E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Cute picture of the day

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Here's an adorable little critter I saw running around Palisades Falls in Montana last summer.

Monday, April 29, 2013

Rape culture and the sexual revolution

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. -- I Corinthians 6:18

Can you really separate rape culture from the sexual revolution and our "anything goes" attitude toward sex? I do not think you can. The former is a product of and feeds on the latter.

I have been following three shocking cases where teenage girls were raped. Either the rapists or bystanders took photographs of the victims and shared the photos on social media or by sending the photos to each other. Two of the victims (Rehtaeh Parsons and Audrie Pott) committed suicide due to the online harassment or widespread dissemination of the photographs of them in a vulnerable state. Pott's attackers allegedly wrote on her unconscious body. The photos shared on social media were critical in convicting the rapists in Steubenville, Ohio.

While I have been following these three cases, it has become increasingly obvious to me that our sexually permissive culture - brought about by the sexual revolution of the 1960's - is at the root of these rapes, and especially the callous and spiteful gloating about the crimes on social media websites.

While sexual sin has certainly existed all throughout history, it was not that long ago that American culture generally embraced the Christian world view that sexual activity is to be confined to the marriage bed. But over the last forty or fifty years, Christianity's influence over our culture has been deeply eroded to the point that most of the cultural and social expectations regarding the proper boundaries have been abolished - with more on the way. For one shocking example, see this post at BaylyBlog for a quote by a false "pastor" in New Mexico.

We have come to believe that we have a "right" to engage in whatever sexual behavior we wish, and that no one may judge us for it. Think about this for a minute: Were the attitudes of the rapists in the three cases I mentioned above fundamentally different than the attitudes of men who "hook up" with women on our college campuses? Is the attitude of the man who has a series of one night stands with various women fundamentally different from the two young men who raped those three teenage girls and then gloated about it electronically?

I would submit that the answer is "no." In both cases, the women and girls are little more than sexual playthings. These men don't care about the women themselves. They are the means to an end, with no more moral standing than a blow-up doll. They are used and discarded. When men see women as sexual toys rather than immortal souls made in the image of Almighty God, should we be surprised that the boundaries between consensual sex and rape begin to blur to the point that it does not matter what the woman or teenage girl wants?

If we want to address and fight against rape culture, then we need to get serious about undoing the horrific damage the sexual revolution has brought to our culture. From the broken families and economic consequences of no-fault divorce to the dramatic spread of sexually transmitted diseases brought about by widespread promiscuity, we cannot continue to ignore the consequences of the sexual revolution.

As with so many of our society's problems, the fault lies at the feet of the Christian church. Our churches have completely failed to preach, teach, rebuke and exhort on sexual morality and Almighty God's many commandments to be sexually pure. If sexual sin is not addressed by the Christian church, how can we possibly expect the world to respect Biblical sexual morality? They will rightly dismiss us as hypocrites. Revival and judgment must always begin with the house of God.

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Fully developed human brains

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

If those people trying to diminish the moral responsibility of Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev because his brain was not fully developed are to be believed, this is clearly an argument for raising the age of consent.

Saturday, April 27, 2013

An important article to read for fathers

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

As a father, I recognize that one of the things that is most dangerous to my son's eternal soul and earthly health is pornography, especially with the explosion of mobile devices that have Internet access. But sons are not the only ones in danger, so this article is important - protecting your daughters from lust.

Friday, April 26, 2013

Interactive content providers and rape victims

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

A federal appeals court ruled in May of 2008 that interactive content providers are not legally liable for content posted on their sites, in that case MySpace.com, after a teenage girl was sexually assaulted by a man she met through the social networking site. The family had alleged that MySpace.com did not properly protect teens from sexual predators, but the Associated Press reports that Judge Edith Brown Clement "ruled that the Communications Decency Act of 1996 bars such lawsuits against Web-based services like MySpace." (I addressed this when it happened.)

This is important to note in the case of Rehtaeh Parsons, who was gang-raped at the age of 15 and killed herself two years later after being harassed and cyberstalked. Images of the attack were posted to social-media websites, much like what happened in the shocking and abhorrent Steubenville rape case in 2012. A children's advocacy group calling itself the Red Hood Project is calling for Facebook and other social media websites to be more responsible but also for government action to prevent abusive images from being posted to the sites in the first place.

One suggestion was for Facebook be punished with "something like a $10 million fine every time someone posted the image" of a sexual assault in progress. As noted above, such an action is not legally permitted in the United States because of the Communications Decency Act. I am not familiar enough with Canadian law to comment on that, but even if it is legally permissible it would be a bad idea.

Obviously, no person with any human decency wants to see victims of rape and sexual assault humiliated and tormented in public by perverted monsters who gloat about and post images of their crimes on the Internet. Such despicable and depraved actions should be punished to the fullest extent of the law and I would fully support legislation enacting harsher penalties for crimes like this in addition to making the punishment for the rapists themselves harsher when they use social media to gloat about the crimes they commit.

But punishing the social media sites themselves is a tricky area and will have serious unintended consequences. Social media websites can (and do) take things down, but preventing things from being posted in the first place is a completely different matter. Interactive content providers (whether they are social media websites, discussion forums or newspaper comment sections) for the most part cannot screen content before it is posted, and hitting them with huge fines every time one of their users does something illegal will either force heavy-handed censorship or shut them down completely. Punishing social media websites for actions of users who are breaking the law and the website's Terms of Service Agreement is like punishing Honda and Budweiser when someone is driving drunk.

Unfortunately, the virtual raw sewage we see posted on the Internet is a product of our society. If the bastards who post images of themselves raping an unconscious teenage girl had been raised by mothers and fathers who taught them to be real men who respect and honor women, they would not have considered assaulting an unconscious teenager, much less gloat about it on the Internet. The problem here is a problem with our culture, not Facebook. The place to start fixing this is (as always) within the church. We must train our covenant sons to honor and respect women.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Disgusting, perverted and reprehensible

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 3:00 AM (#)

On the April 23 edition of ABC Nightline, a "news" story explained that the "teenage brain" is not fully developed and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's impulse control was not as mature.

Bovine feces!

When I was 19 years old (some 20 years ago) I knew full well that setting off a bomb in a crowd of people to maim and kill was evil. I knew that at 15. I knew that at 10.

The attempt to take away ANY moral responsibility for this act of terrorism based on agenda-driven junk science is disgusting, perverted and reprehensible.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's civil liberties must be protected

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Timothy McVeigh murdered 168 people and maimed hundreds more when he used a fertilizer bomb to attack a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev allegedly murdered three people and maimed nearly 200 with a bomb inside a pressure cooker at the Boston Marathon on April 15

Both McVeigh and Tsarnaev are American citizens. McVeigh was afforded due process and his guilt was proven after a fair trial. He was put to death a few years ago and is currently suffering in horrible burning agony in Hell, where he will continue to suffer in horrible burning agony for all eternity. So why can we not treat Tsarnaev the same way we treated McVeigh? What is dramatically different about the cases of McVeigh and Tsarnaev?

According to several Republican lawmakers, Tsarnaev should be treated as an "unlawful enemy combatant," at least for the purposes of interrogation. As Radley Balko pointed out over the weekend, the notion that we have rights until it is inconvenient means we have no rights at all. Fortunately, the Obama administration has rejected this suggestion and will prosecute Tsarnaev through our civilian justice system.

September 11 was a traumatic event and it demonstrated we have to take Islamic terrorism seriously. However, our reaction to 9/11 has led to troubling results, as we have seen here. There is far too much irrational fear and hysteria surrounding the War on Terror, and making policy out of fear is dangerous. If we give up our civil liberties in response to a terrorist attack designed to spread fear and paranoia, we are giving the terrorists exactly what they want. To put it bluntly, if John McCain gets what he wants then the terrorists win.

I enthusiastically support the death penalty for murderers, and if Tsarnaev is convicted after a fair trial by a jury of his peers then he should be put to death as commanded by Almighty God in Genesis 9:6. But we should not forget that he is innocent until proven guilty. We need to take every precaution to make sure he actually is guilty and not give in to the temptation to take shortcuts, with the goal being justice - not a conviction.

We also need to remember that once the precedent is established that the Constitution can be ignored for an American citizen arrested on American soil, that precedent can (and will) be used in more destructive ways in the future. A government that ignores the rule of law is more dangerous to our liberty (and our security) than any terrorist or foreign aggressor could ever hope to be.

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Movie Review: Red Dawn remake

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

The original Red Dawn in 1984 was a classic - a surprise invasion by Soviet ground troops leads to the occupation of a significant portion of the United States. Once you get past the fact that such an invasion was highly unlikely, the story of some high school kids fighting a guerrilla war against the occupying Soviets was a great story. The Soviets were a believable enemy and the movie played on Cold War fears.

The new Red Dawn? The movie is fine, the action is great and the characters are engaging, but the premise is simply laughable. The North Koreans are invading us? Really? North Korea was not exactly a believable enemy in Olympus Has Fallen, but that was a commando strike against the White House, not a full blown invasion of the West Coast! You cannot expect your audience to take North Korea seriously as an invading army.

If a remake of Red Dawn was going to be made, it should have been China as the invading force. Despite its huge population, China does not have the capacity to launch a full-scale invasion of the United States, but China is a far more believable enemy than North Korea. The studio decided not to offend China, so the enemy suddenly became North Korea. If you cannot use China, why not set the movie in 1984 and have the Soviets invade again?

North Korea (guffaw!) is able to shut down U.S. defenses with an electromagnetic pulse, enabling the invasion. They have a special device that protects them from being harmed by the EMP. There are all kinds of problems with this, and it would be easier to suspend disbelief if the movie was more science-fiction oriented - perhaps if the invading army was Cobra in a G.I. Joe sequel. It is out of place in a movie that is supposed to take place in the real world.

Despite these problems, the movie is enjoyable. Chris Hemsworth does a great job as Jed, and his relationship with his brother Matt (and the disciplinary problems he has with Matt as Jed tries to mold the kids into a formidable resistance cell) is well done. The scene with Matt screaming "WOLVERINES!" as the resistance cell is attacking the North Korean (guffaw!) occupying force in the streets to prevent the execution of one of their contacts is just awesome and makes you want to stand up and cheer.

If there is a problem from a storytelling perspective (other than the issue of not having a credible enemy) it is that you never really get the sense that the Wolverines are in a desperate situation. It takes almost no time at all for a bunch of high school kids to become legitimate soldiers, and they are far too effective against the occupying army. The situation does not become really desperate until the final scene, which is unfortunate.

The movie would have been better with more tension - making the stakes much higher and the objective more unattainable. Having Jed proclaim the Wolverines cannot win in a straight up fight and then have them decisively win a straight up fight does not help matters. It winds up being more of a feel good patriotic movie than the story of following a ragtag resistance cell fighting impossible odds.

Overall, this is worth a rental, though it's not something I would own on DVD.

Final Grade: B.

Monday, April 22, 2013

Due Process

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 5:30 PM (#)

As a reminder, Tsarnaev is innocent until proven guilty.

Immoral libertarianism and the "morning-after pill"

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Steve Chapman illustrates the problem with libertarians who place purist ideology over common sense, resulting in an anti-libertarian stance. Giving birth control to pre-teen girls is not a libertarian position for two very big reasons.

First, it violates parental rights. The state has traditionally deferred to parents' authority in matters of child-rearing. For the government to allow the "morning after pill" to be available over the counter seriously undermines that authority, and violates the First Amendment rights of parents (especially Catholics) who oppose artificial birth control on religious grounds. It also undermines the ability of parents to protect their daughters from sexual predators. With MAP available over the counter, sexual predators much more easily cover up the results of their crimes.

Second, the state has always had a role in protecting children from abuse by adults. The essence of libertarian ideology can be summed up by the (admittedly simplistic) statement that "you can swing your fist as much as you want until it touches my nose." Once harm is committed, the state has reason to step in. Enabling sexual predators to cover up their crimes is not a libertarian position - it is an anarchist position.

Chapman has bought into the propaganda from the "reproductive rights" crowd that the "morning after pill" does not prevent implantation. If the point of "contraception" is to prevent fertilization in the first place, why is it that "emergency contraception" is taken after sexual contact -including up to three days later? Furthermore, the makers of "Plan B" admit on their own website that their drug can cause a fertilized egg not to implant, destroying a newly-created human life before it has a chance to grow:

It is possible that Plan B One-Step® may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of the sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb).

Source: http://www.planbonestep.com/faqs.aspx
Screenshots: Twitter - PhotoBucket

Treating the "morning after pill" like acetaminophen or laxatives is illogical and ignores the moral and religious implications of the MAP. Drugs that relieve pain, suppress cold symptoms or encourage bowel movements are wildly different from the destructive social effects of allowing young teens and pre-teen girls unfettered access to a drug that enables felony sexual abuse and/or sexual activity before the age of consent. Like I said on April 12, this lawless decision is part of a larger and frightening movement to legalize pedophilia.

The solution here is simple. Congress should immediately draft and pass legislation to give the executive branch the authority to not authorize over the counter sales of "emergency contraception." The Food and Drug Administration is an agency created by Congressional legislation, so Congress has the legal authority to expand the authority of the agency and the executive branch that oversees it. Barack Obama has already said that he agrees with limiting OTC sales of "Plan B," so unless the President was being dishonest this should pass easily.

Friday, April 19, 2013

Twenty years ago today: Never forget Waco!

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

A terrible, senseless and needless tragedy occurred twenty years ago today when the federal government of these United States used military force - including tanks - against American citizens on American soil. These citizens did not represent an imminent threat to national security, nor were they actively engaged in armed insurrection. The April 19 attack on the compound was to end a standoff which started with a disastrous February 28 raid on the compound.

During the invasion of the compound, a fire was started and quickly engulfed the entire compound - producing a spectacular explosion when it reached an especially dangerous area of the compound. In all, 76 members of the Branch Davidian cult - including 21 children - lost their lives that day because the federal government was not willing to wait any longer and decided to invade the compound with overwhelming force.

People should not live in fear of their government, but it is understandable that many people are afraid due to the excessive militarization of law enforcement. Too often, fighting crime is treated like fighting a war, with a military mentality, military tactics and military weapons. This disturbing trend preceded the Waco massacre, but Waco remains the most egregious example of this excessive use of force.

Twenty years later, our message to our government must be clear: This will not be tolerated. The use of military force on civilians must never happen again. The federal government must respect civil liberties and exercise the restraint that is appropriate for dealing with our citizens. Never again.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Planned Parenthood's unsurprising defense of infanticide

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

The Internet lit up when Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow was asked what should happen to a baby that survives an abortion and is born alive. She said "We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician." But this should not be a surprise.

What Planned Parenthood knows is that when you admit that there is a point where the state has a legitimate reason to intervene in abortion to protect human life, even after a baby is born, you have left a huge hole in your argument. Once you admit there is a point at which life should be protected, the question is where you draw the line. Once you draw the line, you open yourself up to reasonable criticism that the line is arbitrary and illogical.

After all, there is no real difference between the baby struggling for life on a table and that same baby a few hours earlier. Why is it that the location of the baby is the sole determining factor in whether or not that baby has a right to life? There is no real difference between that baby now and that baby a day or a week ago. In fact, no matter where you draw the line, a case can be made that the line is arbitrary and should be moved back.

Planned Parenthood knows this. PP knows that when you draw any line after which a baby can be protected, that line is artificial, illogical and arbitrary. The entire house of cards depends on the right to kill a baby at any point, for any reason, up to and including the ninth month of pregnancy - and sometimes after the baby is born. That is why they cannot compromise, and why they cannot even bring themselves to admit that killing a newborn baby is wrong and should be prohibited, even though the premise of a woman having sovereignty over "her body" is irrelevant by then.

That is why there should be no line. Biologically speaking, a human being is created when a sperm cell and egg join. From that point forward, we have a completely new organism that with a unique DNA code. That organism - that human being - resides in the mother's body but is not part of the mother's body. The new human being should be protected from the moment of fertilization onward - and fertilization happens before implantation.

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

The world is not black and white!

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 5:30 PM (#)

The world is not black and white! Conflicts are often not between good and evil. There can be good on both sides of a conflict... and sometimes both sides of a conflict can be evil! When we see conflict in this world, we must use discernment and judgment, rather than assuming that if there is a conflict one side must be 100% pure and good while the other side is 100% dirty and evil. Because that is childish.

Government must respect civil liberties

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Note: I made an error in my LTTE as published in the newspaper. The actual death toll at Waco was 76, not 82. That has been corrected for this post.

Printed in the Herald-Times, April 16, 2013. (Comments)

To the Editor:

April 19 will be the 20th anniversary of the massacre in Waco, Texas, when our federal government used military equipment (including tanks) against American citizens on American soil. A fire engulfed and obliterated the Branch Davidian compound, killing 76 people.

That raid ended a standoff started by an unnecessary military-type raid on February 28. Instead of dealing with the Branch Davidians in a non-confrontational manner, a commando invasion of the compound created a hostile situation that could have been avoided.

But the Waco standoff and the April 19 massacre is only the tip of the iceberg as we have seen steadily increasing use of force in the name of law and order.

Aiyana Stanley-Jones was shot and killed during a SWAT raid in Detroit. She was 7 years old. Kathryn Johnston was 92 years old when a SWAT team in Atlanta shot and killed her as she attempted to defend her home against what she thought was a home invasion. The Mayor of Berwyn Heights, Maryland was held at gunpoint for hours by a SWAT team that killed his two dogs.

This is frightening. We should demand more restraint and respect for civil liberties from all levels of government.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Melissa Harris-Perry: "All your kid are belong to us"

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

"Part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities." -- Melissa Harris-Perry

A contributor to MSNBC stirred up outrage with her statement about children belonging to "whole communities," and some of the concern about the implications that the state should have primary control over child rearing was legitimate. As the father of a fifteen month old boy, I know nobody cares about my son as much as my wife and I do. I will make mistakes as a father, but I am in a better position to meet his needs and train him for life than the state.

But while this may seem unusual to many of my conservative friends, I have to ask a question. Was what Melissa Harris-Perry said all that radical? Does Harris-Perry actually have a good point that we should consider, especially the evangelical Christians who have been her strongest and most aggressive critics?

Obviously, the primary responsibility for childrearing is with the parents. It is the parents who have been entrusted by God with the task of training our children (Proverbs 22:6) and God will hold us responsible for how we care for our children. But is there a wider responsibility and an obligation to intervene that goes beyond the family? After all, the Apostle Paul writes (1 Timothy 3) that a leader in the church should be able to control his children, which requires the church to judge how that leader rules his house.

And what about the state? Clearly, the state has an interest in preventing parents from abusing their children. We regularly see cases in the news of parents neglecting and abusing their children, leading to the involvement of the state to remove children from a harmful situation. This is done in haste at times based on false allegations or even an excessive nanny-state mentality, and that is evil. But no reasonable person would deny the state's role here.

As a matter of fact, I advocate for the state to interfere in decisions of parents in an area where the state is currently hands-off: The fact that parents can decide to murder their children in the womb. The civil magistrate has an obligation to legislate against abortion and "bear the sword" (Romans 13) to defend and preserve the lives of innocent babies made in the image of God. One of government's primary responsibilities is to make it illegal to kill people.

So, yes, Melissa Harris-Perry is absolutely wrong and her ideology should be vigorously opposed. We do not want the state taking control of our children. But while she is wrong, she is also right - something that has been lost in our libertarian indignation over what she said.

Monday, April 15, 2013

The Boston Marathon

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 6:14 PM (#)

The death penalty is required for the person or persons who bombed the Boston marathon. I volunteer to pull the switch on the electric chair.

Anti-abortion rhetoric: Truthful, "inflammatory" or both?

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

We have heard a lot from Leftists in Bloomington over the last couple weeks about "inflammatory" rhetoric surrounding the international tragedy of abortion. They argue that by saying abortion is "murder" and by using terms like "slaughter" and "holocaust" to describe abortion, we encourage violence against abortion "clinics," from destruction of property to violence against human beings.

Lost in all this whining over "inflammatory rhetoric" is the central question of the abortion debate: Is the fetus growing in his mother's womb a human being or not? The entire debate over what "rhetoric" is appropriate - to say nothing of the debate over abortion and limits on the procedure - hinges on this one question.

If the fetus is a human being, then the even the harshest descriptions of the abortion industry are truthful. In fact, the harshest descriptions of abortion may actually understate the magnitude of the slaughter. Nazi Germany murdered millions with their "final solution" to deal with Jews, gypsies and other "undesirable" populations. But Nazi Germany did not come close to the fifty-five million lives taken by abortion in America alone. The ideology of "reproductive choice" embraced by these United States has topped the death toll of Nazi Germany many times over.

When faced with such an unimaginable death toll, when faced with the fact that our hands are deeply stained with the blood of the unborn, Christians can do nothing but speak about abortion in the harshest possible terms. Christian pastors must speak about the evil of abortion in the starkest terms because this terrible wickedness is also a sin of the Christian church, and Christians must repent of our involvement in this evil if we expect the pagan culture to do the same.

Some claim that when we say that abortion is murder, and when we say abortion is a holocaust, people who hear that will act in a sinful manner. Perhaps some will do so. But the Christian church and the pro-life movement generally almost universally agree that the commission of violence against persons or property in the name of stopping abortion is unjustifiable and must be opposed. Speaking the truth about abortion does not cause someone to commit acts that have been repeatedly denounced by Christians for decades.

If you want me to stop saying that abortion is murder, then you are going to have to convince me that the fetus is not a human being made in the image of God and there is therefore no moral issue with terminating a pregnancy. Until that happens, I am compelled to speak the truth about exactly what abortion is - the willful and intentional murder of a helpless baby. Fifty five million murders have been protected by our corrupt legal system that is in open and unrepentant rebellion against the God who is our ultimate Law Giver.

This is the reality of abortion:

Source: The Center for BioEthical Reform

Source: The Center for BioEthical Reform

Sunday, April 14, 2013

George Will on the "Central Park Five"

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 9:00 AM (#)

We should all remember this story, and never compromise on due process and the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." This was a double injustice - first because innocent young men went to prison for a crime they did not commit and second because the real perpetrator was not punished for his horrific and evil crime.

Saturday, April 13, 2013

An important point regarding Scripture

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 9:00 AM (#)

Just because a historical event is recorded in the Bible doesn't mean it is endorsed by the Bible - there are many examples where exactly the opposite is true. The historical accounts should always be viewed through the lens of doctrine.

Friday, April 12, 2013

"Plan B" ruling enables sexual abuse of teens

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

In three cases in Indiana this year, police caught a 39-year-old man and a 46-year-old man using "sextortion" tactics to get minors as young as 14 to perform sex acts via webcam, and a 41-year-old man was robbed by a 16-year-old girl and her friends when he met the girl for sex after meeting her on Facebook. It was a national scandal in the 1990's when a study revealed that a large percentage of teenage pregnancies were caused by adult men in their 20's and 30's.

This is why it is so disturbing that "Judge" Edward Korman legislated from the bench last week, overruling the Obama Administration's regulation that "Plan B" could not be sold over-the-counter to teenage girls under the age of 17 - in addition to pre-teen girls as young as 11 years old.

What we have here is a "judge" who is actually a lawless rebel. With this ruling, he is enabling and encouraging the sexual exploitation of not only teenage girls, but of pre-teens as young as eleven years old. He dismisses these concerns by saying that the number of pre-teen girls buying "Plan B" over the counter is likely to be small, but sexual contact with an eleven year old is a felony in every state in the nation.

"This case is not about the potential misuse of Plan B by 11-year-olds," the judge wrote. "These emergency contraceptives would be among the safest drugs sold over-the-counter," he noted, and "the number of 11-year-olds using these drugs is likely to be minuscule."

Source: Los Angeles Times

Thanks to this so-called "judge," men committing felony child abuse can legally have her purchase birth control to cover up the results of his abuse. This will make protecting young girls from sexual predators more difficult.

The other dangerous aspect of this lawless rebel's ruling is it is part of a larger movement to legalize pedophilia. It may be confined to the fringe for now, but it does exist and we need to be very careful. In a few decades, we parents may look back and wonder why it is we cannot protect our children from sexual predators under the law because they have a "right" to engage in sexual activity - meaning they have a "right" to be sexually exploited and abused.

The plethora of stories about teen boys having sex with attractive teachers in their twenties have already broken down moral opposition on some level, and there are whispers that the rape of two thirteen year old girls by adult men in Torrington, Connecticut was a "victimless crime" because the girls allegedly "consented" to the sex.

We should not forget another disturbing aspect to this lawless ruling - the fact that many more babies made in the image of God will be murdered through chemical means. Even the makers of "Plan B" admit that it can work to prevent implantation of a newly-created human being:

It is possible that Plan B One-Step® may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of the sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb).

Source: http://www.planbonestep.com/faqs.aspx

In a sane world, "Judge" Edward Korman would be arrested and prosecuted for being an accessory to child molestation. His crimes against children are more severe than anything done to cover up the damnable crimes of Jerry Sandusky by Penn State so-called "University," because Korman has enabled child rapists nationwide to use abortifacient drugs to cover up their crimes. What can we do to free ourselves of this judicial tyranny?

Thursday, April 11, 2013

R.C. Sproul Jr. preaches against abortion in Bloomington

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, "But we knew nothing about this," does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done? --Proverbs 24:11-12

R.C. Sproul Jr. reminded his audience at Indiana University last week that professing evangelical Christians account for one in every six abortions - approximately 200,000 babies murdered every single year. Do you find this shocking? You should not. After all, King David was a man after God's own heart (1 Samuel 13:14) and he committed murder to cover up his sexual sin. Just because we are saved does not make us immune to heinous sins.

One of the sins of ancient Israel that brought the wrath of God upon them was the practice of infant sacrifice. A baby would be burned alive to appease a pagan "god." One of the ancestors of Jesus Christ did that very thing. It is almost certain that at least some of those sacrificing their babies to Molech were covenant believers, so that Christians would go along with murdering children made in the image of God should not be a surprise. As always, repentance must begin with God's covenant children if we are to have any hope of pagans turning away from this evil.

As Dr. Sproul said last week, if we Christians would stop murdering our own children, perhaps pagans would do the same. But Christians have bought into the lie that children are a burden, while Scripture teaches that children are a blessing from the Lord. Not that children cannot be challenging, but do we believe God and His Word or not?

I don't know if Casey Farrington attended Dr. Sproul's speech or not. I hope she did, because she would have seen that her prediction that the speech would "further fracture the Bloomington community" was wrong. Dr. Sproul's position was certainly a strong defense of the unborn and a witness against the evil of abortion, but it's difficult to imagine how he could have delivered a more inclusive discussion of the topic. In fact, fully half of the lecture was directed at how evangelical Christians get abortion wrong and how we need to repent of our wickedness on it.

Click here for a couple broadcasts by Dr. Sproul's father on the subject of abortion, coinciding with the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Click here for my defense of comparing abortion to the Holocaust.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Dancing on Thatcher's grave

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 5:20 PM (#)

In Great Britain, hate-filled and deranged Leftists celebrate Margaret Thatcher's death.

This is disgusting. Shame on these people for dancing on her grave.

South Carolina Republicans should reject Mark Sanford

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Note: I am going to use an obscenity in this post. I am doing it to drive home an important point, but you have been warned.

Former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, who left office in disgrace after it was revealed that he was committing adultery with a woman in Argentina, is running for Congress again. (He previously served from 1995-2001.) He is openly acknowledging his sin and speaks about the forgiveness of God. Sanford likes to compare himself to King David in the Bible, who famously committed adultery and then murdered his friend to cover it up.

Sanford and his defenders clearly know absolutely nothing about the story of David and Bathsheba. Yes, David sinned in a terribly wicked manner, and he was forgiven by a loving and merciful God. (He was also harshly punished on earth.) But David did something Sanford has petulantly refused to do: Repent of his sin. Sanford, to this day, has never repented of committing adultery, betraying his wife and lying to the voters of South Carolina.

Sanford talks the talk, but as the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words. Sanford's mistress in 2009 - four years ago, mind you - is his "fiance" today. This adultery was going on four years ago, and Sanford has been divorced for nearly three years. Does Sanford truly expect us to believe he has been unable to find a couple hours to head down to the justice of the peace and legitimize his sinful relationship with his "fiance" by marrying her? Does he really have so little honor and integrity? Yes, I know Jesus spoke against divorce and remarriage, unless your spouse is committing sexual sin. (So the former Mrs. Sanford is free to remarry.) But marring his so-called "fiance" would be far better than continuing to commit adultery with her.

Let's be brutally honest here. Maria Belen Chapur is not Mark Sanford's fiance. She is his fuckbuddy. If America's first Emo governor truly loved his "fiance," he would do the honorable thing and marry her rather than continue living in a sinful relationship. Calling someone your "fiance" means that there is a genuine intent to marry that person. The fact that he has been ejaculating inside of her for four years and has made no move to stop using her sexually without the commitment of marriage proves that he has in no way repented of his adultery. His determination to brazenly and publicly continue in this sin also raises serious questions about whether he is a Christian at all.

As David Bayly wrote in 2005, "It is shameful for a man to have sexual relations with a woman he has no intention of marrying." Mark Sanford has proven he has absolutely no honor or integrity. It was foolish of South Carolina Republicans to select him as their candidate, but that mistake can be fixed by not voting for this wicked man in the special election to fill the Congressional seat he wants. He does not deserve a seat in Congress, and voters can always throw out the Democrat in November of 2014.

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

King David and Bathsheba

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Note: I originally wrote this in November 2006.

II Samuel 11-12 recounts the story of how King David, the hero of Israel who slew the dreaded Goliath as a boy, committed a grievous sin in the eyes of the Lord. This story contains many lessons for followers of Christ.

II Samuel 11:1 sets the stage for the tragedy that would unfold. While Israel was at war with the Ammonites, David tarried in Jerusalem. Had David been on the front lines where he was supposed to be, he would not have been in a position to be tempted by Bathsheba.

The Christian life is not simply a set of rules and regulations we must follow, and is not a list of things not to do. The Christian life is a positive life, one where we are to be caring for others, studying His word, worshiping Him, and fellowshipping with fellow Believers. The principal at Grace Baptist academy used to say that if he is doing all of the things he is supposed to be doing he does not have time to engage in sin.

A second lesson in the David/Bathsheba story is how David reacted to temptation. He looked at Bathsheba and then, still thinking about her, inquired about who she was. I remember reading years ago an analysis of David's sin that Christians rarely, if, ever, "fall into sin". Instead, the path to sin is like a staircase that we either descend one step at a time or leap down several steps at a time. David, with time on his hands, "chewed" on the temptation that Bathsheba presented before sending servants to get her to fulfill his lust.

Compare this with how Joseph reacted when tempted by Potiphar's wife in Genesis 39. She tempted him repeatedly to engage in sexual immorality, but he refused to give in. One day, she grabbed his garment and again asked for sexual favors. What was Joseph's response? He ran away, leaving her holding the garment. Paul reinforces this in I Corinthians 6:18 when he tells the church at Corinth to flee fornication. David could have fled the temptation by going to the front lines with his men.

When Bathsheba told David that she was with child, David had a problem. Uriah was gone, so how did Bathsheba become pregnant? David responds by recalling Uriah from the front lines in hopes that Uriah will have intercourse with his wife and erase the timing problem posed by the pregnancy. Uriah, an honorable man, refuses to go home while so many are at war. David sends a letter by Uriah's own hand to the commander that Uriah is to be set up and killed by the enemy. King David then takes Bathsheba as another wife.

As is the case many times in politics, it is not the original behavior that brings someone down, but the attempt to cover it up. Former President Bill Clinton could have avoided the entire impeachment drama had he not attempted to cover up his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Another former President, Richard Nixon, might not have had to resign in disgrace if he had not tried to cover up the Watergate break-in. Had King David repented of his sin instead of trying to hide it, the story would have turned out in a significantly different way.

God then sends Nathan the prophet to confront King David for his sin. David, already likely feeling guilt over what he had done, repented when his sin was exposed. Here is where the awesome mercy of God is revealed. While David was harshly punished for what he did, God restored him, had mercy on him, and spared his life. God even blessed David and Bathsheba with Solomon, who would be part of the lineage of Jesus Christ and a revered and prosperous king in his own right.

Despite David's egregious sin, God forgave him when he repented. There is noting David could have done to make up for his sin; his return to fellowship with God was entirely the result of God's mercy and love for His children. We would see such grace later as Saul, the dreaded persecutor of the Church, became one of history's greatest evangelists and teachers. How much more can we be assured that God will forgive us if we only confess and repent of our sin?

Monday, April 8, 2013

"Shot 12 times, nine times in the back"

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 5:30 PM (#)

SWAT raid of the day: "Pedro Navaro... was shot 12 times, nine times in the back. The police found no drugs in the home."

Young earth creationism and Christian faith

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Why is it that young-earth creationism earns special scorn that the primary doctrines of Christian faith do not get? Young-earth creationism is no more outrageous than the idea that God was born of a virgin, took the form of man, was executed by the Roman Empire, and rose from the dead. Why is it that many Christians who confess Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord - a radical belief, to be sure - quickly bow the knee to the god of our age and profess to believe in "science" instead of the account of creation presented in the Bible?

The answer is fairly simple. We are living in a post-Christian culture, but Christianity is generally socially accepted. Even people who are not Christians attend church services on Christmas and Easter. They have no problem confessing other fantastic things in the Bible, but over the course of the last century pagans have successfully established evolution as the only "scientifically accurate" view on the creation of the universe. Christians have allowed themselves to be bullied into silence rather than be seen as stupid or backward.

When Christians say they "believe in science" what they are really saying is this - I am a Christian but I am not one of those inbred moonshine-drinking hillbillies in Appalachia who is married to his sister. Please do not lump me in with those backwoods rednecks.

I am convinced that creationism is a confessional issue in today's society. First, the myth of evolution is the primary means by which the religion of humanism denies God - we have no Creator because we came about through mathematically impossible random chance. Second, because creationism (specifically young-earth creationism) is so frequently mocked and ridiculed. No one wants to be laughed at or thought of as stupid.

But here is the reality: Christians, throughout history, have always been thought of as strange, extreme, or downright dangerous. Christians like Richard Wurmbrand have been persecuted and murdered for their faith all over the world. Jesus promised this would happen in John 15:20. While this might not always be the case, we have been very blessed in America to have the freedom to worship and publicly proclaim our faith. Given all of the suffering and death Christians have endured for His name over the last 2,000 years, we cannot stand a little public ridicule?


Sunday, April 7, 2013

Does the "Morning After Pill" cause early abortions?

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 11:00 PM (#)

Some defenders of the "Plan B" birth control pill claim that it is not an abortifacient.

It is. From Drugs.com:

Ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel are used together in this product as an emergency contraceptive (EC) to prevent pregnancy after contraceptive failure or unprotected intercourse. Ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel prevent ovulation (the release of an egg from an ovary), disrupt fertilization (joining of the egg and sperm), and inhibit implantation (attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus).

Source: http://www.drugs.com/mtm/preven-ec.html

Even the makers of Plan B admit it can prevent implantation:

It is possible that Plan B One-Step® may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of the sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb).

Source: http://www.planbonestep.com/faqs.aspx

Saturday, April 6, 2013

Sexual abuse and the morning after pill

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 8:00 PM (#)

I don't see how you can read all the stories about older men having sex with teenage girls and not see how making the morning after pill available to anyone over the counter will enable these crimes.

Friday, April 5, 2013

CNCF presents - "Abortion: America's Holocaust"

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Tonight, ClearNote Campus Fellowship (a ministry of ClearNote Church) will be presenting a speech by R. C. Sproul Jr. The title of the event is Abortion: America's Holocaust.

Direct comparisons between abortion and the Holocaust are certainly controversial, but the primary question (as always) is the humanity of the unborn child. What exactly is growing in the mother's womb? Is it a human person, made in the image of God? If so, at what point in its development does that organism become a human being? Or is it instead a clump of cells or an unviable tissue mass?

Before we can even get into the debate of whether this is an accurate or fair comparison, we have to answer that question. The answer to that question is simple: The unborn child is a human being from the moment of fertilization and the willful and intentional termination of that life is murder in the eyes of Almighty God.

There is no other logical place to assign personhood to the unborn child (or the born child) than fertilization, because at fertilization a completely new life form is created with a completely unique DNA code. All that is added at that point is shelter and nutrition. Assigning humanity at point beyond that is both arbitrary and dangerous. The most extreme abortion "rights" advocates claim humanity or personhood begins at birth, and some of the more deranged among us (such as Peter Singer) would actually place that line a couple years after birth.

Since the unborn child is a human person, comparing abortion to the Holocaust is appropriate, legitimate and logically consistent. Comparable does not mean identical - abortion is an individual choice while the Holocaust and other acts of genocide (like the extraordinarily brutal genocide of the Armenians by Turkey) were coordinated campaigns to exterminate out a group of people. But the results of legalized abortion - over fifty million dead babies in less than forty years - dwarfs the death toll of the Holocaust many times over.

There are other similarities, including the dehumanization of the unborn child. We have seen unborn babies described as everything from a clump of cells to a tapeworm. Jews in Nazi Germany were described as equal to rats and black people in the 19th Century were described as monkeys or apes - certainly less than human. It is much easier to soothe our consciences about the slaughter of innocent human beings when we believe the lies that they are less than human.

The horrible thing about abortion is that we have become more efficient at mass killing than any other regime. We have made murder into a "medical procedure" that we see in a clinical rather than a moral way. Other acts of genocide left their bodies in the open to rot. We hide our murders behind the walls "medical clinics" and describe it as personal autonomy. But the blood on our hands and the failure of most Christians to stand against it is an abomination nonetheless.

May God have mercy on our wicked land.

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Random thoughts of the day

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 PM (#)

Now that hysterical Leftists are arguing that semi-automatic rifles are "weapons of mass destruction," can we assume they agree Iraq had WMD?

Also on the topic of guns, notice how the Left is using terms like "gun safety" or "gun reform" instead of "gun control." Perhaps because they know if we debate gun control they will lose.

Barack Obama giving back part of his salary is symbolism over substance. You might as well take a thimble out of the ocean and expext sea levels to fall. We need serious solutions, not political gimmicks.

A constitutional republic or a judicial oligarchy?

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 5:00 AM (#)

Mona Charen makes an excellent point in her column last week:

That the court is even being asked to impose a sweeping social change on the nation is illustrative of another lost battle — the idea that the Supreme Court is not a super-legislature and that nine robed lawyers ought to refrain from imposing their policy preferences on the whole nation.

It is more complicated than this, but an easy way to understand our federal government is this: The legislative branch writes the law, the executive branch enforces the law and the judicial branch interprets the law. In a perfect world, he judicial branch is to simply apply the facts of the case against the text of enacted legislation and (more importantly) the text of the Constitution. Judicial precedent should play some role but should always be subservient to the text of the law and Constitution. Furthermore, the text of the Constitution should be interpreted within the historical context of the time it was written.

That is not the case, and has not been the case for a long time. Much was said during last summer's decision on ObamaCare about how this would impact public opinion on the court and how John Roberts wanted to impact public opinion of the court - none of which has anything to do with whether the Congress actually had the authority to pass ObamaCare given the Constitution's restraints on federal power.

Other political pundits have suggested SCOTUS could rule the death penalty unconstitutional when there is a consensus that it is wrong based on the number of state legislatures that have abolished it. Again, considering whether capital punishment actually meets the definition of "cruel and unusual" - by today's standards or by the standards of the time the Bill of Rights was written - is not even seriously considered as the political winds are what is the driving factor in a judicial decision.

With the Supreme Court deciding cases based not on the law, but on their personal views of public policy or the political ramifications of their decisions, we no longer have a constitutional republic. Instead, we have a judicial oligarchy and we have no legal structure to defend ourselves against the excesses of government. We can restore the court to its proper place, but only if the President, the Congress and the state legislatures are willing to stand up to renegade judges and assert their constitutional authority. Like it or not, this must include impeachment of judges (including Supreme Court justices) who abuse their authority.

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Swallowing a watermelon whole and choking on a raisin

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

The Herald-Times editorial page has been a place of vibrant debate for many years, but a new restriction on what authors can write (as yet not publicly announced by the H-T) is puzzling and completely fails to accomplish its stated objective. Apparently, the H-T does not allow letters to the editor to criticize another LTTE author by name.

Ken Pimple posted in HTO comments a couple days ago that the H-T rejected a letter he had submitted because the new opinion page editor wants to "discourage calling out specific letter writer by name in print" because it "tends to focus more attention on personalities than issues or ideas." This would explain why a couple recent responses to me on the editorial page (January 22 and March 16) did not mention me by name.

LTTE writers have been mentioned by name for years, and the reasoning for changing the policy now is weak. If the Herald-Times is truly worried about civility, barbed responses and debates that focus on personalities instead of ideas, they should shut down HTO story comments. After all, the H-T has 100% total control over what is published on the editorial page. They have no control over what is posted on HTO other than deleting inappropriate comments after the fact. Especially troublesome commenters can be banned or suspended.

There have been times where LTTE authors have had false claims made about them, but not allowing LTTE writers to criticize another author by name is not necessary to fix that. In fact, that is easy to fix with basic fact-checking. Unverified claims about specific people should not be published - if someone makes a claim, that person must provide documentation of that claim in order for it to be published. Without documentation, the claim gets removed from the LTTE when it's published, or the letter does not get published at all.

But what is striking about the new "Pleasantville" policy is the wide gulf between it and the often-contentious debates on HeraldTimesOnline. Considering the things that get posted in HTO comments - including some absolute sewer filth that has never been deleted - not allowing people to respond to LTTE authors by name is the equivalent of swallowing a watermelon whole and choking to death on a raisin.

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

The Supreme Court considers homosexual marriage

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Justice Scalia asked a great question during oral arguments last week on whether California's constitutional amendment forbidding state recognition of homosexual marriage violates the Constitution of these United States: "When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?"

The reason this is a good question is that it would be silly to assume that any of the arguments that "banning" homosexual marriage is a violation of equal protection under the U.S. Constitution would have been accepted by the men who wrote and voted to ratify the Constitution or any of the amendments to it, especially things that were written and ratified in the Nineteenth Century. The historical context is important in considering the legal arguments.

Of course, homosexual marriage is not "banned" in any state in the nation. Homosexual couples are free to get married in any church that is in rebellion against God's ordained sexual order, and there are no serious proposals on the table to re-introduce sodomy laws. There is no law preventing homosexuals from living as they choose, but their union will not be officially recognized by government.

In fact, the institution of marriage as recognized by government has always been restricted. You cannot marry a close family member, you cannot marry someone under the age of consent, and you cannot marry more than one person or someone who is already married. There is a movement within the Unitarian Universalist "Church" to push for polyamory. If we officially recognize homosexual marriage, what is the legal justification for not recognizing polyamory - or, eventually, for lowering the age of consent? Watch for both soon.

What has been maddening in hearing clips of the arguments is hearing Supreme Court justices discussing the policy implications of government recognizing homosexual marriage. The low-information media has been covering this case as if it is a political matter before a legislative body. This should be obvious, though to far too many people it is not - deciding policy is not the purpose of the Supreme Court. The purpose of the Supreme Court is is to decide constitutional law. The justices' views on policy are irrelevant to the question of constitutionality.

One major implication for constitutional law is the effect government sanction of homosexual marriage will have on religious liberty. Does anyone really believe that Christian business owners will not be required to treat married homosexual couples the same as married heterosexual couples in terms of family insurance policies and so forth? This is just one of many examples of where Christians will be ordered by the state to bow to the new definition of marriage or face legal sanction and punishment.

The law has always been a moral agent, and there is value in the law reflecting traditional Biblical sexual morality. Restraining our sexual impulses is important for a healthy, productive society - but as I explained yesterday we lost that battle two generations ago. All we have left is to pray for God's mercy and for the Holy Spirit to bring revival.

Monday, April 1, 2013

A cultural shift on homosexual marriage

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

There has been a sea change in the issue of homosexual marriage, and many Christians are wondering how we got to the point where a culture that was once heavily influenced by Biblical teaching is now about to put a state sanction on something clearly prohibited by Scripture. It should not be a surprise that that this is happening, though it is a surprise that it has happened so quickly. This battle was lost two generations ago, and state recognition of homosexual marriage has been inevitable for quite some time.

We lost the battle over homosexual marriage when we accepted no-fault divorce and extramarital sex as normal or at least not worthy of condemnation. Sexuality is a gift from God and was designed for a specific context - the lifelong monogamous marriage of one man and one woman. Once we abandon God's designated context for sexuality, homosexual marriage was inevitable.

The church's moral standing to preach against homosexual practice has been severely damaged by her failure to stand against the tide of no-fault divorce and extramarital sex. In 1980, 18.4% of children were born out of wedlock. In 2010, 40.8% of children were born without a married mother and father - an increase of over 100% in just thirty years. It is not a surprise that today's young people, immersed in the "hook up" culture (formerly known as "one night stands") and getting almost no admonition against it from the church, would see nothing wrong with same-sex marriage.

When you throw in the fact that America has been saturated pornography since the advent of the VCR and the church's failure to teach against it, this final abandonment of Biblical sexual morality is not surprising. Consumption of pornography has gotten exponentially worse since the Internet became ubiquitous - it is estimated that 30% of all Internet traffic is for "adult" material. This will get worse as it becomes easier to hide with smartphones and mobile devices, and foolish parents who do not think about the dangers of giving their small child an iPod Touch.

Every single step of the way down this slope of rebellion against God's designated plan for sexuality, Christians have failed to stand against it. Christians have failed to stand for sexual morality because the church - all denominations - has failed to preach and teach on Biblical sexual standards. The eventual nationwide state recognition of same-sex marriage falls directly at the feet of the universal church for her failure to call sinners to repent and believe, and be washed in the blood of Jesus Christ.

The only hope we have of reversing this trend is a spiritual revival, and it must start with the church. Pastors and elders need to be faithful in calling their congregations to repent, and be willing to risk being forced from their positions for taking a stand on God's truth. Christians need to pray for the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin and righteousness and judgment. Christians need to repent and confess the sexual sins in our own lives and devote ourselves to sexual purity, trusting in the Holy Spirit to give us the power to kill our sin.

May God be merciful on our nation, as He was with Nineveh.