find information about the assumptions that radiometric dating uses.

For example Wikipedia says the K-Ar dating requires five assumptions to be true in order for this dating method to be accurate.
K–Ar dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%E2%80%93Ar_dating#Assumptions

You may think all of these assumptions are very well established, but they will still always be assumptions.  Just the thought of science using assumptions does not sound flawless does it? What if an assumption is wrong? How will that affect the results? Maybe radiometric is not so clear after all.

Then there is this statement:
"Due to the long half-life, the technique is most applicable for dating minerals and rocks more than 100,000 years old. For shorter timescales, it is unlikely that enough argon-40 will have had time to accumulate in order to be accurately measurable."

This statement is not listed in the assumptions section, but is presenting one nonetheless.  If this dating method is only for rocks older than 100,000 years, then it assumes that rocks older than 100,000 years exist.


Further reading:
Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers
https://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers

Is It Crazy To Question Evolution?

             We should never blindly believe or follow anything. This has often been said towards the religious community, because of a perceived practice of brain washing children to blindly follow the religion of their parents. However, one can not apply a double standard here without being detrimental to Truth. Evolution is often taught dogmatically to the masses, regardless of whether they understand how science reached these conclusions. We are apparently just suppose to trust their conclusions, because they have Ph.D.'s.
        The obvious response to this is to say that dogmatic religious belief is not based in reality and dogmatic evolutionary belief is based in scientific fact (fossils, DNA, statistics, geology, dating methods, etc....). However, this is over simplifying the issue. Faith is required when accepting any worldview that makes significant claims about the unrepeatable past. Evolutionary evidence is not flawless and comprehensive. Therefore, anyone who can think for themselves should apply the same critical thinking process when accepting new knowledge. Whether this new information is or a religious nature or a scientific one. Whether it is verbally transmitted from a preacher or transmitted in writing through a academic text book. Main stream science appears to say that information should be accepted blindly if it comes from a text book written by highly educated people, but do not accept blindly things you hear at your church. Truth is absolute. Regardless of who says something or what form it comes in or what location it is spoken at, truth does not change. We must constantly seek to see if something we are told matches reality. We can and should consider the source of information, but it should not be the final authority. We must also critically analyze the claims to see if they matches reality and if the claims are reasonable given the knowledge that we already posses (hoping of course that we have not previously accepted false information that would distort our view of reality).



Related Resources:
1. What are some flaws in the theory of evolution?
http://www.gotquestions.org/flaws-theory-evolution.html