Hwww.dakotavoice.com/2008/06/immorality-is-on-offensive.htmlC:/Documents and Settings/Bob Ellis/My Documents/Websites/Dakota Voice Blog 20081230/www.dakotavoice.com/2008/06/immorality-is-on-offensive.htmldelayedwww.dakotavoice.com/\sck.fp5xӈ[I OKtext/htmlUTF-8gzippJ}/yWed, 31 Dec 2008 14:37:05 GMT"7bbeb861-d57d-40cc-bdff-99a4cd09452a"AMozilla/4.5 (compatible; HTTrack 3.0x; Windows 98)en, en, *ш[I Dakota Voice: Immorality is on the Offensive

Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited


The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?



Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Immorality is on the Offensive

Judge Roy Moore's column at WorldNetDaily today catalogs a list of recent encroachments of immorality which support the title of his piece: "Immorality on the offense." Indeed it is.

He cites:

- the California Supreme Court decision finding a "right" for homosexuals to call their unions "marriage"

- a lesbian couple suing two Christian doctors for refusing to artificially inseminate one of the women

- the outrage of homosexuals and their apologists when Clerk Greg Smith of the San Diego County Assessor and Recorder's Office publicly stated that he would not force his employees to perform homosexual "marriages" if the employees have serious moral or religious objections

- Illinois and Washington states have quashed the right of conscience of pharmacists in those states not to dispense contraceptives and abortifacients that violate their religious beliefs

- photographer Elaine Huguenin was fined for refusing to photograph a lesbian "commitment ceremony"

Judge Moore calls this what it is:

For those who love immorality, it has never been about "freedom of choice" or equal treatment; they want to force others to give up their religious convictions upon demand, and they are quick to employ the heavy hand of government to get their way. Unless such tyranny is stopped in its tracks, your beliefs and your job could be next.

They tried the same thing with pharmacists here in South Dakota during the legislative session a few months ago.

I argued exhaustively with feminists, at Dakota Voice and other blogs, who supported the elimination of conscience for pharmacists that women can still obtain these contraceptives and abortifacients at other pharmacies or through mail order.

No, that was NEVER acceptable. They insisted the pharmacist MUST be forced to dispense the material on demand, regardless of his moral reservations. Essentially they wanted a Pepsi machine that would dispense product without any sort of judgment.

And if the pharmacists will not reduce him/herself to a dispensing machine, these feminists and their apologists insist the pharmacist be punished.

One person who a letter to the editor of the Rapid City Journal insisted the exercise of conscience by pharmacists was "dishonorable, unconscionable and in the end, unfaithful." So we have reached the (low) point in our culture where the exercise of conscience is called "dishonorable."

Fortunately, this badly flawed bill (both in language and in intent) was killed.

But as Judge Moore said, the forces of immorality are on the offensive. They will be back.

The question I have is: why are the forces of morality on the defensive...or dare I say, why are the forces of morality in full retreat?


Anonymous said...

Judge Roy Moore should catalog another list: all the evils committed by Christians throughout history. I think these relatively petty complaints with the gay community will pale in comparision.

Bob Ellis said...

Unfortunately some Christians have committed evils throughout history.

One thing to consider, though. When Christians committed these evils, they were in contradiction to the Bible and morality. Just as homosexual behavior is.

Anonymous said...

So these Christians who believed they were absolutely right have turned out to be wrong? Hindsight is a convenient thing.

I wonder what people will say about today's Christians in a hundred years' time.

Bob Ellis said...

Yes, they've turned out to be wrong. And the truth was in the Bible all along. Too bad they didn't read their Bibles to find out the truth instead of relying on errors, lies and emotionalism.

I don't know what people will say about today's Christians in 100 years. I hope they'll say, "Man, those guys stayed loyal to the truth when all of pop-culture was determined to go down the wrong path."

Anonymous said...

"Yes, they've turned out to be wrong. And the truth was in the Bible all along. Too bad they didn't read their Bibles to find out the truth instead of relying on errors, lies and emotionalism."

If you're honest with yourself, Bob, you'll admit that there's a very real chance people will say the exact same thing about you in the future, no matter what you hope to the contrary.

You do not know the truth. Nobody does. If we did, how would we even know? There's always new things to be learned and corrected.

Bob Ellis said...

If you don't know the truth, Anonymous, then how do you know I'm wrong?

Anonymous said...

I don't. But you seem pretty sure you're right. At least I've admitted that I don't know. You should too.

Bob Ellis said...

Why should I say I don't know what's right when I do? What possible value could there be in that--just to make you feel better?

I'm not a genius and it doesn't take a genius to figure it out. God, the person who created the universe and everything in it, put it in the Bible so even the simplest of us could understand it. If you don't know what's right, read the Bible with an open heart. Then you'll know what's right, too.

Anonymous said...


You claim to know what's "right" because you read it in the Bible. But that alone takes a leap of faith, about which you could very well be wrong.

My point is that none of us knows what is right or the "truth." If you had any humility whatsoever, you'll realize that the most honest, realistic, and logical answer one can give is "I don't know."

Anonymous said...

"I'm not a genius and it doesn't take a genius to figure it out. God, the person who created the universe and everything in it, put it in the Bible so even the simplest of us could understand it."

I'm sure the Christians who supported slavery, the Inquisition, witch burnings, segregation, the denial of women's rights, the Crusades, and even those adorable "God Hates Fags" signs said the very same thing.

I feel like someone needs to hit you upside the head for you to understand this.

Bob Ellis said...

I don't know how many times I can repeat this without it getting really old really fast: you can't know I'm wrong if you really believe that none of us can know the truth. Think through the erroneous circular logic of that for a few minutes.

I have no need of a false humility with regard to the truth. It's not like I've discovered some transcendent truth on my own that I'm congratulating myself on for my genius; it's something I found in a book called the Bible, that billions of other people have read and also found the truth. I have nothing to be proud of in finding the truth, but neither do I need to pretend I haven't found it in order to feed some illogical and false persona of humility, or to make someone who hasn't looked for the truth yet feel better.

As for the point about slavery, the Inquisition, "God Hates Fags", et al, the point you seem to continually fail to grasp is that the Bible doesn't support those things, and it is illogical to fault the Bible or the one who believes in it because someone else failed to follow the Bible. Would you fault Chrysler if a car owner poured Pepsi in their gas tank and then had trouble, when the instruction manual clearly said to only put unleaded gas in the car?

Anonymous said...

What's getting old are your pedestrian analogies. Whatever helps, though...

If the Bible didn't support the things that I mentioned, where did they come from? That's hypothetical of course, because (almost) everyone knows that your environment and personal circumstances influence how you read and interpret a text (any text, including the Bible). You see what you want to see, based on personal and cultural bias.

MY logic is circular? The Bible is true because it says it's true, and we can trust it because it says we can trust it, and it's the word of God because it says it's the word of God.

Yep, that's airtight logic if I've ever seen it.

Quill said...

The point that Anonymous was making is that, since there are many different "truths" (every religion in the world has one), in a democracy it is fundamentally unacceptable to declare one religion as the "truth" above all others and declare it the one to refer to in all matters. Everyone has the right to make decisions based on their own beliefs, free from obligation to a separate religion.

Bob Ellis said...

What Anonymous (and you, Quill) fail to understand is that there can only be one truth. You also fail to understand that while our nation rightly has no state church or religion, there is nothing unacceptable, illegal or unconstitutional about favoring the truth over error. You also fail to understand that in rejecting all "truths" under the mistaken assumption that none can be right or none can be embraced, we automatically open the door wide to error and immorality and crime.

Everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs, but there must be a set of values which guides our culture and informs our lawmaking. The men who founded this country were strong Bible-believing Christians and they established a free nation that could only function and remain free for a moral and religious people. And even today, 82% of Americans align themselves with Christianity.

It is therefore completely proper, legal and constitutional that we continue with the traditional value system which made this nation the greatest nation on earth, while allowing everyone to hold whatever religious beliefs they deem acceptable.

Quill said...

The founding fathers also separated government and religion, because they knew that religious fanaticism could lead to theocracy in place of democracy.

Among the 82% of Christians in America is a whole array of beliefs, some of which are much more accepting of homosexuality and women's rights.

Obviously there is no One Truth, even among Christians. Forcing such a falsehood on other people is fascist and un-American.

Bob Ellis said...

If there was ever going to be a theocracy in America, it would have been at the founding of the country. I don't think there has ever been a more religious, more Biblical generation since that one.

And there is definitely one Truth among Christians. Christians, and those who call themselves one but are not, are free to be led astray by misinterpretations or outright rejection of that truth, as well. As many have.

Anonymous said...

Very well said, Quill.


You don't think there's been a more religious, more biblical generation since the Founders? That's funny, since most of them owned slaves...

If I were you, I'd be more careful about labeling any Christian who disagrees with you as wrong, led astray, or whichever adjective you prefer. Remember that these Christians who you claim are misinterpreting the "truth" believe that they are right -- just as strongly as YOU believe that YOU are right.

When this kind of debate occurs, especially when both sides have no evidence and rely purely on subjective interpretation, the one who insists he is nevertheless right shows nothing but obscene arrogance.

Also....you believe America is the greatest nation on earth? I'd LOVE to hear your reasoning!

Anonymous said...


Where did you find that "82%" statistic?

Bob Ellis said...

Many did own slaves...and many realized slavery was inconsistent with the principles of freedom they espouses, and inconsistent with the principles of the Bible. But they got it mostly right, moreso than any generation since; even as Americans moved away from the terrible practice of slavery, we've embraced other attitudes and practices not in accordance with Biblical principles.

You'll never find a perfectly moral generation...you won't even find a perfectly moral Christian. Any Christian who claims to be is delusional or a brazen liar; serious Christians strive to follow the Bible, but we retain the same sin nature we're all born with, so there's a continual war in the Christian between what they know is right and the pull of their inborn nature.

It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else THINKS is right; the standard of truth is the Bible. Don't condemn the book because it's readers fail to live up to it, or even take it seriously.

To answer your final question, America is the greatest nation on earth in several areas, and for several reasons. We are the greatest militarily, financially, politically and morally. Despite all our flaws (and despite our many heretics), you won't find a country anywhere in the world that corporately takes God more seriously and follows more closely to the Biblical standard. You won't find another country that affords more freedom to its citizens, and that freedom has a lot to do with why we became the most affluent and the most powerful militarily. And especially in the last century we have repeatedly risked the lives of our own soldiers to fight evil around the world and preserve the freedoms of others--and as Colin Powell said, asking only enough ground from those lands to bury our dead. We've given the world food, technological innovation, conveniences, charity in times of trouble, and protection in times of evil. We aren't perfect, but there's never been a nation like the United States in all of human history.

There's a reason millions of people come here wanting to be Americans every year. I've lived in other countries and visited several, and what I've seen only reinforced what I already knew: America is the best place on earth.

Why do you think America ISN'T the greatest nation on earth? And assuming you're an American, why aren't you living in the country you think is the greatest?

And to the other Anonymous, I got the statistic from a Gallup poll in December 2007.

Anonymous said...


(I'm short on time at the moment, so I'll get back to you later on why I don't believe America is the greatest nation.)

So the most biblical generation, in your eyes, is also one that owned slaves. Not just owned them, but genuinely believed that God wanted them to do so. You say that they got it "mostly right," but thinking that God allowed them to own human beings is a pretty big thing to have gotten wrong, isn't it? Makes you wonder how wrong they were on the smaller things.

As for the percentage you found in the Gallup poll, would you mind SHOWING it to us? That's kind of what I was after.

Bob Ellis said...

I think you've been misled a bit on American history. There were those who tried to use the Bible to justify owning slaves, but I doubt they had a clear conscience in doing so.

Many of the founders did own slaves, but most recognized that slavery was not only inconsistent with the Bible, but was inconsistent with the principles of freedom espoused in the Declaration of Independence. Even some of the founders who owned slaves recognized and admitted it was wrong. Slavery was institutionalized in the Americas during British colonialism, and as you know it is difficult to dismantal institutions, especially when the southern colonies so relied on slavery for cheap labor to support agriculture.

It could be argued that those who knew slavery was wrong but still owned slaves could have and should have done more to rid our new country of slavery (e.g.free their slaves). Like the rest of us, however, they were prone to the same moral compromises and failures as the rest of us; this is not to excuse those failures, merely to acknowledge that no human being lives up to a perfect moral standard.

Many did, however, free their slaves upon their death, as George Washington did. Others, like John Adams and Benjamin Rush, didn't own slaves and vehemently opposed slavery all their lives.

Even the much-maligned 3/5ths compromise in the Constitution was not the pro-slavery declaration America-haters make it out to be. Many if not most of the founders wanted to rid the new nation of slavery when they sat down to create the Constitution. The southern states, dependent on it for their economies, refused to budge. Rather than end up with no union and no constitution at all, and risk the hard-won freedoms and perhaps the entire future of the colonies, the northern delegates struck the compromise, not to approve of slavery, but to act as an incentive to the southern states to end slavery. If they ended slavery, their populations would suddenly rise by 2/5 from the slave commnity, thus providing greater representation in congress, since representation is based on population.

The founders did the best they could in an imperfect world, with many of them continuing to work in the abolitionist movement the rest of their lives.

As for the Gallup poll, try searching on the Gallup site or on this site; you'll find it in both places, but I'm not going to spoon feed you any further. Part of what helps us learn is in doing research for ourselves.

jmengr said...

If the duties of being a pharmacist are offensive to some chtistians, they should find another line of work. It is in no way their decision what people can take or what they can't. That's what doctors are for. Christians are welcome to believe whatever they want, but they have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to enforce their views on others. To many, myself included, christian theology is nothing more than 2000 year old fairy tales. Step back and leave me and everyone else that doesn't voluntarily join your club alone! I'm sick of people cramming their iron age nonsense down other people's throats. They are totally confident that they are right about EVERYTHING - as zealots always are. I strongly disagree.

Bob Ellis said...

jmengr, don't you think that if as you said Christians have no right whatsoever to enforce their views on others, that at the very least others have no right whatsoever to enforce their views on Christians? Why doesn't that go both ways?

Which is exactly what is being attempted.

A Christian pharmacist who has a moral issue with dispensing a substance isn't forcing anyone to do anything against their conscience; he's only refusing to do something that violates his. On the other hand, those who say we should force him to sell the product are in fact FORCING the pharmacist to do something against his conscience, and are forcing their views on him.

Do you see the irony (and hypocrisy) of this argument?

Clicky Web Analytics