What is bigotry? From Brutallyhonest.org

What is bigotry?

By way of Matteo, The Weight of Glory defines it for us:

Benedict Groeschel: You and I were talking and you told me an anecdote about when they took the crucifixes down from the classroom walls at Boston College. I think this anecdote is a little bit long, but I think our audience would be very interested to hear it.
Peter Kreeft: Well, I was teaching comparative religions, and during the long break, there was a Jewish student and a Muslim student in the front row. The Jewish student noticed a faint cross painted on the wall behind me, so he asked me, "Is that supposed to be a cross?"
I started to explain that that's where the crucifix used to be, and another student, a Catholic, said "Oh, we took the crucifixes down last year."
"Why did you do take them down?"
"Oh, well, we didn't want to offend people."
"When did you take them down?"
"Well, let's see. 1979."
"Aha," said the Jewish student. "It was the Bundy money."
No one understood that, so he explained that President Carter's secretary of state, McGeorge Bundy, had brokered a deal by which federal money could go to private schools if and only if those schools were not sectarian, divisive, discriminatory... something like that. And - by coincidence - all 21 Jesuit colleges took down their crucifixes from their classrooms in the year following that decision. So when he explained that to the students, the students were rather scandalized, and one said, "Oh, no, we wouldn't do that for money."
And he said, "Of course you wouldn't, but I hope you got more than thirty pieces of silver this time." Rather wicked... some of them were so biblically illiterate that he had to explain to them that Judas Iscariot was the first Catholic bishop to accept a government grant.
But then the student said, "No, we did that to be ecumenical."
And then the Muslim chimed in.
"What is ecumenical?"
So the student said, "Oh, ecumenical means we think we're all equal, and we didn't want to discriminate against others, and offend outsiders."
And the Muslim said, "You mean people like me, and my friend the Jew?"
"Well, yes."
"Well, I am highly insulted."
"Why?"
"Well, you're treating me like a bigot."
"No, we hate bigotry."
"Let me explain. Suppose you came to my country. You enrolled in a Muslim university. Now we don't have pictures or images; we think that's idolatry, but when you are in a Muslim university, you know you are in a Muslim university. Who would object to a Muslim symbol in a Muslim university, except a bigot? Now you expect me to be offended by a Catholic symbol - the crucifix - in a Catholic university, so you are treating me like a bigot."
Everyone was thinking.
He didn't stop. He said to the students, "How many of you believe that Jesus is the Son of God?"
And most of them raised their hand.
He said, "Well, we Muslims don't believe that; the Koran says that's blasphemy, that's ridiculous, but we have a great devotion to Jesus. We hardly ever mention his name without saying, 'Blessed be he' or 'Blessed be his name' and we think he's one of the greatest men who ever lived, and he is a great prophet, and we love him and his mother Mary. And if we had pictures of him, we would never take them down, not for any money in the world. In fact," he said, and he was now waxing eloquent, "what if some soldiers came into our classroom and said, 'We demand that you take down this offensive picture of the prophet Jesus'? Every good Muslim would go in front of that picture and say, 'You will take down this picture of our beloved prophet Jesus over our dead bodies. We would be glad to be martyrs for him.' So I think we are better Christians than you are."

You could hear a pin drop.

That, my blog brothers and sisters, is wisdom.
You would do well to pass it on.

The Origin of Morality

The other day I was thinking about how California's Prop 8 and also about people's views on homosexuality as expressed in conversations I've had with friends. It seems to me that the most common justification for homosexuality goes like this: "There is nothing wrong with being gay. Nobody can help whether they are gay or not; you're either born that way or you're not." And so, if you're born gay, the logic goes, then it is perfectly acceptable to act on your feelings.

The logic is based on the fundamental idea that morality is determined by one's nature: appropriate behavior is whatever comes naturally to each individual.

The problem with that premise is that nobody actually believes it. Even those who purport to hold that belief when it comes to homosexuality do not believe the principle holds true when it comes to other situations, such as cheating on one's spouse, or throwing a temper tantrum, or sharing one's toys with others.

So that brings me to my next segment. What started me thinking about these things a couple of days ago was a show I saw on the Discovery channel the other day. I think the show was called the Science of Sex, or something similar. One of the main topics of the program was an assertion that human males, by their very nature, are driven to have sex with as many women as they can. Male bodies, with their millions of sperm, are naturally suited for reproducing hundreds of offspring during their lives. Thus, it is completely natural for males to sleep around, cheat on their wives, and just be constantly on the look out for the next opportunity to replenish the earth. Women, on the other hand, only produce one seed or egg each month. Women's bodies naturally lead them to stay committed to one male companion with whom to raise her children.

If it is natural for men to want to reproduce as much as possible, with as many women as possible, and if whatever is natural is also moral, then why do those who support homosexuality not support men who are players or cheaters on their spouses or girlfriends? Okay, I see the main difference. A man who has married has told his wife that he will forevermore deny himself of his very nature and remain faithful to her and her alone. But that objection does not apply to polygamist relationships, where the man and each of his women already understand the relationship and the commitment that they are in, wherein everyone consents that the male will have multiple wives? According to the logic described above, plural marriage is moral, just as moral as is same-sex marriage is for gay people and marriage is for straight people.

On the other hand, very few people in the United States, even those who support gay marriage, actually believe that plural marriage is moral. This is because each of those people already knows that nature does not define morality. It is not okay for a child to throw a temper tantrum, just because he is a red-head and he, along with every single one of his ancestors, had been born with a tendency toward stubborn behavior. It is not acceptable to drink alcohol excessively simply because one has an inclination to do so. It is not moral to hoard all good gifts at the expense of others simply because one has been born with a selfish gene.

The next time someone tells you they think it is okay to be gay because people are born that way, and that therefore same-sex marriage is moral, ask that person how he or she feels about plural marriage for people who were born with the tendency to be intimate with multiple companions. If that person is opposed to the idea, point out the inconsistency in his or her thinking.

Nature does not define morality. So where does morality come from? It comes from God. We do not decide what is moral and what is not. God decides. Or rather, God decided.

NoMobVeto.org

The following is an ad ran in the New York times by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.  Visit nomobveto.org to add your name in support.

 

Religion vs. Morals

Read the article at the link shown. www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-agin/on-politics-religion-and_b_144091.html Then ponder the question: Is there a difference between religion and morals? If so, what is the difference (or are the differences)?

I love www.dictionary.com. If you look up "religion" at that site, the first definition you get reads: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." Notice here that a religion generally involves a code of morals, but speaks to many more issues not within the scope of morality.

If you look up "morals" the first definition you find reads: "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical."

One of the great deceptions worked by lawyers and judges across the land is that of confusing the American people about the meaning of the separation of church and state. People like Mr. Agin would have us believe that religion and morals are the exact same thing. They would try to convince us that church and morals are identical and to be banished from all political and government discusses altogether.

What gets me is Mr. Agin understands and agrees that morals should be, and indeed must be codified, hence his call conclusion that governments should prohibit homicide. Yet he fails to see that one's opinion on gay marriage is also a moral issue, not a religious one. There are many religions, both Christian and non-Christian, that do not support gay marriage. There are athiests and agnostics who oppose gay marriage (I say with personal knowledge).

What's more, Mr. Agin failed to explain to us exactly how the "religious group...impose[d] its values on other people." Wasn't there a vote on Proposition 8? Wasn't each individual able to vote the way he or she chose? Why is it inappropriate then, given the democracy in which we live, that those who did not support Prop 8 should be subject to the law that was passed? What about those individuals whose morals dictate to them that homicide is acceptable? Is it okay that the majority of the electorate impose their values on them? I see no difference between the two scenarios.

By the way, Christians should not be labeled one "religious group" in general. There are many religions that believe that Christ was the Savior of the world, including Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, Baptists, Mormons, etc. Why does Mr. Agin feel compelled to lump all these religions into one group? Because they adhere to a similar, if not the same, code of morals. When it comes to politics, gay marriage is a moral issue, not a religious one.

Veterans Day

Here are just a couple of the many songs and videos that are dedicated to our troops and veterans.  May we remember them in our prayers, especially for all who are forward deployed protecting us from those who wish to destroy our Freedom and our way of life.  May God be with them and their families through their sacrifice. 

In this election year people can say what they want about our President, George W. Bush.  He has been committed to keeping America safe and has given to those who serve everything possible they need to do the job.  America has even prospered in a time of war, or so we thought.  No one has been asked to give up anything.  Those who have volunteered, have done so knowing they may be giving up everything.  Why?

There is a scripture in the Book of Mormon that may explain.

Alma 46:12-13  …In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children…and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land.

Amen.