What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? Changing societal views on rape

Awhile back I did a series of entries based upon the fantastic book, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? by D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe which examines how Christ has affected culture in so many different ways. We often take for granted the changes that came about in western civilization since the founding of the early church and today's article that appears in Real Clear Science highlights how Chrisianity affected the prevailing mindset of the world before Christ in regard to forcible rape.

"Helle Møller Sigh, a researcher at the Department of Culture and Society at Aarhus University, has studied the Danish versions of the Norse Laws, which were written down between the 1170s and the 1240s.

“We’re seeing a change in the legislation, in which rape goes from being a violation against the household – the woman’s husband or her father – to being listed as a separate crime which violates the woman,” she says.

“This is in no small way due to the influence of the Catholic Church, which wanted to create a peaceful and civilised society and help the weak, including women.”...

The reason the church was interested in changing the perception of rape was that this enabled it to point out that the crime was a violation against the woman. In this way the church could ensure that the rapist was convicted of the violation, something which made society more civilised.

The church had a ‘peace ideology’. This meant, for instance, that there was a wish to replace the right to take the law into your own hands with a fine system, and that the weak people in society should be helped.

“And of all people, it’s fair to say that women back then were among ‘the weak’,” says Sigh."

How far we have fallen as a society when we take the institution that is historically responsible for elevating the status of women to a level much higher than we typically see in the non-Christian world and accuse it of waging a 'War on Women'© simply for wishing to protect the unborn. Kennedy and Newcombe's book is filled with many other examples of these types of changes that Christianity brought to the world and is a great read if this subject matter interests you.

McCracken: Gays won't save the UMC

Kudos to Sky McCracken over at The United Methodist Reporter for bringing some clarity to the issue of Christians considering the compromise of God's word in the name of feel-goody emotionalism. You can check out the entire article at your leisure, I'll just highlight the first point he wished to make for our purposes here...

"1. Changing the stance on homosexuality in the United Methodist Church will not stop the loss of membership in the denomination.

It’s at best a red herring and at worst a lie to espouse otherwise. The Southern Baptist Church continues to lose membership; they are in their fifth year of decline, and they have a very decisive, very clear statement on their opposition to homosexuality.

On the other side of the issue, the Episcopal Church also has a very decisive and clear statement on homosexuality, where they bless and celebrate same-sex unions as they do male-female marriages, even though doing so separated them from the Anglican Communion. Did it help them gain members? Their membership is now lower than it was in 1939.

The loss of membership in both denominations, as well as in the UMC, can reasonably point to one reason: failure to make disciples. We can blame society, we can blame the president and Congress, we can even blame MTV. But we can’t blame our stances on homosexuality.

The fact that I hold an orthodox view on this issue and agree with my denomination’s stance doesn’t let me off the hook for anything – that has nothing to do with a failure to make disciples in the name of Jesus Christ. As Dallas Willard reminds us, we are more often guilty of the Great Omission: once we baptize folks, and/or they have been converted to follow Christ, we seem to forget the rest: “teaching them to do everything that [Jesus] commanded you.” That’s discipleship. We have failed at discipleship, and have for several generations."

Perhaps McCracken is right and the chickens are indeed coming home to roost concerning this particular matter via failure of imparting discipleship. Already, several prominent ministers in Minnesota are letting it be known that they will not be helping out in the campaign against legalizing homogamy in that state. Perhaps the Church is undergoing a down-sizing at this moment in which there will hopefully be a meaner, leaner version of adherents in the years to come.

Sowell on Obama: Textbook Fascist

Columnist Thomas Sowell delivers yet another succinct analogy in his latest article in which he delves into the finer points as to whether President Obama, utilizing standard definitions, quilifies as a socialist or a fascist. His answer may suprise you.

"It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a "socialist." He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.

What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.

Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama's point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time...

One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.

Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely -- and correctly -- regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists' consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left's embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.

Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left."

I recall Goldberg mentioning that the great author George Orwell once remarked that the meaning of the term fascism had been so hijacked by others and over used and inaccurately applied that "'The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies something not desirable" But if one accepts the definition of fascism in it's historical context as a political system, them Obama certainly fits the bill.

Josh Weed is coming out, and his wife is just fine with it

Therapist Josh Weed (above, left) is having a coming out party and the Mrs is just fine with it. In fact, she offers her thoughts on the matter part way down the blog post and she's apparently known for years, before they were married in fact, that her hubby is gay. I found the following exchange between Weed and a psychologist to be particularly interesting...

"About two years ago, I saw a psychologist to get medication for my ADHD-I. She was a lesbian, and when I told her that I was a gay man in a heterosexual marriage, she spent an entire session hammering me with questions about my situation in a genuine effort to make sure I was happy. I didn’t love that she did this, but as a clinician myself, I understood where she was coming from.



During our conversation, she told me about her life with her partner. She spoke of a girl, whom she considered her daughter, who is the biological child of her ex-lover, with whom she lived for only three years. She told me of how much she loved her daughter, but how infrequently she got to see her. And eventually, when talking about my sex life, she said “well, that’s good you enjoy sex with your wife, but I think it’s sad that you have to settle for something that is counterfeit.”


I was a little taken aback by this idea—I don’t consider my sex-life to be counterfeit. In response, I jokingly said “and I’m sorry that you have to settle for a counterfeit family.” She immediately saw my point and apologized for that comment. Obviously, I don’t actually think a family with non-biological members is counterfeit in any way. I also don’t feel that my sex-life is counterfeit. They are both examples of something that is different than the ideal. I made that joke to illustrate a point. If you are gay, you will have to choose to fill in the gaps somewhere. She chose to have a family in a way that is different than the ideal. I choose to enjoy sex in a way that is different than the ideal for a gay man. It all comes down to what you choose and why, and knowing what you want for yourself and why you want it. That’s basically what life is all about."

Weed's story is an interesting one and the entire blog post is well worth the time. What Weed is doing here is basically telling the world that although he has certain attractions and impulses, he need not necessarily act upon them. I think we can all agree that there are sexual impulses in which it is much better if they are not acted upon. I happen to be heterosexual, and yet I couldn't possibly imagine how explaining that my mental hardwiring is so would prevent my wife from becoming jealous if I started flirting with another woman. It would only make make our relationship worse.

I can appreciate that perhaps Weed has a bit of an advantage over others who are same-sex attraced in that he was well grounded from a young age as to what God's plan for optimal family conditions is and he decided to follow that blueprint. I hope Mr Weed's testimony can serve as an inspiration to others who find themselves struggling with such desires and can offer them an alternative concerning their potential family life over what is commonly just accepted and considered immutable and inevitable and they can more greatly enjoy God's plan for their life.

Is Bill Clinton Thowing Obama Under The Bus?

Is it at all possible for the president who largely got where he is by expediently throwing people 'under the bus' who become a liability for him or are no longer useful, himself feeling what it's like to be so thoroughly discarded and betrayed? (Make no mistake, that list of who has gotten thrown under the bus by Obama esta largisimo.) Link

I first started considering the possibility that Obama was being thrown under the bus by Clinton a couple of days ago when Bubba said the following in an interview on CNN when asked abou republican candidate Mitt Romney...

"I think he (Romney) had a good business career. If you go in and you try to save a failing company, and you and I have friends here who invest in companies, you can invest in a company, run up the debt, loot it, sell all the assets, and force all the people to lose their retirement and fire them. Or you can go into a company, have cutbacks, try to make it more productive with the purpose of saving it. When you try, like anything else you try, you don't always succeed. I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say this is bad work. This is good work. There's no question that getting up and going to the office and basically performing the essential functions of the office, a man who's been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold."

I was a bit amazed by this coming from Clinton, but then I heard former Clinton advisor Dick Morris state the following last night...

"...I’ve spoken to several good friends who are staunch conservatives who have had exchanges with Bill Clinton in private,’ Morris told Fox News’s Sean Hannity, ‘and at one point one of them quotes him as saying, “You have six months to save the country”…"

I really don't think Morris is lying here. What would he have to gain (personally) by doing so? Perhaps Clinton is actually seeing Obama for the complete disaster he is for religious freedom, free speech, representative democracy, race relations, the economy and the treatment of women that he actually is.

The Obama Administration's Neverending War on Women‏

The Obama administration's glaringly obvious disdain for women was again highlighted last week as Obama refused to support sex-selective abortions that are disproportionately killing girls...

"Why would Obama oppose legislation that doesn't ban abortion, but bans sex selective abortion? Two reasons. 1) He actually supports the idea of aborting a child based on gender preference, after all, who would want to be "punished with a baby" (insert boy or girl here). Not to mention, President Obama is a supporter of leaving babies who survive abortions to die. 2) He's pandering to his Planned Parenthood base. Both are disgusting and the fact that he is willing to stand against a bill that would help to protect both girls and boys from discrimination in the womb shows once again Obama isn't really that "likeable" or overall "good guy." As usual, the White House communications team has made sure it looks as though Obama doesn't stand for sex discrimination, but Obama's actions speak louder than words. Notice how the White House doesn't make any effort to hit back against gendercide, rather, President Obama opposes a bill that would help end it. Where is the White House solution to ending gendercide?"

It appears that Obama is merely attempting to be consistent in his worldview given that he has never voted to support life at any point, whether from conception, birth, even all the way to natural end.

If one desires even more evidence of Obama's disdain for women, simply check out this article from Time magazine detailing the 'boy's club' mentality inside the White House...

"Even when women are in the room with Obama, they are sometimes seen but not heard. At a 2010 symposium on women in finance, Christina Romer, then the chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, talked about the difficulty she had getting the floor in policy discussions. Suskind relates the story of how Obama reacted angrily to one suggestion by Romer, and yet calmly heard out the same point from Larry Summers a few days later. Other senior women have complained that their arguments seemed to disappear into the ether at meetings, unacknowledged by Obama. Ellen Moran, Obama’s first communications director, was the first member of his team to leave the White House, resigning just 92 days into the term...


Even at the dinner pushed for by top female staffers so they could air their grievances directly with Obama, his reaction–as told by Suskind–amounted to an apologetic shrug. The men who cut their female colleagues out of meetings and decision-making were his friends and closest advisers. He needed them, and didn’t seem inclined to rein them in. The unspoken message: toughen up and deal with it."

When one couples this latest decision not to stick up for females not yet born with the fact that Obama pays women employees about 18% less than male workers, hundreds of thousands of women losing jobs under Obama's watch and his chief campaign strategist defending Bill Maher's characterization of former governor Sarah Palin as a 'c***', (could you imagine the furor if Bush's chief campaign strategist had done so?), it's not very hard at all to apply the tag to Most Misogynistic President Ever to this complete amatuer who is obviously in WAY over his head.