Tag Archives: Walter Myers III
The problem, in my view, with the LGBT movement is not that they have a particular view they are advocating for, but the manner in which they pursue it. Regardless of whether I agree with their ends, which I don’t, I could at least respect them if they didn’t have to demonize the church or anyone else that doesn’t agree with them. There is something to be said for being gracious when you’re fighting for a cause, and the LGBT movement scores a big goose egg in that department. The odd thing is that they make a moral argument to justify their ends, while rejecting any contrary moral arguments. We see this clearly in that they constantly denigrate Christian values, while saying that their values are superior. But how can they do this? They say their values are “progressive” values that have evolved over time culturally, but what exactly are progressive values? On what are they based? Christian values are based on thousands of years of history and observation of natural law, and were validated by the resurrection of Christ. Now many may argue that they don’t believe Christ resurrected, but they cannot argue the historical accuracy of Christianity, and they cannot deny that Christian values, when properly applied, promote love, patience, hope, perseverance, and tolerance of others with whom they disagree. So while the Christian has a set of timeless principles to work from, the LGBT movement has no objective basis on which to moralize. So why should anyone listen to them? Demonizing those who disagree with you and seeking government to force people to accept your point of view is hardly a sustainable moral ethic.
I know the rejoinder from someone in the LGBT community will be that Christians are filled with hate and discriminate against gays. But that couldn’t be further from the truth. Christians are called to love and accept all human beings, and simply see the gay lifestyle as being one of many different sinful lifestyles. But Christians don’t seek to ban gays from living their chosen lifestyles, and don’t see their sin as any worse than premarital sex amongst heterosexual couples or adultery. These are all forms of sexual sin and I don’t see any Christians clamoring for laws that prevent consenting adults from entering into whatever relationships they wish to enter, even if they are wrong (which they obviously are in the case of adultery). They say that Christians are against “gay rights.” But Christians are not against “gay rights.” This is because “gay rights” are not any different from the rights of any other human being. We all have the same rights in this country by virtue of being human. So I don’t see anything special about being gay. If you’re gay, then you’re a human, and it doesn’t make you any different than anyone else. The LGBT movement would have us believe gays are somehow different and special, but I don’t see how they can rationally justify that. Being gay has no affect on one’s ability to get a job, love who they want, or live the life of their choosing. There simply is no broad or systematic discrimination today against gays any more than there is against blacks.
To continue reading, please click HERE.
My Conservative BFF Walter Myers III shared a brilliant post on Facebook regarding President Barack Obama’s sequester gambit & I had to share this with you all:
The sequester that President Obama HIMSELF suggested, championed, and signed into law, is now the Republicans taking a “meat cleaver” to the budget. This is what Obama does, and he does it well because those who support him simply will not believe that the man is operating in bad faith and not in their best interests. How can he possibly blame this on Republicans? Even if it were their fault, it is 2.3% of total spending! That is $85 billion of $3.6 TRILLION of government spending.
Let me tell you why he is doing this. He has NEVER had ANY plans of cutting spending, period. The idea has always been to tell the American people he would cut spending, and then when it comes time to deliver the cuts, he trots out policemen, firemen, and public servants as sacrificial lambs, hoping to appeal to your heart strings: “Oh my God, we can’t cut these people’s salaries!” Now the reason he does this is because you are stupid. He doesn’t expect you to then think to yourself, “Why does he ALWAYS threaten to do the maximum damage to people instead of cutting government waste where the waste really does exist? That’s hardly a good leader he always threatens the least of us just to get his way.” Well if you’re a liberal, then he knows you won’t think that way.
And of course, even though he got a tax increase last month, he is now crying for more taxes on the wealthy instead of making those cuts, because he knows if he says the Republicans don’t want to raise taxes because they want to protect special interests such as big oil, you, like a Pavlovian dog, will say “Yeah, those Republicans are for special interests.” Well, this has NOTHING to do with special interests, period. But he just knows he can throw that in and a liberal won’t even recognize that was a purely political remark to appeal to emotions. Again, this sequester was HIS idea, and HE signed it into law. So how can this have anything to do with Republicans and special interests? It doesn’t. And again, he got his tax increase last month but is using this as an opportunity to raise taxes while making completely false charges against Republicans. Shameful. But you liberals apparently like that.
What Obama knows implicitly is that liberal are willing to even sacrifice the health of the economy to get “social progress.” That’s why he spends into oblivion and doesn’t give a damn about debt or deficits, except when he could score political points against George Bush. So let me ask you liberals this one question. If he runs the economy into the toilet, then what the hell good will be of your social programs and “social progress.” We will all be in starving and the country will be broke and in deep debt. What you SHOULD be doing, my liberal friends, is fighting your social battles at the state level, and stopping any Republican or Democrat from bankrupting your country. What you have made is a Faustian bargain, and you are bringing the whole country down in the process because you want to force your social views on every single American, instead of going to bat at the state level so people can have 50 choices that they can choose from that fits within their particular sensibilities.
You can’t get social progress and NOT get the concomitant profligate spending that Democrats do that has already bankrupted numerous cities, with Detroit and LA two huge Democratic cities set to fail. In time, within a generation, it will be this nation. You think it’s bad in Greece, just wait until it happens in the US. It won’t be pretty.
To put this in perspective, this sequester is the equivalent of you making $24,000 a year, putting $12,000 on a credit card and having a financial counselor ask you to cut $828 out of your budget so you can take on less debt. Yes, it may hurt, but you know you can’t continue this and need to get your spending under control. Just add nine zeroes to that and you see where our federal government is going, because we know what would happen to you eventually in that scenario.
Walter recommends “President Armageddon” from the Wall Street Journal.
My friend & fellow blogger Walter Myers III shared some wonderful commentary on Facebook regarding the Yahoo article on the recent meeting of Chick-Fil-A CEO & a gay rights activist & I wanted to share his thoughts:
“I just learned about this today, and I think it is a great thing. What I think gay activists need to understand is that when one is a follower of Christ, one cannot pick and choose what they believe. Regardless of what we believe, we are called to love all people, and being for traditional marriage does not make us “anti-gay.” The Bible is clear about homosexuality, so when a Christian opposes same-sex marriage, it is not because we don’t like those who are gay or are against them having equal rights under the law. With respect to marriage, we don’t believe that same-sex marriage is equal because it is clear that it is not the same thing as heterosexual marriage. Just calling two things equal doesn’t make them equal.
A friend of mine argued today that I am discriminating against a group of people, and used the example of heterosexual couples who can’t have children to say that marriage is not about procreation. My response was that the fact that some couples can’t have children is because something went wrong, but the design of man and woman is to be able to continue the species. It’s the same as saying that a football game that produces a score of 0-0 is not a football game because no one scored. The design of the game IS to score, but that doesn’t mean it is NOT a game because no one scored. By the same token, the fact that some heterosexual couples can’t have children in no way detracts from the fact that they are married and that is the institution designed to produce children.
Some compare the fight for interracial marriage as equivalent to same-sex marriage. Interracial marriage is not actually “interracial,” because there is only ONE race, the human race. Just because people divide themselves into racial categories has nothing to do with the fact that regardless of these racial categories, all men and women of any race can procreate naturally. So interracial marriage has always been a false distinction because there is no such thing as “interracial marriage.”
Some say that because about fifty percent of marriages end in divorce, even in Christian marriages, that this shows marriage is not a special institution. But the fact that we as people, who are fallen and fallible, end up in broken relationships in no way affects the ideal that is marriage. Just imagine if everyone gave up on other ideals in life because they weren’t successful in more than fifty percent of their endeavors. Life is a struggle, and nothing is promised in life, so we make the best of it we can, and we always hold out hope for the best.
So regarding discrimination against gays because I may be against redefining the definition of marriage, I think it is instructive to point out that discrimination occurs in all walks of life, and that there is not always ill intent. Aren’t women that are not very attractive excluded when they can’t make it to the Miss America or Miss USA pageant? That, indeed, is discrimination of some sort. When white women won’t date black men because they are black, or black women won’t date white men because they are white, is that discrimination? Am I being excluded from joining the Pacific Club in Newport Beach because I can’t afford the $15,000 membership? In each case, there is some exclusion, but the “discrimination” in these cases is simply meeting some particular criteria that has no intent expressly meant to cause harm to others. And in the same way, marriage being between a man and a woman is simply a way to distinguish a particular type of union (not to “exclude” or “discriminate against” anyone), which is the only union that can possibly produce children naturally.
From the Christian perspective, we are all sinners, and we all have to deal with our sin. There are various types of sin, some obviously more heinous than others. But why would a Christian, whose charge is to bring others into the kingdom, treat gays differently from anyone else when it comes to sin? Homosexuality is just one of many types of sin that keeps that person separated from God. Gays need the love of Christ just as much as anyone else, and must face their sins as I have to face my own. So any Christian would be doing someone who is gay a great disservice by accepting either homosexuality or same-sex marriage as normative, even though it may pain us to do so. Either a Christian is going to be true to God’s word, or they are not going to be true to God’s word. But in being true to God’s word, there should be no greater friend to gays than Christians, and we should be the ones who are the first to help if gays are treated in an intentionally harmful or hateful manner. Just because we disagree on same-sex marriage does not mean we are not to serve a gay person as our fellow man or woman in goodness, in love, and in truth.”
Please read the Yahoo article by Chris Good HERE.
My friend Walter Myers III knocks it out of the ballpark & I concur!
Last week, a high school friend of mine (someone that I thought was a friend), commented on Facebook that I was “heartless” for not agreeing with him that taking care of the needy can best be administered by the federal government. In his view, only the federal government has the “necessary resources” to feed the poor in America. Of course, I reminded him that every penny the federal government takes in comes from individuals that live in one of fifty states with any number of localities that also have the power to tax, so each state obviously has the necessary resources to feed and clothe the truly needy. Moreover, it is the height of naiveté to believe that a federal government can take money out of each state, run that money through its bureaucracy, and then give it back to the state without a considerable percentage going to waste that would not have happened at the local or state level. The federal government was not designed to be a charitable organization and it is not good at it either for the obvious reason that it is so far away from the point of need, it could not possibly know what the varying needs are on the ground in any given state and how to best administer help to those in need. Charity is, at best, something that is done as local as possible (city, then county, then state) and should never be a federal matter that will become invariably become wholly politicized. It only complicates things when you concentrate more and more power into the hands of the few. That is precisely why our founders had a limited role for the federal government.
In previous posts, I wrote about the book by Arthur C. Brooks, titled Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism. Brooks notes that America has become essentially two nations—one charitable, and the other uncharitable. He was disturbed by many of the facts and trends that emerged from years of analysis indicating how an identifiable slice of the population does not donate to people in need, does not volunteer, and does not give in informal ways either. That identifiable slice is, namely, those who label themselves as liberals (or progressives). In a nutshell, liberals give dramatically less than conservatives, even though as a group they have 6% higher income on average than conservatives. And liberals are not privately charitable either, an argument that some liberals use to deflect what the hard numbers demonstrate. Conservatives give more because of their worldview, which centers around four forces as noted by Brooks: religion, skepticism about the government in economic life, strong families, and personal entrepreneurship. Liberals give less because they believe charity consists mainly of government redistribution. And even if the government does not do what they think it should, they still won’t give. So the next time a liberal tells you they want their taxes to go up to help the needy, you should see it for what it truly is: their desire to appearcompassionate in words because they are simply not compassionate inaction. Ask them to write a check out to their local charity to alleviate poverty in their own city, and see just how much pushback you will get.
To continue reading this wonderful, thought provoking blog, please click HERE.