MDWrites

Welcome! Opinions on family, faith, life, politics and now, Christian Fiction

The Third Way? No Way.

Posted by MDViews on January 15, 2009

Why is it people want to “end” the “culture wars?” Why is public disagreement over important cultural issues something to be avoided? What is wrong in a pluralistic, semi-democratic society with expressing ones views in the market place of ideas, arguing effectively for those views and rejecting the opposite views?

I thought our uniquely American experiment was built on just such a concept.

But, along comes a group called the “Third Way“, an ostensibly Christian group of progressives and self-proclaimed evangelicals who want to call a truce in the culture wars by following their superior ideas. This group thinks there is entirely too much rancour in politics, and, with the new administration coming in, we need to seek common ground to get things done.

Oh dear, oh dear. So, dear reader, what wonderful, brand-spanking new ideas are they propogating, you may ask? Well, these ideas.

  • Reducing abortions (reducing abortion through reducing unintended pregnancies, supporting pregnant women, and increasing support for adoption)
  • Supporting employment protections for gay and lesbian people (protecting the rights of gay and lesbian people to earn a living, while protecting the freedom of religious organizations to follow their own beliefs)
  • Renouncing torture, and
  • Creating secure and comprehensive immigration reform
  •  

    Unfortunately, good intentions do not good policy make. The devil is in the details. And the details are ugly and liberal.

    1) To reduce abortions, they recommend a comprehensive sex education program which would be medically-accurate, age-appropriate and contain complete contraceptive information with a discussion of abstinence. Also, they would provide [government] support for teen pregnancy prevention programs, after school programs and increased access to contraception for low income women.

    This is lunacy. Everything listed is already done! Comprehensive sex-education already claims to be age-appropriate, medically accurate and claims to contains complete contraceptive information. Those sex educators even give lip service to abstinence. That’s the whole point! The program promotes an immoral lifestyle shown to increase sexual activity in teens. Contraception is ineffective in teens, almost always. Anything that encourages teen sexual activity will increase pregnancy rates and therefore teen abortion. Age-appropriate to sex educators means “Heather has Two Mommies” in the first grade, advocacy for deviant sexual behavior, and graphic information about mechanics of sex before young minds can comprehend such adult behavior and concepts. I call it child abuse.

    The only sex ed course needed is this: Don’t have sex until married and have one partner for life. You need a whole course for that? I’ll even write it again. Don’t have sex until married and have one partner for life. There. Is that so hard to say?

    But, you chuckle, if it were only so simple. Such an approach does not work, does it? Well, yes! Teens can be challenged to a higher, more moral behavior. Abstinence-based programs have shown again and again that they work, but only if they are strictly abstinence-based. They cannot be included with the “If you do have sex, use a condom-or the pill-or the IUD-or I’ll help you get an abortion if you get pregnant” group. The education must be totally abstinence.

    Liberal sex educators gleefully report their studies saying abstinence-based programs don’t work. Hogwash. It’s the same reason pro-abortion researchers never find post-abortion syndrome, which, I can assure you, dear reader, does exist and is tragic.

    Notice also that these recommendations include no restrictions on abortion. So, reducing abortions through common ground policies is just a rehash of the liberal policies. It must be opposed.

    2) Protecting the rights of Gay and Lesbian People to Earn a Living. The Third Way would make it illegal to fire, refuse to hire, or refuse to promote employees simply based on their sexual orientation, except for an exemption for churches and other religious organizations.

    Oh dear, oh dear–again.

    That policy is no different than the way it is now. Gays already earn a living. The mean income of gay and lesbian people is significantly higher than the general population! What problem earning a living? I don’t see it.  The exemption for churches or other religious organizations is a joke.  Who defines what a religious organization is? Is a home school a religious organization? Is a Christian school a religious organization? How about a business that sells mostly Christian literature? Is a book publisher a Christian organization? What about the association of Christian businesses that ascribes to a Biblical definition of sin? Should a Christian gynecologist be obligated to hire a homosexual medical assistant? Such a law would effective remove Christianity from the day to day public square and confine it only to churches. Such a law would be a huge advance for the gay agenda, placing gays in multiple business with a Christian emphasis, diluting the Christian message and witness in the world.  Christians have a long history of respecting civil rights of all groups which continues to this day. But a sinful lifestyle is not the same as being asian or black or Hispanic or disabled or old or a woman or a man–categories used through the ages to exclude groups of people. One can do nothing about one’s sex, age, race or disability. But, homosexuality is in the mind of the person claiming to be gay. Anyone, at any time, could claim gay status and special privilege. Want the job? Whisper to the interviewer that you are gay, but still in the closet, but you will sue if you don’t get the job. Also, you will sue if you get outed. Who can deny such a statement? Who is to say one is not gay? Would a law require a Muslim business to hire homosexual employees? In many Muslim countries, gays are stoned. I cannot change my race, my disabilities, my sex or my age. All are right out there for everyone to see. But I can fool anyone on my sexual orientation, depending on whether or not I would benefit from such a declaration. How Darwinian.

    3) Renounce torture. Do these people understand what war is? This statement is hardly worthy of a response. People who believe such nonsense do not understand that enslavement by an enemy is more horrible than death in battle to defend freedom. War to defend freedom means pulling out all the stops to win. There are no do-overs in war. If you don’t win, you lose. Losing a war is worse than death. Patrick Henry had it right.

    4) Create Secure and Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Their proposal would involve “strict border enforcement” (no wall), a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, a “guest worker” program and “keeping families together”.

    This is just code for amnesty for illegal aliens who have broken our laws, no wall to stop illegal immigration and a guest worker program which effectively opens our border to anyone. Once across the border, a guest worker could then disappear into the mist.  Full citizenship for a woman who races across the border in labor to have her baby in the US would be granted not just to her and her baby, but to the family. I guess that means the husband, brother, sister and on could come across the border, too. And be citizens. Just like that.

    All these proposals this group advocates are just liberal re-hash and not a third way at all. Such advocacy is deceptive in its approach and provides cover for those Catholics who were always democrats and want to vote for democrats but feel guilty voting for abortion advocates. Such advocacy provides cover for those marginal Christians who populate church pews because they like the music and the feel-good sermons and want to be accepted and cool in their liberal workplace.

    There is no need for “peace” in the culture wars. Standing for life is offensive, but must be done. Advocating for justice is right. Law-breakers must be punished. Children should be protected from those who advocate for immorality. Wars are fought to be won. Defeat and  enslavement are not options. I, for one, plan to loudly speak truth. Let the culture wars rage.

    5 Responses to “The Third Way? No Way.”

    1. MDViews said

      Dearest Dianna, deep-thinking niece of mine,

      Thank you for your post and your good questions! I don’t often get questions. People who don’t agree usually go elsewhere. I hope you will take time to read this, and later when I go through some other arguments for and against your questions. By the way, why do you think capital punishment is wrong? Why do you object to torture? Why should amnesty be granted to illegal aliens? Maybe you could share some of your thinking with me about these issues.

      I’ll start with capital punishment. My views on capital punishment first and foremost come from the scriptures. Since I believe God spoke to us and speaks to us today through His inspired, inerrant, infallible word, what God says about capital punishment is of supreme importance to me.

      In the old testament, Genesis 9:5-6, God says, “And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.”

      This triple repetition of “require” emphasizes the importance to God of human life. Human life in God’s image is so valuable that God demands as compensation nothing less than the life of the murderer.

      In Exodus 21:12 God says, “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.” In Numbers 35:31, God says, “Moreover, you shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death, but he shall be put to death.” Two verses later, God says, “You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it.”

      Regarding the Decalogue, commandment six says, “You shall not murder.” Some translations interpret this as “Thou shalt not kill.” The intent of the Hebrew clearly refers to murder. It also covers causing human death through carelessness or negligence. So capital punishment is not proscribed by the Ten Commandments.

      Regarding the New Testament, the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus in John 6 by bringing a woman caught in adultery. The Mosaic law required death. The Roman law said only Romans could carry out the death penalty. If Jesus said to stone her, he would violate Roman law. If he said release her, he would violate Mosaic law. Instead, he said in v. 7, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” Was Jesus purpose with that statement to negate the Mosaic law of the death penalty? I think not. He was showing the Pharisees for who they were, dishonest people out to trap Jesus so he could be arrested. I base this view on what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-19, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

      In Matthew 7:1, Jesus said, “Judge not that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye , and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” Some interpret that to mean society cannot rightly judge a criminal and therefore cannot impose the death penalty. If that were true, however, it would mean society could judge no crime, not just crimes resulting in the death penalty. Jesus’ point in that segment was to prevent hypocritical judging—prevent those with “log disease” from judging those with “speck disease”.

      Regarding what Jesus said in Matthew 5:44, “But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,” some interpret that to mean that capital punishment is wrong because we are not loving the one we execute. But the admonition by Jesus to love your enemies is personal. I, myself, should love my enemies, not government should love its enemies. I, myself, should pray for those who persecute me, not the government or civil authority should pray for those who persecute civil authority.

      And civil authority, government, is clearly designed and controlled by God to achieve His purposes. In John 19: 10-11, Pilate says to Jesus, “Do you not know that I have the authority to release you and the authority to crucify you?” Jesus answered him, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above.” In Acts 25:11, Paul is captured and stands before Festus and says, “If then I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death.” Clearly, Paul understood the power of the state to execute criminals. In Matthew 26:52 Jesus said, “…all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” In Luke 20: 9-16, Jesus tells the parable of the tenants of a vineyard who killed the people the owner sent, including the owners son. In verse 15, Jesus says, “What then will the owner of the vineyard do them? He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” Clearly, Jesus had no opposition to meting out appropriate punishment for murder. In Luke 19: 11-27, Jesus tells a parable about himself, likening himself to a nobleman who went to receive for himself a kingdom. He gave money to three people and when he returned after obtaining the kingdom, he called them in. Two had made money, one had not and from that man is money was removed. The last verse of the parable is revealing about our Lord when he says, “But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.” In Romans 13:2-4, Paul says, “Therefore whoever resists authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” Paul clearly states that civil authority is carrying out God’s judgment.

      Some argue that capital punishment does not show mercy. Or that capital punishment removes the opportunity for one to come to Christ. Here, I would borrow from Thomas Aquinas who said,

      “…a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. for capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime…the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.”

      So, to summarize, I believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God, the God who created us and created the universe and everything in it. The word of God clearly demonstrates God’s will in this area. There are other arguments, moral arguments that I will tackle in my next post.
      (All Bible text taken from ESV.)

    2. Dianna A said

      Uncle Matt, and Dad,

      I want to respond to both of you here, and I hope I can do so in a way that makes you think, rather than puts you on the defensive as well. I agree, Dad, that communication between the divisions one of the hardest issues in the political realm today, simply because of the jargon and party line stances flying around.

      I’m willing to grant you both points 1 and 2 here if we can have a discussion on point 3. As an OBGYN, Matt, you have infinitely more experience with the abortion issue than I do, and probably more information as well. I’m not here to argue that.

      I just have to wonder how someone who can support the right to life for an innocent child can also advocate the torture and humiliation of a man your own age? It seems inconsistent to me, just as I find the Republican stance on the death penalty to be consistent with a right to life stance. Since you brushed aside the issue so quickly, I would like further explication on why torture should be allowed. Could you email me some information about this? And also an extended explanation of why amnesty is a bad idea as well? This post left me with a lot of questions, and I think once I get further explanation, I will be more able to respond.

      Please email me sometime soon and we can discuss it.

    3. Larry Anderson said

      Amen and again Amen! Liberals often try to make their views seem reasonable and logical–until the details are known. Most of the time they will do all they can to keep the details hidden. For a hefty portion of the American populace, if all the details were known, liberal views would seem neither reasonable nor logical. If people are sucked in by the glossed over big picture retoric, they sometimes come to actually defend positions they would disagree with if they knew the details. However, the deception is complete and any attempt to inform them of the details can result in defensiveness and a closed mind, the “don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up” syndrome. Before you know it, extreme liberals get elected. The challenge comes in communicating in such a way that rather than become defensive, people think.

    4. MDViews said

      Thank you for your comment. I really think this third way group is deluded,apostate or dishonest, possibly all three.

    5. CMinor said

      Thanks for bringing attention to this. I’ve observed a few other “third way” types making similar statements and am left wondering exactly what it is gay rights and open borders have to do with reducing abortions. I’d like to see more greenspace and cleaner waterways myself, but I don’t go around trying to pitch them as pro-life measures.

      The following article:
      http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/abstinence_only_education_no_b.php

      and the report on which it is based:
      http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/abstinencereport.asp

      may be of interest as they confirm what you said about “comprehensive sex ed’s” uselessness as a teen pregnancy reducer.

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s