By Bryan Fischer
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at “Focal Point”
Mr. President, all men are created equal. But no one is created gay.
The president linked the Declaration’s affirmation of the self-evident truth that “all men are created equal” to promoting, endorsing and sanctioning homosexual behavior.
Said the president, "Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."
If men were created homosexual, if they were born gay, he might have a point. But it is manifestly true that homosexuals are not, in fact, born that way. This is a truth that scientists have admitted for some time, and it’s embarrassing for the president to betray so much ignorance of genetics and biology in a speech to which the world was listening.
If homosexuals are indeed “born that way,” to quote Lady “Machine Gun” Gaga, then the concordance rate among identical twins would be 100%. If this is a genetically inherited trait, then, if one twin is homosexual, the other would be too, just as if one has red hair and green eyes, so will his brother.
But alas for the president and the entire homosexual community, researchers Peter Bearman of Columbia and Hannah Bruckner of Yale found that the “born that way” construct is 180 degrees out of phase with genetic reality.
Using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, they discovered that the concordance rate, rather than being 100%, is just 6.7% for male identical twins and just 5.3% for female identical twins. This argues powerfully and inescapably that nurture and not nature has the decisive role in shaping sexual preference.
In other words, all men are created equal, but not one of them is created gay.
Wallis: support for Second Amendment “theologically dangerous.” He’s wrong.
Wingerleft “evangelical” Jim Wallis says that support for the Second Amendment “is morally mistaken, theologically dangerous, and religiously repugnant.” Wallis could not be more wrong. He is the one who is theologically misguided, and dangerously so.
The Second Amendment is rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, not least of all in the teaching of Jesus himself. At one point he commanded his disciples to arm themselves for the purpose of self-defense. On the night he was betrayed, he reminded his followers that he would wrongly and unjustly be “numbered with the transgressors” (Luke 22:37), a prophecy from Isaiah 53 which was fulfilled on crucifixion weekend.
And so in essence Jesus informs his disciples that because he would be numbered with the transgressors (literally, “the lawless”) they would be too. Therefore, he instructs them, you must prepare to defend yourselves, with lethal force if necessary. His instructions are unambiguous: “Let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one” (Luke 22:36).
His instruction was not to arm themselves so that they could advance his kingdom at the point of the sword. No, prayer and persuasion will always be the “weapons” through which the kingdom of God is to advance. Using raw force is what the founder of Islam taught his followers to do, and they continue to follow his instructions to this very day.
No, Jesus’ disciples were to arm themselves for the purpose of self-defense, the very purpose for which the Founders enacted the Second Amendment. In fact, when one of his disciples swung a sword in his defense by lopping the ear off one of the guards who came to arrest Jesus unlawfully, Jesus did not even rebuke him for the act, but instead said that was as far as he would allow him to go. “This far and no farther” was his instruction. He said to his followers, “You are permitted up to this point” (Luke 22:50; literal translation from the Greek).
Many will respond by citing Jesus’ admonition to turn the other cheek. “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39). But If someone who is right-handed strikes you on your right cheek, it can only be through a backhanded slap. A slap is not assault and battery, it’s an insult. It’s done with the back of the hand, not a closed fist. Therefore the instruction of Jesus is that when we are insulted, we are not to respond in kind. It is not in the least a prohibition against defending yourself from a physical assault.
If Jim Wallis is going to throw theological jargon around, he ought to start by having some idea what he’s talking about. In this case, he manifestly did not.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)