Nature Abhors a Vacuum: Islam is Filling It

For those who realize Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion, have you wondered why, aside from their rapid population growth?

The United States and western Europe are prime examples of the decline in faithfulness toward Christianity.  Christian fervor is receding.  Islamic fervor is flourishing.

We don't feel our values, our religion (if any), our culture and form of government are worth defending.  The fact is, the decline of a dynamic Christian faith in this nation and much of the west has left a vacuum.  Nature abhors it – Islam is filling it.

We have become so critical of ourselves, who we are, where we came from, how we got here, that anything else - anything else – is seen as better.

The Obama administration is a prime example of this self-loathing and self-flagellation in action – his apology tours, and all his leftist cohorts who are ashamed of our history and our culture – just like his wife.

As many of the comments in the above link reveal, the decline of Christian faith in the west is being met with shouts of “good riddance. Now we won’t be encumbered by superstition and constrained by “Biblical morality.” 

That is why we were willing to embrace "hope and change" without even caring where the "change" would lead us to.  We are so desperate for something different that, when facing the challenge of a completely foreign and contrary ideology, our attitude might as well be - "Whatever."  We care that much.

It will be very interesting and tragic over the next couple of decades as we observe the Islamic ideology sweep in and fill the vacuum.  The advocates of amorality won’t know what hit them.  Don't it always seem to go; that you don't know what you've got till it's gone?

LiveJournal Tags: decline of Christianity,nature abhors a vacuum,Islam,Biblical morality,apostacy

"Amorality" is the new "Moral"

After thinking some more about my previous blog posting, I am reminded that there is no such thing as "amorality." Everyone has moral standards of one of sort or another. My attorney friend merely had a different and somewhat vague set of moral standards, but she still had them.

Hitler had his set of standards, as do radical Muslims and child molesters.

So, it is not a matter of morality or no morality, but "whose" morality. Which version of morality fulfills our needs the best? The "our needs" definition is part of the problem. Is morality to serve our own individual "selfish" needs? Our family's needs? Our community's needs? Our nation's needs? Or the world's needs. Obama's morality seems to be focused on fulfilling the world's needs. The child molester's morality is based on fulfilling his own needs. Biblical morality is based on fulfilling a definition of God's desires as understood through the prophets. Increasing numbers of us today seem to consider this standard a fiction.

The truth is, the Biblical standard of morality really does promote interpersonal and intergroup harmony, personal responsibility, respect, and tolerance - qualities that are lacking in the major competing ideologies of Islamicism and Communism.

Ironically, we have to be discerning (informed version of "judgemental") and resolute (civil version of intolerant) in order to maintain our collective moral values.

Who's morality shall we choose? Is our version worth fighthing for, or shall we let the new "morality" become the the standard by default?

Thinking through the “gay marriage” issue…

Viscerally, I’m glad the Maine “gay marriage enabling” referendum failed.  It is the right thing to happen, morally and socially.

Logically, why do I have this opinion?  After all, the arguments go, why not allow consenting, loving adults to get married and enjoy the same benefits of marriage that heteros do?  It is soooo discriminatory to legally prohibit marriage between gays.

My response:  I have to go back to the ignorant, not very well thought through expression “you can’t legislate morality.”  C’mon, people.  Consider just about any law on the books of local, state, or federal governments.  What laws ARE NOT based on some moral principle?  Murder, stealing, rape, polygamy?  Even speeding has moral implications – endangering the lives of others.

Gay marriage is openly advocated nowadays only because our nation has lost its “moral compass.”  We’ve forgotten the reasons for morality.  With a growing Muslim influence, polygamy will be the next morally-based prohibition to be openly challenged.  What’s next?  There are already special interest groups that advocate legalization of man-boy sex and other “morally deviant” behaviors.  Government has already legalized stealing in the form of a wide variety of tax policies.  Our President covets the role of Robin Hood by stealing from the rich and middle class and giving to the poor – “wealth redistribution”, they call it.

Everyone has varying degrees of predispositions to practice deviant, anti-social or self-destructive behaviors.  There are people who are genetically or behaviorially prone to alcoholism, to drug addiction, and to sex addiction.  Does that mean that society must condone and feed these predispositions?  Hell no!  They are encouraged to practice self control – they are not legislatively encouraged to practice their destructive behavior.

Are there reasons why these practices are not condoned by society?  Absolutely!  You peel back the layers of reasons and it goes beyond “morality” to the reasons for morality – usually having to do with the survival and well-being of a culture or society.

Similarly, there are reasons for society not condoning or sanctioning “gay marriage” and, in fact, not promoting openly gay behavior.  The reasons are not simply because “the Bible tells me so,” although that by itself is good enough reason for many.  Looking beyond the present day cult of self-gratification and sexual deviancy and promiscuity and looking instead at millennia-long principles of cultural survival and human well-being and we find wisdom on this matter will become evident.

It is enough that many heterosexuals refrain from having children.  Add to that a growing portion of our population who entertain their inner gay fantasy to the point that they too remain childless.  There goes our birthrate to a level that gradually reduces our population and facilitates a decline of our society.  And although I hesitate to suggest any “guilt by association”, have you noticed that gays tend to be notably more overtly promiscuous than heteros?  I come to that conclusion after being stuck in traffic and becoming an unwilling observer during “gay pride day” parades and reading news stories of their goings-ons in public parks, restrooms, and truck stops.  Look at some of the web sites of gay activists to see the displays of sexual promiscuity they not only embrace, but which they unabashedly defend and promote.

Our society is on a dangerous course when it changes its laws to legitimize homosexual lifestyles, marriage or otherwise.  Thank you, liberal Maine, for not succumbing to the “anything goes” mentality.

Technorati Tags: gays,gay marriage,marriage,Maine,morality

Health Care Op Ed…

Here is my attempt at promoting the position of “the other side.”

Conservatives argue against just about any version of health care legislation proposed by the President or Congress. It is true that many millions of Americans have little or no health coverage – Democrats want to do something about it.

Many in our capitalist society are not “socially responsible.” Many thousands of companies hire “contract” employees as a way around providing a health care benefit to their workers. Or they cut costs by hiring part times help – sometimes up to 39.9999 hours per week to avoid paying health insurance costs. And what about the unemployed, underemployed and those between jobs? Most of these millions are without any form of health coverage.

Conservatives argue that the government and special interests such as unions are simply legislating a power grab. They call it a “control issue.”

Proponents of a health care overhaul argue that providing some form of universal coverage is the moral and right thing to do. That is hard to argue against. The current system favors those among us who are fortunate enough to work for companies that offer and supplement the cost of good coverage. The “haves” have it – the “have nots” don’t.

Practicing Christians and others who strive to act civilly and morally would have to conclude that the current system is selfish. If we are to feed the hungry and clothe the poor and take care of widows and orphans, why are we not also called to care for the sick and infirm? The churches aren't stepping up. Other non-profit organizations are not equipped and able to assist the millions who can’t afford health insurance. This being the case, what is so wrong with the federal government filling this gaping void through creation of a mechanism to fill the health insurance black hole wherein millions of Americans are lost?

From a moral perspective: Proponents – 1 Opponents – 0

OP-OP ED

Not willing to let a good argument lie peaceably, I am compelled by some inner wonkiness to present a counter argument. A good op-ed deserves a good op-op ed.

The moral argument is a good and valid one. But let’s peel back the morality onion one more layer, because there are other aspects of morality that are being ignored.

We’ll look at this from two perspectives:

1. The role of government, and
2. The responsibility of individuals, including employers, employees, and others

First, the role of government. Since when has health care in this country become the responsibility of our government? Once they are responsible for our health care, how far will it go? Will government provide everything the patient needs? Will they mandate what treatments can and cannot be provided? Will they reduce the quality of coverage many now pay for and enjoy?

If the resources of government were unlimited; if the efficiency of government was award winning; if the ethics of government were above reproach; then there would be little to argue about. Health care is one of those services where the cost can be infinite – a bottomless pit. We never cease hearing the plea “what is the value of one human life?” There has to be rationing. Should the government be doing the rationing?

Fact check:

• The resources of the government are limited.
• The efficiency of government is not award-winning.
• The ethics of government are not above reproach.

The government as middleman and arbiter of who gets coverage, what kind, how much, how often, when and at what cost does not sound like the way to go. The governments role should be limited to three things:

1. Promoting efficiency - enacting tort reform to eliminate costly lawsuits and reduce medical malpractice insurance costs.
2. Promoting competition – open up competition across state borders for example
3. Prohibiting coverage discrimination – eliminate “preexisting condition clauses” while allowing premiums to be higher for those who have avoided paying for coverage during their healthy years.

These are legitimate functions of government. They are things they can do reasonable well because they involve minimal bureaucracy and taxpayer funding.

Second, the role of the individual. What should be the responsibility of the individual for his/her own health care? Should they rely on government? Should they rely on their employer if they have one? Should they rely on their insurance company for 100% of their health care needs?

Sometimes there is no employer or insurance company. Should he rely on his own resources or just leave things to chance? What if the individual simply chooses to be irresponsible by being indifferent or remain in ignorance? Is it the government’s job to make him responsible?

We are responsible for feeding and clothing ourselves. The great majority do a decent job. Able bodied people are responsible for productive work and earning a living. Why shouldn’t able bodied people be responsible for providing for their health care needs? Is it the government’s job to bail out people for irresponsible health care decisions the same way it bails out banks from irresponsible financial decisions?

The responsible individual will do whatever it takes to provide for her health care – self insure if she has the money; get a job with an employer that has a good plan; or sacrifice and prioritize to pay for her own coverage. Pop culture “necessities” drain away the personal resources that should go toward our personally responsible health care. Personal priorities are often upside down. Ahhh, it’s so much easier to let the government do it.

“Oh, the cost , the cost. It is too great,” they cry. That is because most people, especially the ones who can’t afford it, expect health insurance to cover everything – with $15, $5, and zero dollar co-pays and low out of pocket limits. Insurance is designed for catastrophic events, not every little cold and sniffle. Many ignore the current option for major medical coverage. Major medical is quite reasonable – a fraction of the comprehensive coverage most seem to expect. A $1,000 a month plan can be reduced down to $100 a month with many major medical plans. This greatly reduces the numbers of those who claim they can’t afford it. Prioritize better. But at the same time, don’t penalize those who CAN afford more comprehensive plans.

Here is the ultimate moral question:

Who should be responsible for your health care decisions and priorities? You or someone else?

Letterman: You can tell a man by the jokes he tells

It is one thing for a slimeball like Letterman to be blackmailed and be forced to reveal on national TV his multiple sexual forays with his staff. It is one thing for Letterman to frame his “confession” in a manner that makes light of his behavior.

But It is quite another for his depraved audience to laugh and enter into sustained applause during his public disclosure.

What a wonderful, faithful audience they are, lending their “moral” support to a man in his hour of need. Haa, haa haa! Isn’t he funny!

What a picture of our perverse, misguided American culture. I can’t decide whose behavior is worse, Letterman’s or his audience.

The perverseness of the audience reminds me of when a female neighbor some time ago wore a tight top with skeleton fingers grasping across her breasts, not to a party, but out in public. Ha, ha, ha, isn’t that clever! I didn’t laugh. But then, I am such a sanctimonious prude. Her “audience” was her mother who complemented her outfit. I wonder if she would have complemented her husband if he wore tight drawers with skeleton fingers grasping his crotch a la Michael Jackson, RIP.

Announcing: The Politically Correct Bill Marriott

Last night I viewed the Marriott Hotel web site and noticed a blog by the firms president, Bill Marriott. Here it is, along with comments he invites from others who offered their condolences and heartfelt expressions of how terrible the tragedy was.

I similarly responded, expressing my sincere condolences along with my concerns about how long it took for firefighters to respond to contain the blaze - which they never did. I commented with words similar to my previous blog on this topic, below. I followed up by adding that my hope is that this terrible event should not dissuade democracies from asserting our efforts for freedom to overcome worldwide Islamic fascist terrorism.

Mr. Marriott chose not include my comments among the responses to his blog. Let me speculate as to why my comments were not included.

In his politically and corporately correct style which is shared by many of his American corporate cohorts, he chose not to call a spade a spade for fear of offending someone. He is not into feather ruffling. He wouldn't want to turn the Pakistani government, or, Allah forbid, the Islamabad Fire Department against him. He wouldn't want his hotel to burn to the ground. Oh, wait, it already did!

He is, obviously, taking the "long view." He will continue to be "easy to get along with" and "not easily offended" so he can get back to making the big bucks in a nation that is likely to kill his employees, a nation whose firefighters and top leadership are likely secretly wallowing in the success of their retribution.

This priority is consistent with Mr. Marriott's other top buck making priorities of continuing the policy of showing porn throughout his hotel chain, despite his purported religious beliefs.

This is so typical of our political and corporate "leaders." Their personal beliefs mean practically nothing in the practice of their governmental and business affairs. This is true whether the personal belief is "pro-life" or "pro-morality". If the belief doesn't get them elected or does not enhance "the bottom line" then to hell with it - literally.

For anyone who wonders why we are a declining nation, this is as good a starting point as any.

Senator Warner Declares Homosexual Acts “Moral”

How many of our long-standing, culture-shaping “moral standards” rooted in the Bible are going to bow to special interest pressure and become “politically incorrect?”

As recently as a few years ago, the big news would have been someone being “outed” for the immorality of homosexual behavior. Today the big news is someone being “outed” for suggesting that homosexuality is immoral.

Here is the story:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon's top general expressed regret Tuesday for voicing his personal view that homosexuality is immoral, but he did not apologize for the comment that drew criticism from lawmakers and gay-rights groups.
In a newspaper interview Monday, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, likened homosexual acts to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces._________________

In response to General Pace’s comments, Senator John Warner declared that homosexuality, and by extension, homosexual acts, are not immoral. In other words, he declares homosexual acts to be moral.

Perhaps John holds Biblical principles in low esteem. Perhaps John, like many others, believe the Biblical criticism of homosexuality is a vague, isolated and detached principle bearing little relationship to the primary theme of Scripture. Maybe that is why the Warners of the world cavalierly dismiss this particular type of immorality.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The theme of the evil of homosexual acts permeates both the old and new testaments. Here are a few examples:

• Genesis 13:13 "But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.”
• Genesis 19:5 “And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.” (Sexual immorality was the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.)
• Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
• Deuteronomy 23:17 “There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor ba sodomite of the sons of Israel.”
• Isaiah 3:9 “The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.”
• Romans 1:27-30 “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”
• Jude 1:7 7 “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

From Genesis to Jude, the message of the immorality of homosexuality as one among many sexually immoral behaviors runs throughout.

In this life, some have more or less of a predisposition toward alcoholism, toward drug addiction, toward homosexuality or other sexual perversions, toward violent behavior, toward impatience, and toward a wide variety of other shortcomings of human behavior. A measure of human character is our ability to bridle our negative predispositions. Just because we refuse to bridle our predisposition toward violence does not make our violent acts acceptable. Just because we refuse to bridle our predisposition toward homosexuality does not make our homosexuality acceptable.

The teachings of Christianity expressed in the Bible are this nations’ basis for morality and law. When out of convenience or as a result of political pressure groups and influence we dismiss one clear Biblical moral teaching, we begin the unraveling of all the rest.

Let’s check out what other Biblical declarations of immorality, upon which this nation’s moral standards and laws have been based, might soon be declared null and void by political decree…

Thou shalt not murder.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt honor thy mother and father
Thou shalt not covet.
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

Which Senator or other half-witted politician wants to declare some of these Biblical standards null and void? Its bad enough that many of us fall short of these standards, despite considering them to be sound moral standards. But to purposely declare these standards irrelevant and not worthy to strive toward is idiocy.

What is the basis for morality? Is it what the most vocal group claims is OK? Is it something that can be determined by a pollster?

So, if the “Child Predators Association” or “The Man-Boy Love Association” or the “Animal-Human Love Association” or “defenders of murder” groups (trust me, there is a group representing every perversion you can imagine, and some you can’t) ever become prominent, Senator Warner and other amoralists may then declare child molestation, man-boy love, and murder to be moral.

General Pace is apparently considered “an unenlightened throwback” with regard to his moral standards by the folks who have declared traditional morality obsolete. Others might admit he has a right to his personal moral beliefs, and agree that such beliefs may still be valid, but argue he has no right to express them in a public forum or in the carrying out of his duties.

Wow! In either case, this smack down bodes trouble for our nation’s leaders, as well as for this and future generations.

Since when does a leader, a public leader in high places, lose his right and obligation to speak out on moral issues? That is a major part of the job of a good leader...not only to be a good moral example, but to speak out for morality.

And what is the next moral imperative that will be struck down by ignorant, self-serving, “politically-correct”, but ultimately destructive decree?

I see it coming. Soon there will be a time when nothing is considered immoral, when there is no basis for law, for abiding by laws, or for civil behavior. At such time as everyone does what is right in his own eyes will be the death of order and death of civilization. Thus will come a second Dark Age, unless Gods patience draws to a close and another cleansing occurs.

I thank God for people like General Pace. I pray there will be many more leaders just like him who rise up for Godly values with courage and conviction in the face of ignorant adversity.