Because Truth is "HATE" to those who hate the TRUTH.

Posted Weekly (or so) in full on The American Freedom Net Web Logand mirrored at The Amfree Net Blog Annex and the Amfree Townhall Blog

In response to Matt Barber's Column a reader commented (italicized) and we respond.
"Barber is right that we should not force young men to shower with a person who is biologically female. If this person is uncomfortable showering with females, then other arrangements should be made. Putting her/him in with the men is not the solution."

Well thank you so much.  Is *duhhh* to strong an agreement to this?  This person is a female (woman) not a him/her as there is no such thing.

"Where Barber is wrong is in his belief that people can be divided into clear, simple sexual roles, identities and orientations. What we have learned in the last few thousand years since the major religions were established is that a person's sexuality and identity are far more diverse and complicated than people like Barber are will to accept."

What Barber states isn't a "belief", it is a factual reality.  Biologically, genetically fact.  Humans are male or female.  Peoples sexual behavior or their chosen subjective "identity" doesn't change it.  It also isn't complicated or diverse except in the confused minds of those so afflicted to not accept reality and fact.  Why should anyone *accept* that which is false in fact and reality?  I can accept people while not accepting their false and deluded "identity".

"I am male and I fall into the majority of men whose sexuality and identity are distinctly male. That said, I have known a lot of people in my life who don't fall into the majority."

No you don't know such.  You know a lot of people who refuse to accept the facts of biology and genetics, thinking what they wish to be true is true.  Flat earth people *believe* the world is flat despite factual evidence to the contrary.  Men are male, women are female, regardless of how they wish to dress, act or otherwise "identify" themselves.  You fall in to the vast and reality based majority by the way.

"Sexuality and identity for a lot of people can't be easily categorized into neat pidgeon holes. Rather, they are continuums with people falling anywhere along them. As heterosexuals, if we want to be respected for where we land on those continuum, we should respect those who find themselves in a different position. Just because we hold the majority, it doesn't mean we should impose what works for us onto those who differ from us."

The topic wasn't discussing (subjective and behavioral) "sexuality and identity".  It is certainly true that there is great diversity to the tiny minority of people who *CHOOSE* act in contravention to natural biological sexual activities and who wish to deny objective factual reality.  Sex (gender) are fixed genetically and biologically.  It is easy to categorize.  There are men (males) and women (females).  No one spoke of disrespecting those poor confused souls who wish to "identify" themselves or to behave in ways that aren't natural and defy the reality of human physiology.  The point is that those people don't need, shouldn't receive and don't deserve some special consideration in public accomodations.

You have presented perhaps the most perfectly PC, and therefore misguided, but excellent example of what is wrong with people who *feel* about issues rather than think about them.

You are a man or you are a woman.  Physiological design is oriented towards propogation by intercourse between a male and a female.  All else is volitional, subjective and behavioral.  Choice.

I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not  going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December   I don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and  hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his Theory of  Evolution.

Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will  not be  endangered  because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.

So what' s the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there  reading the entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they  believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the  field and the fans going home from the game.

But it's a  Christian prayer, some will argue.

Yes, and this is the  United States of  America, a  country  founded  on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book,  Christian churches outnumber all others  better  than  200-to-1. So what would you expect  --  somebody  chanting  Hare Krishna?

• If I went to a football game in Jerusalem,  I  would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.
• If  I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a  Muslim prayer.
• If  I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to  hear someone pray to Buddha.

And  I wouldn't be offended.It wouldn't bother me one bit.When  in Rome ...

But what about the  atheists? Is another argument.  What  about them?  Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass  the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking  too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the  bathroom. Visit the concession stand.  Call your lawyer!

Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two  will tell thousands what they can and cannot  do.     I  don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the  world's foundations.

Christians are just sick and tired of  turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights.  Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating; to  pray before we go to sleep.

Our Bible tells us to pray  without ceasing. Now a handful of people and their lawyers are  telling us to cease praying.

God,  help us.  And if that last sentence offends you,  well  ...  just sue me.

The silent majority has been silent too long.  It's time we let that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard  that the vast majority doesn't care what they want. It is time the  majority rules! It's time we tell them, you don't have to pray; you  don't have to say the pledge of allegiance; you don't have to  believe in God or attend services that honor Him. That is your  right, and we will honor your right .  But  by golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away. We are  fighting back.and  we  WILL  WIN!

More Content:
The Amfree Network | The Amfree Network Blog | Amfree MySpace Blog | Amfree Townhall Blog
The Threat is REAL | The Right Choice in '08 | RealClear Politics | Townhall News and Opinion | Know American Government | The Cato Institute

Article Source is here from Focus on the Family

====================================

By J.P. Moreland

Hey, I gotta question!" yelled a student from the back of the room. I was sharing the claims of Christ at a University of Massachusetts fraternity house when he interrupted me. "Yes, what is it?" I queried. "I think Jesus is great for you, but I know Buddhists and Muslims, and they're just as sincere as you are. And they think their views are true just like you do. There's no way a person can know his religion is the 'right' one, so the best thing to do is to just believe everyone's religion is true for them and not judge anyone."

Ever heard something like this? It's hard to believe you haven't. What should we make of these ideas? How should we respond? I think there is a good response to this viewpoint and I hope to provide it in what follows. But before I do, we should carefully note what seems to underlie such a claim. The student was assuming that there are no objective principles that, if applied to one's religious quest, would help one make the best, most rational choice of religious options. In the absence of such principles, any choice is either purely arbitrary or totally based on emotion or upbringing. In either case, such a choice would in no way put a person in a position to judge someone else's choice as being wrong.

Are there objective principles to guide one in choosing a religion? Indeed there are. I believe the following four principles should be used to guide one in choosing which religion he or she will follow and, if properly applied, I believe they will point to Christianity as the most rational choice.

Facts About Creation
Principle 1: A religion's concept of God should harmonize with what we can know about God from creation.
1 I will not develop the argument here — I want you to look into the matter for yourself — but a powerful intellectual case can be made from facts about the creation that a single personal God exists.

2 This case claims that the existence of one personal God is the best explanation for (1) the existence and beginning of a finite universe, (2) the beauty and order of the universe, including the existence of biological information, (3) the existence of finite minds such as our own, and (4) the existence of objective moral law and the equality of human rights.

Please note that Principle 1 points to monotheism, not because the Bible requires it, but because monotheism is the best explanation of these facts about creation. Principle 1 leaves Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the running.

Miracles
Principle 2: An adequate explanation of a religion's origin and success should have to appeal to divine activity.

One should not be able to explain a religion's origin and success simply as a result of brilliant human insight or philosophical wisdom. As important as these factors are, by themselves they do not indicate whether the religion is a human invention or a divinely sanctioned revelation. For example, Mohammed claimed that he received most of the Koran in a cave. Clearly, there is nothing about this aspect of the origins of Islam that escapes naturalistic explanation.

By contrast, at least two factors indicate that Christianity has supernatural origins. First, there is fulfilled prophecy. Jesus fulfilled numerous centuries-old prophecies and this fact cannot simply be the result of human wisdom. Such a fact defies naturalistic explanation. Again, I will not develop the argument here, but one should familiarize oneself with some of the Old Testament prophesies Jesus fulfilled, along with the evidence that he really did fulfill them.

3 Second, based on the historical evidence that the New Testament documents are reliable, one can argue that Christianity is based on real miracles done by Jesus and his disciples, including his resurrection from the dead.

4 If Jesus really fulfilled numerous prophecies, and if he really performed miracles and rose from the dead like the New Testament claims, then we need supernatural explanations for the origins and continued success of the Christian faith in a way that we do not need them to explain the origins of Islam and other world religions.

I believe Principle 2 leaves only Christianity and Judaism in the running.

The Human Condition
Principle 3: A religion's diagnosis of and solution for the human condition should be more profound than its rivals.

A student of mine came from India to study at Talbot School of Theology. Having been raised a Hindu, he began an intense search for religious truth as a teenager. His search led him to study the religious texts of the world's leading religions. His search also led him to Jesus Christ. Why? He said that, by comparison, the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament towered over the others for their depth, profundity and power. While all religions have some truths in them, one should choose a religion that does the best job of diagnosing what is wrong with human beings and how their condition can be solved.

When one does a cross-cultural study of the human condition, one finds the following universal human experiences and desires: All humans (1) experience threefold alienation — they feel alienated from God, from other people (including those they love), and from themselves; (2) experience deep and abiding shame and guilt; (3) desire personal life after death in which their loves and ideals may continue to be a part of their experience; (4) desire that their individual lives have meaning and purpose; (5) desire a life of beauty and drama, to be a part of something big and important, to be part of the struggle between good and evil; and (6) experience the need for help and empowerment to live a life of virtue and character.

I believe that if one carefully compares the New Testament with other religious approaches (including atheism), like my student, one will discover that the religion of Jesus of Nazareth provides the deepest, most penetrating analysis of these six factors, along with the richest solution to these longings of the human heart.

Principle 3 points straight to Christianity.

Jesus
Principle 4: Pick a religion in which one gets all of Jesus and not just a watered-down, distorted part of him.

This principle may seem to stack the decks in favor of Christianity, so let me explain. Have you noticed that all religions, including some sects of Judaism, want to claim Jesus as one of their own? For New Agers, he is a channeler, for Muslims he is the greatest prophet, and so on. Now why is this so? I believe this is because Jesus is easily recognized as the greatest figure in human history. Given that most people do not want to line up against Jesus, why not pick a religion that has the best chance of presenting an accurate account of who he really was, what he actually did, and what he really taught?

Find Out for Yourself

To review, I believe Principle 1 limits the choices to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Principle 2 limits the choices to Judaism and Christianity, and Principles 3 and 4 point directly to Christianity itself. But don't take my word for it. I have refrained from including the arguments here so that you can find out where these principles lead.

If you agree that they are good principles for selecting a religion — and what makes them good is an interesting question in its own right — then start reading and studying so you can fill in the gaps I've left here. If you do this, not only will you gain a greater understanding of your own faith, you will be able help people see that choosing one's religion need not be an arbitrary step in the dark.
===================

Article Source is here from Focus on the Family

Not from what other yappers say about him.  Ron Paul speaks.

Here is John Stossel's impression of the interview

Here is the ABC interview video link

 Hope for America

More Content:
The Amfree Network | The Amfree Network Blog | Amfree MySpace Blog | Amfree Townhall Blog
The Threat is REAL | The Right Choice in '08 | RealClear Politics | Townhall News and Opinion | Know American Government | The Cato Institute