Sunday, December 29, 2013

Think The Mainstream Media Is Fair On Gun Rights? Think Again!

Most people who do not own guns depend upon the mainstream media for all of their information on gun rights and gun control.  Sadly, this means that they are only getting one side.  As were near the end of 2013, let's look back on the media bias on gun rights.

First, let's consider the network morning and evening news broadcasts - ABC, NBC and CBS.  How fairly did they cover the issues following the Newtown tragedy?

Media Research Center

That's right, stories attacking gun rights outnumbered those supporting gun rights by eight to one.  No bias here!

But perhaps they are simply reflecting public opinion.  Maybe the skewed number of stories just reflects the fact the gun rights supporters are a small minority.  Well, this poll was done at almost the same time - and the results are interesting:


More than 2 out of 3 Americans believe that more guns equals less crime, gun laws can't reduce mass shootings, and the the 2nd Amendment protects against tyranny.  Oh yeah - the NRA has a higher approval rating than either the president or congress.  One thing is clear: When news coverage is compared to polls of public opinion, the mainstream media is not reflecting public opinion - it is actively trying to change it.  That, my friends, is called bias.

What about individual reporters?  How biased are they?

Let's start with CNN's Piers Morgan (CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight, December 18, 2012):




Gun Owners of America executive director Larry Pratt: “I honestly don’t understand why you would rather have people be victims of a crime than be able to defend themselves. It’s incomprehensible.”

CNN host Piers Morgan: “You’re an unbelievably stupid man, aren’t you?...You have absolutely no coherent argument whatsoever....You don’t give a damn, do you, about the gun murder rate in America?...I know why sales of these weapons have been soaring in the last few days. It’s down to idiots like you. Mr. Pratt.... You are a dangerous man espousing dangerous nonsense. And you shame your country.”

Let's dissect Morgan's statement:

First, he uses the classic leftist argument - ridicule the person.  In debate class, this gets you an F - it's called an ad hominem argument.

Second, he makes the unsupported statement that Pratt has no coherent argument. (More about this later.)

Third, he uses the propaganda method of talking about the "gun murder rate", not the murder rate.  This is intended to do two things: Subtly get people to think that murders are only committed with guns, and enable the distortion of crime statistics.  In the eyes of gun control advocates only those killed with guns matter - because these are the only murders that advance their cause.

Fourth, he lies.  His whole point - after his personal attack on Pratt - is that the more guns that are sold, the higher the murder rate.  Therefore, anyone who supports gun rights is "a dangerous man espousing dangerous nonsense".  WOW.

But what are the facts?


If anything, FBI statistics suggest that more gun sales results in FEWER MURDERS not more murders.

What about Pratt's self defense argument - the one that Morgan failed to address?


Well, another thing was going on during the same years when the murder rate was cut in half: Licensed citizen concealed carry exploded.  Blue states issue permits to anyone who meet the requirements without requiring proof of "need".  In 1986 there were 8 states (including 2 that required no permits) - by 2013 this number had risen to 43 states.  Let's see, more guns - and millions more people carrying guns - and the murder rate goes down by almost half?  Not to mention the thousands of individual stories of firearms used in self-defense.  NO WONDER MORGAN DIDN'T ADDRESS PRATT'S ARGUMENT!


Then there is Tom Brokaw - who tries to link the gun rights movement to Bull Connor and the KKK:



Text: “It reminds me a lot of what happened in the South in the 1960s during the civil rights movement. Good people stayed in their houses and didn’t speak up when there was carnage in the streets and the total violation of the fundamental rights of African-Americans as they marched in Selma, and they let Bull Connor and the redneck elements of the South and the Klan take over their culture in effect and become the face of it. And now a lot of people who I know who grew up during that time have deep regrets about not speaking out.” — Ex-NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, January 17, urging more restrictions on gun rights. 

First of all, Brokaw fails to recognize that, as we have see above, support for gun rights and the 2nd Amendment runs between 1/2 and 2/3 of the American public - probably because he lives in a liberal bubble.

Second, and perhaps most offensive, is the fact that Brokaw is using the Civil Rights Movement to argue for measures that violate the explicitly guaranteed rights of Americans.

Third, Brokaw's statement is especially offensive because gun control has historically been used to deprive Black Americans of the right to own guns and without private firearms the Deacons for Defense would not have been able to protect the leaders of the Civil Rights movement.

Rev./Dr. Martin Luther King would not have been able to protect himself without the 2nd Amendment.  Consider this quote from a Huffington Post article: "William Worthy, a journalist who covered the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, reported that once, during a visit to King's parsonage, he went to sit down on an armchair in the living room and, to his surprise, almost sat on a loaded gun. Glenn Smiley, an adviser to King, described King's home as 'an arsenal.'"  Furthermore, as noted in the same article, Dr. King applied for a carry permit - and was turned down because he was black.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has produced an excellent documentary on the racist roots of gun control laws:




Martin Bashir - before he was forced to resign for suggesting that someone should defecate in Gov. Sarah Palin's mouth - used strikingly similar language to equate the NRA with Hitler.



“As the gun lobby has armed its barricades since that horrific shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, one of the arguments that they continue to use against any kind of regulation is to unashamedly invoke the name of Adolf Hitler. Supporters of the NRA say that history proves tyrannical leaders begin by robbing law-abiding citizens of their firearms....Of course, for a nation hell bent on genocide, Hitler did not allow the Jews to possess firearms, but virtually everyone else was free to do so. Which I guess turns this story on its head. Because if anyone deserves to be equated with Hitler on the issue of firearms, then it’s not the President, it’s the NRA.”— Host Martin Bashir on MSNBC’s Martin Bashir January 14.

Frankly, it takes a lot of nerve to label an organization like the NRA as equal to the NAZIS when the NRA has both Black people and Jews on its' national board, has recently had a Jewish woman as its' president and has a 56% approval rating - but then again, nerve is something Martin Bashir has never lacked.

But what about his point that the NAZIS only deprived Jews from owning firearms?  

Well, as you might expect, there is much more to the story.  First of all, Germany had nothing at all like the 2nd Amendment.  Before the NAZIS ever came to power, owning a gun was a privilege, not a right.  Under the 1928 gun control law, all guns were registered and permits were required to own or carry each firearm.  This gave the NAZIS many tools to disarm opponents.  In 1938 the laws were changed to disarm all Jews, and to exempt party members from all gun laws.   This law journal article documents the links between German gun control laws and the holocaust.  The bottom line is that Bashir is wrong - after 1938 gun ownership was legally forbidden for Jews, highly controlled for other Germans and totally uncontrolled for NAZI party members who were exempt from all gun laws. Additionally, post WWI, the German government had confiscated all firearms - meaning that there were very few guns in civilian hands (only those purchased since 1928).  Taken together, all of these measures resulted in very few Germans owning  firearms at the onset of WW2.  See this Wikipedia article.

Of course, Bashir completely ignores the point that before any future leader could overthrow our democracy, they would have to disarm the American public.  He also ignores the lesson that once government knows where all the guns are, they can be confiscated in the future - as well as the lesson that well-intentioned laws can be used by evil men in ways the authors never intended.  Finally, he ignores the fact that by a margin of 2 to 1 Americans believe that the 2nd Amendment deters tyranny.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has also produced a film covering this issue.



CBS’s Bob Schieffer during live coverage of Obama’s gun control speech, January 16, 2013:



“Surely, finding Osama bin Laden; surely passing civil rights legislation, as Lyndon Johnson was able to do; and before that, surely, defeating the Nazis, was a much more formidable task than taking on the gun lobby. This is a turning point in this country....Unless we figure out a way to make sure that something like Newtown never happens again, we’re not the country that we once were.”

Wow - here we go again:  The "gun lobby" - which in reality is composed of many millions of Americans (NRA membership = 6 Million) - is put in the same category as Osma bin Laden, racists, and the NAZIS.  Imagine if that same language was used in connection with the NAACP - what would the reaction be?

In reality, like them or not, the NRA, the GOA, the CCRKBA and many other gun rights groups ARE CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS - in exactly that same way that the ACLU is a civil rights organization.   They protect the rights secured by the 2nd Amendment.  Schieffer thinks that these rights should be violated so that "something like Newtown never happens again".

Notice that he did not say anything about dealing with our broken mental health system, providing real ARMED school security (which is the ONLY way to "make sure something like Newtown never happens again"), or enforcing current laws (which is not happening).  Instead, it is all about new, more restrictive gun laws.

And as we close out the year, I have a question for Piers Morgan, Tom Brokaw, Martin Bashir, Bob Schieffer: If we all agree that mental illness is just as much of a factor in these mass shootings as firearms (and there is no question that it is) - then why have you made more firearms restrictions - most of which would have had no effect whatsoever upon these terrible incidents - your number one priority?

Could it be that you are afraid that better mental health care and improved school security might work?  Are you afraid that if these terrible mass shootings end, you might loose your leverage? 

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for an answer.

Thursday, December 26, 2013

When They Know The Facts, Support For Universal Background Checks Evaporates

A year ago, in the wake of Newtown, a poll showed that 91% the American public supported "universal background checks" for all firearms "transfers".  Universal background checks sound like a great idea - especially when most people think that they are accurate and effective.  But when they find out the truth, support evaporates - at least according to a recent poll.

First of all, thanks to disinformation by anti-gun rights groups, most people think that all transfers at gun shows are done without background checks.  In spite of all of the hype and lies, there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole".  The exact same laws apply in gun shows as everywhere else.  Dealers - who make most of the sales at gun shows - are required by federal law to do background checks.  While private parties and federally licensed collectors are exempt under federal law, states and even gun show organizers often require private sellers at gun shows to do a background check through a dealer.  Additionally, in spite of the outright lies of anti-gun rights groups - there is no such thing as an "unlicensed dealer" who is somehow not required to do background checks.  While in many states people may legally sell their personal firearms, federal law prohibits anyone from "being in the business of selling firearms without a license".  BATFE can and does prosecute people who do this.  Finally, FBI research shows that gun shows are not a major source of crime guns - not surprising when you consider how many cops - local, state and federal - are present at a gun show.

So, what do people think about background checks at gun shows once they know the facts?  Consider the response to this poll question:





When they are informed, a majority of those polled, oppose more restrictions on gun show sales.

Of course, the background check issue goes far beyond gun shows.  The anti-gun rights crowd wants to require a background check on all transfers - including those between family members.  In Colorado they passed a law that defined "transfer" so tightly that allowing a friend or family member to shoot your gun at the range could constitute an illegal transfer.

Any background check system is dependent upon an accurate database of prohibited persons.  At this point the FBI is dependent upon the states to both identify criminals and the mentally ill, and report that information to the FBI for inclusion in the NICS database.  The Virginia Tech shooting - in which the shooter passed two background checks in spite of a mental health commitment that banned him from legally owning guns for life - first brought to light the fact that states were simply not reporting mental health commitments.  The NRA, to everyone's surprise, beat the gun control groups to the punch by proposing a federal law requiring states to report mental health commitments.  Years later, many states are still catching up.

In their push for universal background checks, gun control advocates want you to ignore one terrible fact: in 100% of the recent high profile shootings, a background check was passed.  In a couple of cases, the firearms were stolen - but in the vast majority of cases, the shooter simply walked in, bought the gun, passed the NICS check and walked out with it - this in spite of having displayed bizarre or alarming symptoms.  In many cases they had multiple contacts with law enforcement - yet they were never sent in for mental health evaluation.  Expanding background checks to private sales would have absolutely no effect on any of the mass shootings they are using as the reason to pass them.  Of course, they really don't want you to know that.

Unless we address the mental health problem by identifying and treating dangerous people, any background check system is useless.  Are anti-gun rights groups too stupid to know this?  Or do they have other motives for wishing to make a critically flawed system "universal"?

Fortunately, when people are informed, once again the public gets it right.



Once they know that the system is flawed because of an inaccurate database, nearly two out of three people see fixing the database as a higher priority than truly "universal" background checks.

Finally, with gun control advocates pouring literally hundreds of millions of dollars into efforts to pass highly restrictive laws (by both initiatives and lobbying) - one would think that an accurate database would be their goal.  Sadly, as with real security at schools, this does not seem to be their goal.  It is, however, a priority in the mind of the public.


More than nine out of ten of those surveyed want the states to do a better job of reporting prohibited persons.

Finally, there is an issue that was not addressed in this poll: The fact the when prohibited persons do attempt to purchase a firearm through a licensed dealer (by lying on the form and thus committing a felony) and are detected, nothing is done beyond simply denying the purchase.  Only 1 in 300 are prosecuted - Obama's new ATF director told Congress it was a waste of resources.  When prohibited persons fail a background check, federal authorities do not even notify state and local authorities - this in spite of the fact that they might be able to either bring state charges or violate their parole.  Instead, these criminals and mental ill violators are left on the street, free to buy guns on the black market and proceed with whatever their plan is.  In at least one case, a person rejected by NICS bought a gun on the black market and then used it to kill a cop.  If the goal is to save lives, why is arresting people who illegally attempt to buy guns "a waste of resources"?

I have a feeling that the public would also find this to be unacceptable.  The bottom line is: Before we expand our background check system, we need to fix it.

Source poll reported here.

Do Legally Owned Firearms Increase The Number Of Murders?

If you read the national mainstream media, you have seen the claim over and over again - more guns equals more murders.  Anyone who dares to question this "fact" is accused of lying.  In big cities, government and private left wing groups sponsor gun "buy backs" or exchanges - the aim being to reduce the number of guns in the community and thus reduce violence.  However, one thing they never do is compare the rate of LEGAL firearms ownership to the murder rate - and that is exactly what we are going to do here and now.

Murder rates are easy to obtain from FBI reports.  Since the U.S. does not have national gun registration, there are no figures for legal gun ownership.  There is, however, a way to approximate the legal gun ownership rate: The number of FBI background checks run on guns purchased.  This is done through the National Instant Check System, or NICS for short.  It isn't a perfect gauge of gun ownership because NICS checks are also done for CCW permits and some states require them on private sales while others do not.  In some states, many legal sales are done without checks.  Furthermore, a few illegal purchases by prohibited persons will slip through.  Never the less, it is a good indicator of legal gun ownership - in fact, it is the best we have.

If there is a relationship between the rate of legal gun ownership and the rate of homicides, then there should be a somewhat consistent ratio between legal sales and the number of homicides.  If there is no such relationship, than it is clear that the rate of legal gun ownership has no bearing on the murder rate.

First, let's look at the national, 50 state figures.  The homicide rate in the U.S. is 4.7 per 100,000 population.  The average of all 50 states background checks is 8245 per 100,000 population (Utah and Kentucky were excluded because they do recurring checks on CCW holders - boosting their NICS check totals.)  

So, we can index the number of NICS checks and homicides:

NICS Checks/Murder rate = number of NICS checks per murder

Nationally, it looks like this:

8245 NICS Checks per 100k/4.7 Murders per 100k = 1755 NICS Checks per Murder


Of course the number of legally owned firearms per murder is much, much higher because people don't replace their guns every year.  I have a legally owned handgun that hasn't been sold at retail in over 100 years.  Still, it's a good indicator of the level of firearms ownership in a state.

So, if more legal guns equals more murders than we should see a fairly consistent ratio of murders to NICS checks - except that is not what the data shows.

For instance, New Hampshire has a very low murder rate of 1.1 per 100k - and a very high rate of firearms ownership, resulting in a ratio of 9598 NICS checks per murder.  At the other end of the spectrum, New Jersey has a murder rate slightly below the national average (4.4 per 100k) and the lowest NICS rate in the nation, resulting in a ratio of 234 NICS checks per murder.

Consider these charts - if the anti-gun rights activists are correct and more guns cause more murders, than the bars should be close together.



Number of NICS Checks per Homicide
All states above have slightly lower than average homicide rates of 3.1 - 4.5 per 100k

What about states with high murder rates?  Is there a relationship there?


Number of NICS Checks per Homicide
All states above have higher than average homicide rates of 6.0 per 100k or above

Again, no relationship is seen between legal gun ownership and homicides - even in states with the highest murder rates.  There is, however, one area of consistency:



Number of NICS Checks per Homicide
All states above have lower than average homicide rates of 1.8 per 100k or below

When we look at states with the lowest murder rates - we find a very high rate of NICS checks per murder - every state in the bottom six has a high rate of legal firearms ownership.  In fact, comparing the states with the highest homicide rate to those with the lowest rates, every state with a high homicide rate has a low rate of legal gun ownership. In fact, they have an index ratio of below 2,000 and in 6 of 9 cases the ratio was below the national average - meaning there are actually fewer, not more legal guns in these states.  In contrast, as a result of very high legal gun ownership rates, all but one of the low homicide rate states has a ratio of above 4,000!

The bottom line: If there is any relationship between murder rates and legal gun ownership it is the reverse of the anti-gun rights claims - more legally owned guns are associated with lower, rather than hugher murder rates.

John Lott is right: More guns does equal less crime.

Full data is below:


State 2012          NICS per 100k                NICS per Homicide
Utah 1.8 46898 26054.44
Kentucky 4.5 78703 17489.56
New Hampshire 1.1 10557 9597.27
Montana 2.7 16888 6254.81
Wyoming 2.4 13986 5827.50
Idaho 1.8 10261 5700.56
Iowa 1.5 8524 5682.67
Minnesota 1.8 9730 5405.56
Vermont 1.3 6728 5175.38
Maine 1.9 8629 4541.58
South Dakota 3 13624 4541.33
West Virginia 3.9 15718 4030.26
Alaska 4.1 14616 3564.88
North Dakota 4 13952 3488.00
Oregon 2.4 8287 3452.92
Colorado 3.1 10208 3292.90
Kansas 2.9 9176 3164.14
Washington 3 8785 2928.33
Wisconsin 3 8676 2892.00
Nebraska 2.9 5758 1985.52
Oklahoma 5.7 11279 1978.77
Massachusetts 1.8 3500 1944.44
Connecticut 4.1 7906 1928.29
Arkansas 5.9 11150 1889.83
Indiana 4.7 8691 1849.15
Tennessee 6 10889 1814.83
Illinois 5.8 9831 1695.00
Virginia 3.8 6387 1680.79
Pennsylvania 5.4 8781 1626.11
Texas 4.4 7060 1604.55
Missouri 6.5 10228 1573.54
Alabama 7.1 11070 1559.15
New Mexico 5.6 8589 1533.75
Nevada 4.5 6583 1462.89
Ohio 4.3 6274 1459.07
Mississippi 7.4 10035 1356.08
North Carolina 4.9 6178 1260.82
South Carolina 6.9 7765 1125.36
Arizona 5.5 5934 1078.91
Georgia 5.9 5934 1005.76
Florida 5.2 5212 1002.31
Louisiana 10.8 9500 879.63
Michigan 7 5596 799.43
Rhode Island 3.2 2496 780.00
California 5 3611 722.20
Hawaii 2.1 1359 647.14
Delaware 6.2 3876 625.16
New York 3.5 2172 620.57
Maryland 6.3 2738 434.60
New Jersey 4.4 1030 234.09


NICS check data obtained from this article
Murder rates from FBI stats for 2012

Friday, December 20, 2013

The Massive Media Double Standard - Mocking Christians Is Always OK

Earlier this week I wrote about the Duck Dynasty controversy.  Today, I would like to ad some additional thoughts.

One of the things happening as a result of this uproar is that people are taking note of all of the attacks upon Christianity and Christians by media figures - and noticing that absolutely nothing is ever done about it.  Some examples:

Saturday Night Live kicked of Lent this year by mocking the Risen Christ - portraying Him as full of vengeance as he comes back to life, only to kill those who oppose Him.



Ask yourself, if a prominent gay person - living or dead - were mocked in this way, would that be acceptable?

But that is not Saturday Night Live's only offensive mockery of Jesus and Christains:




Where was the uproar over this tasteless skit?  Of course, there was none.

The there's Bill Mahr, who almost never misses a chance to attack Christians:



Of course, Mahr was not disciplined in any way - in spite of protests and requests that he be disciplined by the Catholic League.

Then there is Mahr's rant on this occasion:



Again, no one suspended Mahr for his attack upon Christians. By the way, I happen to know lots of Conservative Christians who not only give, but work to help the poor, the sick and the addicted - as a matter of fact, until I become disabled every job this conservative Christian held involved doing just that.


Then there MSNBC's Ed Shultz - who said this: “What do Christian values mean to Republicans,  It's just a stepping stone, a footstool, to get exactly what they want in the political arena. They hide behind their plastic Jesus”   How nice that Mr. Shultz can judge every Christian Republican and label them as hypocrites.  Here's the video:



I think that's enough examples to make it clear that Christians who are conservative in either politics or theology or both are fair game to all facets of the media.  They can be mocked, lied about and attacked with falsehoods with absolutely no consequences.

Am I saying that these people should be suspended or fired?  Absolutely not.  If what they are saying offends you, change the channel.  If enough people do this, they will notice.  Censorship - be it imposed by government, church or pressure groups is a bad idea.

What I am saying is that it is hypocritical in the extreme for the left and gay activists to call for Phil Robertson suspension, while saying nothing when Christians are mocked and slandered.

The same rules should apply to everyone - and right now the clearly do not.


Thursday, December 19, 2013

What Everyone Has Missed In Phil Robertson's Statement

If you have read many of my blog and/or Facebook posts, you probably know that I am both an Evangelical minister and a conservative/libertarian/constitutionalist.  What you may not know is that for my entire life I have had gay friends.  One of my closest childhood friends died of AIDS.  When I worked in EMS, I had several openly gay partners - working partners that is.  We worked 24 hour shifts.  I got to know several well.  Later, as a pastor, gay people continued to cross my path.  In every case, I treated them with dignity, love and respect.  Like everyone else they, were and are, of infinite value - because Christ died for them.  I don't use, or let others use in my presence, any kind of gay slur.  God being my helper, I practice real tolerance by not requiring people to live as I do, believe as I do or endorse the choices I make, in order to be respected and loved by me.

Politically, I do not support laws that prevent people from living as they wish, provided that they cause no harm to others.  In regards to marriage, I believe that this is a religious and cultural institution which government should stay out of as much as possible.  My faith requires much more of me in regards to my marriage than government does.  I think people should be permitted to write their own marriage contracts.  In regards to supporting laws that compel non-Christians to behave as if they are Christians, I oppose them.    In fact, in my last sermon, I made the point that by focusing upon politics, the Evangelical church has neglected its' primary mission of loving others and presenting the live changing Gospel of Christ.  I believe that everyone has the right to be equally considered for most jobs be they gay or straight, Christian or atheist.  I would only make exceptions for religious institutions who have moral objections to the gay lifestyle.  I support the right of all Americans to serve in the armed forces.

So, all that said, what do I think about the uproar over Phil Robertson?  Well, I have to say that I am extremely concerned.  You see, he was not caught on Camera using a gay slur (like Alec Baldwin).  He was not accused of refusing to hire a qualified gay person in his business.  He did not even seek an opportunity to opine upon the moral issues surrounding homosexuality.  What was his sin, for which he has now been suspended?  He was stupid enough to actually be truthful regarding his sincerely held religious beliefs.

I'm sure that the folks at A&E don't realize it yet, but his beliefs are far from unusual among serious Christians.  Some of this things he said were direct quotes from the New Testament:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  (1 Cor 6:9-10 NIV)

What everyone so far has missed is this: By his own admission, prior to coming to faith, Phil Robertson was both sexually immoral AND a drunkard.  He was not placing himself above gays - even in a Christian context - he was placing himself in the very same category.  If you are not a Christian, please let that sink in.  Remember that a key doctrine of the Christian faith is Grace.  We believe that when we come to faith in Christ, he cleans us up.  There is no room for self-righteousness - we can take no credit for it.  There is, however, also no room for us to change God's Word.  Not to justify our behavior or the behavior of others.  Those who are asking him to change his beliefs are asking him to deny the Lord who gave him the strength to sober up and the grace to save his marriage.  They are asking him to deny a truth that has transformed his life for the better.  I highly doubt that he will do this.

There is another truth about the Christian faith that most outside and many inside the church do not understand: The Christian life is not about claiming what you believe to be your rights - it is about surrendering them to God.   This is why Jesus told his followers to "count the cost" of following Him.  The Bible is abundantly clear in regards to the sexual ethics required of those who choose to follow Christ.  Written in a culture in which both heterosexual and homosexual sex outside of heterosexual marriage was the norm, the New Testament only permits sex in heterosexual marriages.  It is not only the New Testament that has held this position - the entire Christian church - Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant - held this position for 1,950 years.   Every Saint and hero of the faith held it.  It was unquestioned.  Worldwide and in the US, the majority of Biblical Christians still hold it.

Is that fair if you happen to be gay?  No it isn't.  Life in this broken world is NOT FAIR.  Ask a returning, disabled vet if what happened to him is "fair".  Ask a widowed mother if life is "fair".  Ask anyone who - like me - lives with daily, severe pain if life is "fair".  Life isn't fair for any of us - but God is good.  He offers Grace and mercy to all, and purpose too.

Of course, the immediate response was, "He's judging, Jesus said not to judge".  Check the context.  This is in the Sermon on the Mount, (Matthew 7:1ff) the reference is to religious leaders who JUDGED AND SHUNNED people, while ignoring their own sins.  Think for a moment.  Judging involves a determining of guilt and the pronouncing of a sentence.  Only God can do that - and that is why Pope Francis was right to say, "Who am I to judge?"  However, IT IS NOT JUDGING TO ANSWER A QUESTION REGARDING THE LAW.   We are supposed to know what it is.  We are not supposed to pass sentence upon, hate or reject those who choose not to follow it.  That is judging.

Sadly, the response has been much worse than that.  He has been called every vile name possible in online forums.  Spokespeople for the LBGT community have stated that anyone with such an opinion has no place in the public life of the nation.  Others have commented that he "cannot be allowed to hide behind the 1st Amendment's freedom of religion" and "He cannot be allowed to hide behind Christianity."

Then there is this from MSNBC: "GLAAD jumped on Robertson’s comments Wednesday. 'Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,' spokesman Wilson Cruz said in a statement provided to msnbc."  WOW, TALK ABOUT JUDGING.  When did Wilson Cruz become the final authority as to what all "true Christians" believe?  What gives him the authority to make that determination for millions of sincere Christians?  What gives him the right to sit in judgment of Phil Robertson and his faith?

I thank God, that not everyone in the Gay community would agree with Wilson Cruz.  Most gay people I have known just want to be treated with respect.  They don't force others to agree with them by coercion. Sadly, many on the left, both gay and straight, want to do exactly that.

What concerns me more than anything else is the contempt for religious freedom and the historic Christian faith that many on the left are pushing.  I am a Christian who lives in the cultural bubble of California - but I have spent time in other states.  Outside the "blue state bubble" there are lots and lots of people who agree with Phil Robertson.  There are even quite a few in the "blue states".  Not just a few "extremists" - but millions of religious people of many faiths - Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Mormon - as well as theologically conservative Jews and Muslims.  Add those groups up and you easily have over 100 million Americans.  Just how do those condemning Phil Robertson intend to keep these people out of the "public life of the nation"?

Just how are we who dare to hold on to the historic Christian faith to be kept out of public life?  What rights are to be removed in order to accomplish this?  How are we to be identified?  I know, Christians could be made to wear a yellow cross at all times - just like the Jews.  Hitler actually used homosexuals in the SA to oppose and subdue the Christians in Germany.  After he didn't need them any more he threw those he didn't kill into the same concentration camps as the Christians who refused to bow to his twisted cross.  I'm not calling gays NAZIS, I am appealing to them and everyone else to stop marginalizing other Americans - because chances are it won't end well for any of us.  We need to be truly tolerant of each other - we need to reject the false tolerance of political correctness before it's too late. 

Were Phil Robertson's comments crudely presented?  Yes, they were.  Like the politically liberal Christian - and fellow recovering addict - Bob Beckel, his past sometimes shows through.  He may owe many an apology for that, but not for his sincerely held religious beliefs.  Is his theology Biblical?  Absolutely.  Were his comments hateful?  Absolutely not.  Sadly, the same cannot be said of those who were so quick to attack him.  Their comments were not only hateful, they were and are just as un-American as those on the signs of Westboro Baptist Church. 

Note: I wrote more about the hypocrisy of the left and gay activists in ignoring or supporting attacks upon Christians HERE