K of C = KKK?

While surfing the net the other day, I checked out Justin Vacula's blog where he apparently was making comparisons between the Knights of Columbus and the Ku Klux Klan, and apparently with a straight face. One item he put up really caused me to, quite literally, laugh out loud..

"Gays and supporters of gay rights, for example, who support the Knights of Columbus are acting in an immoral fashion by doing so. Recently, the King's College Knights of Columbus chapter had a show fundraiser and some homosexuals and their allies supported the group by purchasing shoes, much to my chagrin. I'm against the Knights of Columbus for several reasons that I have elaborated on in the past. The organization/s is/are against abortion, contraceptives, sexual education, gay marriage, euthanasia, etc. Gays should immediately "be sold" on the indisputable fact that the Knights of Columbus are against gay marriage. Gays should not support groups that fight against and undermine gay marriage! You can buy sneakers at a local store instead of giving money to an organization that is part of a national organization which has donated millions of dollars to anti-gay initiatives."

I must admit that I was a bit taken aback by this paragraph. I don't recall ever reading such silliness being offered up as serious commentary in my entire life. I could go on all day but I'll try to keep this brief.

The Knights of Columbus are against gay marraige

Big deal. How is that in any way "immoral"? Are they not allowed to have an opinion on the matter? Are only those opinions that differ from yours the "immoral" ones? After all, the number one reason that homosexuals seek to leave the homosexual lifestyle is to escape emotional pain. Would Mr. Vacula advocate that those wishing to leave such a lifestyle be forced to promote it by lobbying for gay marriage which runs counter to their convictions? Chuck Colsen recently wrote "not only is standing for traditional marriage verboten, so is helping people who no longer want to live a homosexual lifestyle. What’s their rallying cry now? “Once you’re gay, we’ll make you stay”? Don't want to be labeled as immoral now, do you?

Furthermore, is it immoral to point out how destructive homosexuality is to the human body or to mention to them that "homosexual people are at a substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder"? This doesnt have to be done in a holier-than-thou, condescending sort of way but out of love and friendship. I dare say that if the heroin-user's lobby had better PR, than Mr. Vacula would probably support them as well.

Of course, all of this is before we get input from gays who do not want gay marraige. I highly doubt one could play the "immoral" card against them.

One blogger mentioned that "numerous other societies and countries accept it (gay marraige) Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, and Spain, etc." Yet in Norway where gay marraige has been legal for some time now, nearly a quarter of homosexuals have attempted suicide. Can we expect such numbers here in the US as well? As one writer put it, "It would appear highly unreasonable to attempt to blame either James Dobson or intolerant Southern Baptists for the self-destructive actions of young gay atheist Norwegians."

Insofar as abortion is concerned, I'm going to assume that Mr. Vacula is against the killing of a viable infant in the very last stages of pregnancy. If that's the case, then he is pro-life too. Only to a different degree.

EDIT: While perusing some comments, I came across this one by ATVLC that had to be one of the more stupid entries ever made in relation to the KKK being conservative.

"The Democratic Party used to be the conservative party and the Republicans the progressives. (Mostly). This ended with "The Southern Strategy"

If they only knew what they were talking about, Republicans were only following the lead of Democrats who had formulated their own Southern Manifesto a couple of years earlier. All of this is before we get into Senator Robert Byrd's (D-WV) paltry lifetime rating of barely 30 from the American Conservative Union, or why such a fine, big-government liberal like FDR appointed a Klansman to the Supreme Court (Hugo Black, D-AL), or why he opted for another former member of the Klan as his vice president, Harry Truman. Heck, Klan members continue to run for office as Democrats, even to this day.

The Myth of Horse Evolution

I've been meaning to do a series of posts lately based on a book I started to crack open by James Montgomery Boice entitled Genesis Volume I, Creation and Fall, An Expositionary Commentary and given the interest the bacteria flagellum thread has generated, I just thought I'd throw this out there for discussion. On page 45, Boice writes...

"[A] major problem with the use of fossils to support evolution is the subjective nature of arranging fossil histories. It might be argued...that there is nevertheless evidence for development within one of the ancient time periods, even if not from one to the other. The supposed development of the horse from the Eocene period to modern times is an oft-cited example. During 60 million years or so the horse is supposed to have increased in size, lengthened its limbs, reduced and then eventually discarded toes and became a grazer. Many museums have skeletons or pictures that are supposed to represent this development. But the fossils do not prove this development. They may suggest it, and the development they suggest may in fact be right. But there is still no evidence that one supposed form of the horse gave place to another. In actuality the skeletons may have come from similar but otherwise unrelated animals. Moreover, even if the fossils of these horselike animals prove a development, it is still not an example of the development of a new species but only of a change within a species."

So what is your take on all of this? I agree with Boice in that a case could be made of change over time but at this point, we just don't know yet and cannot argue as if this example of evolutionary change is a cold, hard FACT.

Bacteria Flagellum not refuted

Casey Luskin raises some interesting points for those who are convinced that the bacteria flagellum is a poor example of intelligent design. The entire article is a bit technical but feel free to comment on it here. It appears that Luskin is personally engaging the public in the comment section below the article so feel free to direct a question towards him. I personally found the following comment to be quite interesting...

"I used to be anxious that taking a lot of Biology and Biochemistry classes would challenge my faith. Then I took Metabolism, Cell Biology, and Immunology. What I discovered was such mind-blowing complexity that it's impossible to believe there wasn't some kind of Designer anymore. More education caused me to become more religious. Professors will try to offer naturalistic explanations for everything, and it's tempting to believe them because the have a PhD. However, once you start asking yourself if their explanations really make sense instead of taking their word for it, purely naturalistic evolution starts looking like the biggest hoax in the history of science."

On Obama, Artificial Scarcity and Rising Energy Prices

While energy prices have been climbing steadily upward recently, one has to wonder why the Obama Administration is so vehemently opposed to issuing new oil drilling permits.


One possible answer is that Obama is following in the footsteps of his liberal predecessor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt who employed artificial scarcity as a means to keep food prices high in the 1930's.


As FDR's Secretary of Agriculture, Henry Wallace (and others) used the Agricultural Adjustment Administration to create scarcity in the food markets when "the federal government bought 6 million hogs in 1933 alone and destroyed them. Huge amounts of farm produce were plowed under, in order to keep it off the market and maintain prices at the officially fixed level, and vast amounts of milk were poured down the sewers for the same reason. Meanwhile, many American children were suffering from diseases caused by malnutrition." I suppose that they thought the ends justified the means.


Columnist Erick Erickson offers up his thoughts on why Obama and those he surrounds himself with are supposedly cheering recent events in the energy markets...

"There are two reasons gas prices must go up. The first is to get people into coal powered cars. Coal powered cars can only be driven around 40 miles before they must be plugged back into the grid for more coal power. If everyone moves to coal powered cars, the drivers will be forced to live closer to cities.

Living closer to cities will increase urban density and decrease the supposedly anti-environmental impact of strip mall exurban utopias. In the liberal reorganization of society, only farmers should live in rural areas.

Once urban density is increased to European levels, then Barack Obama and the left can finally make a viable case for high-speed rail. There are, after all, two things high-speed rail supporters admit they need for viability: (1) high urban density and (2) high gas prices. Hmmm . . .

See, it is not a conspiracy on Barack Obama’s part. There is no secret. This President and those he surrounds himself with actively want high gas prices. They either do not care or are oblivious to the fact that high gas prices will wreak further havoc on the economy.

They look at Europe with its high gas prices and high-speed trains and they see nirvana. They willfully ignore the high rate of unemployment among the young, bankrupted social welfare programs, and growing immigrant slums.

These people are not fools. They want a world where we all live in big cities and use the sun and wind to run our lives — a return to the 14th century with 21st century hygiene. To get that to happen, gas prices must go up.

Barack Obama does not care about what is happening in the Middle East. He does not care about the cost to you to fill up your car with gas. Because the more you pay through Mid-East turmoil and inaccessible American oil deposits, the sooner his future of coal powered cars and high-speed trains can arrive."

I'm not saying Erickson is positively correct, but I would be interested as to any alternative theories as to why this administration wants to see energy prices so high.



EDIT: Who knew? Gay Gas! HA!

Abstinence Making a Comeback

In support of loads of evidence in favor of abstinence programs and their effectiveness in lowering both teen pregnancy rates and incidences of teen sex comes this article from The Daily Mail about how today's young people are becoming more likely to forgo sexual relationships until adulthood....

"Fewer young Americans are having sex, according to a report released today by the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention.

Almost a third of all 15 to 24 year olds - 29 per cent - have never had sex, up seven per cent from the year before.

Health scientist at the NCHS and lead author of the study Anjani Chandra said that 15- to 19-year-olds made up the lion’s share of this category, a finding that seems to counter other reports regarding teen sex trends.

She told MSNBC: 'I think a lot of people misconstrue this as meaning they’ve never had vaginal sex. But this is no sexual contact of any kind.
'They didn’t have oral sex or anal sex. They didn’t have anything.' "

Such statistics give hope to the notion of responsible teens on this subject that in spite of the Obama administrations efforts to de-emphasize such initiatives.

What's Up With Judith Maltby?

Judith Maltby's recent article in The Guardian leaves anyone from the average church goer to the bush league logician in puzzlement and wonder over how this could possibly NOT be inconsistent...

"So why does the liberty to introduce God into civil partnership ceremonies devalue marriage? It would appear that there just isn't enough of God to go around. One cannot, apparently, honour and bless one pattern of living a faithful and committed life, without somehow devaluing another. It is the theological equivalent of printing too much money."

If the foundational documents of a particular belief identify something as wrong, then why should it be 'celebrated'? That doesn't mean that the practicioners of a certain unhealthy lifestyle shouldn't be treated with respect, it's just that it is illogical to celebrate activities that a particular belief system's followers are asked to shun.

This segues neatly into the Obama administration's latest foray into their ongoing alienation of American public opinion. Chuck Colson informs us...

"The ground shook this week when Attorney General Holder announced the decision of the Administration not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. This was the law of the land, passed by both houses of Congress and signed by President Clinton. But The New York Times hailed this decision in a front-page story and in a lead editorial.

Justifying this extraordinary action, Holder says that in the congressional debate in the 90s there were “numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate family relationships.” He went on to describe this as “animus” (defined by Webster as "vehement enmity, hatred, ill will") and that that violates the Equal Protection Clause.
But wait a minute. Animus to defend a moral position based on 2,000 years of classical and Christian teaching rooted in scripture--or for Muslims to declare their opposition?

Holder has embraced the position of Federal Judge Vaughn Walker in California that opposing so-called gay marriage can be “harmful to gays and lesbians.” But that’s like claiming that opposition to polygamy is harmful to polygamists or that laws defining marriage as the union of two people harm those who prefer to live in what are called sexual “triads” or “quadrads.” Our historic marriage laws harm nobody; they serve husbands, wives, children, and the common good of society.

Not to be able to speak to these issues in great debates isn’t tolerance. It’s thought control and censorship. And if the expression of our deepest convictions is treated as animus, our religious liberty is in great peril. We cannot fail to speak the truth even if it is labeled hate speech. This is exactly why we wrote the Manhattan Declaration, pledging that we would under no circumstances render to Caesar what belongs to God."

Of course they can't permit rational discussion on the topic, even at the highest level of government. The opposition MUST be painted as hateful or else the whole system breaks down. The other side is 'bad'. We get to define what is bad. The ends justify the means. Free thought and dissent are not allowed.

"With regard to "gay civil rights," what makes them problematic is that there is an inherent clash with religion and the natural order. For example, "gay marriage" warps the very understanding of what marriage is in a way that polygamy cannot since marriage has always been a union between man and woman. This is a universal fact about marriage, as no civilization has defined marriage as simply a union between [nn>1] people. There are a number of sensible homosexuals who have realized that this is a problem, but unfortunately, they're politically irrelevant." Link