This article does not in any way defend beauty pageants in general, nor does it specifically defend the wearing of immodest clothing with which the contestants are briefly adorned. The Miss USA Pageant that recently received great notoriety, however, does serve as the backdrop for a discussion of the two concepts in the title of this essay.
By now, nearly everyone who listens even to an occasional news broadcast knows that Carrie Prejean, who represented the state of California, was asked a provocative question by one of the “judges,” who called himself Perez Hilton (a pseudonym involving a turn on the name Paris Hilton). He asked her if she believed that every state in the union should legalize same-sex marriage. How such a controversial issue pertains to contestants wearing bikinis is anybody’s guess, but remember that, since the homosexual initiative failed in California last November, the homosexuals have ratcheted up their campaigns several notches. Miss Prejean’s answer is provided below:
Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.
This evaluation was rather all over the place. She first trotted out the politically correct answer about living in a country where one can choose either kind of marriage. Since California, the state she was representing, had just voted down the concept of homosexual “marriage,” people were not really free to choose it in that state. Having given the answer that the judge undoubtedly wanted to hear, however, she then decided to add her own personal thoughts (which is what he had asked for). The ignoble “judge” wanted to know her views; so giving them was entirely appropriate (and in accordance with the constitution). What caused the uproar is that her views did not match those of the querist.
In America, a certain portion of the population does not think that a person ought to be able to publicly agree with what the Bible states in the second chapter of Genesis—that God designed marriage to be between a man and a woman!
The judge who asked the question called her unflattering names, such as a dumb _____; apparently he is neither professional nor knows how to extend courtesy to someone with whom he disagrees. He also said that her answer cost her winning the competition, although the truthfulness of that remark is in doubt.
The Position of the Feminists
This “judge” was not the only one who berated the beauty contestant. She was also savaged by Michael Musto, a homosexual writer for The Village Voice. He and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC (where else?) made numerous ad hominem attacks against her, including crude sexual jokes. Was it only two years ago that the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team was offended by Don Imus? Few protested that Musto said that Prejean was like a “Klaus Barbie Doll,” which is a reference to Klaus Barbie, a Nazi war criminal. For stating that she believed in marriage between a man and a woman, she is likened to a Nazi, who murdered thousands?!
Musto also said of her: “I know for a fact that Carrie Prejean was Harry Prejean, a homophobic man, who liked marriage so much, he did it three times. Now he’s a babe who needs a brain implant.” Har, har; who writes this material? Only viewers (few, apparently) with a perverse set of values would laugh at this “humor.”
Laura Ingraham, guest-hosting for Bill O’Reilly, called attention to these attacks and then asked feminist Gloria Feldt if the feminists were upset with the way Miss Prejean had been treated, but Miss California was getting no sympathy from them. Gloria began her response by saying that she had been “attacked from the right so many times” and even perhaps from the likes of Laura Ingraham. The host refused to let her continue without correcting her; she had never trashed someone personally that way and particularly Ms. Feldt. (This writer does not stand guilty of attacking her personally, either, having never heard of her before.)
After Ingraham pointed out that the view expressed by Miss Prejean was the same one espoused by the president and the majority of people in California, Ms. Feldt argued that Feminism is about justice and equality, a phrase she kept repeating throughout the interview. Then she made one of the cattiest and meanest statements imaginable:
I think that what Miss Prejean needs is, perhaps, a heart transplant rather than the breast implants that she had paid for by the pageant.
One can certainly pack a great deal of cruelty into one sentence. First of all, why does the California candidate need a heart transplant—because she thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman? She did not say that all homosexuals should be arrested, shot, or waterboarded. She simply expressed a majority opinion. Apparently, the majority of Americans need heart transplants, also, not to mention God, who defines even the practice of homosexuality as “vile,” which it is, and “against nature,” which ought to be obvious to anyone.
The second point was picked up by Ingraham, who asked her if it was all right to ridicule women for the way they look. When Feldt began to deny that she had done so, Ingraham rightly explained that she had done so by implication. (Fortunately, no new hermeneutikers were there to advise Ingraham that implication is not valid.) When Feldt again denied the fact, Igraham asked her why, then, had she brought up the implants, adding that she did not think Miss Prejean would refer to any physical attributes that Feldt had or did not have.
All Gloria Feldt could do was to keep repeating that Miss Prejean’s position was in opposition to freedom and justice and equality for a whole group of Americans. So why is that bad? Ms. Feldt’s position is offensive to Christians and to those who believe the Bible. Trying to call Biblically-condemned, sinful liaisons “marriage” is offensive to anyone who believes in truth and righteousness. Yet we have not suggested that Ms. Feldt needs a heart transplant. Clearly, Feminism is more about lesbianism than it is standing up for the rights of women not to suffer abuse. When the two concepts stand opposed to each other, everyone can see which one Feminism is interested in defending. Besides, with the different worldviews that people hold, a large segment of Americans is usually always offended by somebody’s views.
On May 7th, O’Reilly showed a clip of British politician, Alan Duncan, commenting on this controversy. After calling her a silly _____, he added: “If you read that Miss California’s been murdered, you’ll know it was me, won’t you?” What a nice man! Not only does someone who disagrees with the concept of homosexual ”marriage” need a heart transplant, they are worthy of committing violence against—even murder. Will Duncan introduce a bill to that effect in Parliament?
Black Sanity
Bill O’Reilly hosted an African-American, Miles McPherson, whom he described as Carrie Prejean’s pastor. Of course, we cannot endorse his denominationalist leanings or the fact that he should have advised her concerning modest apparel, but regarding the issue of homosexual marriage, he injected some sanity into the discussion. He was one of those who had supported Proposition 8, the California Amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, which amendment the California Supreme Court upheld as Constitutional last Tuesday, May 26th.
O’Reilly asked McPherson if he was surprised about all of the uproar over Miss Prejean’s answer. Citing his experience while working for the passage of Proposition 8, he said they were not surprised, since “…we saw a lot of ugliness, hate at us every single day, e-mails all day and night.” O’Reilly then asked him:
As a black man, you have heard the argument that gay marriage is a civil right. This is how it’s framed. And if you are opposed to gay marriage…then you are a bigot … you are violating the rights of gay Americans. How do you respond to that?
McPherson answered with unassailable logic:
I find it very offensive that someone would equate that behavior to my ethnicity. I know a lot of people who used to be gay; I don’t know anyone who used to be black. So I don’t see the similarity between those two things; I’m offended by it.
He is right. To try to equate sexual preference with skin color is an insult of the highest magnitude. O’Reilly wanted to know: “What if someone says, “God made me this way’?” McPherson replied: “What’s your evidence that God made you that way?” He said people ought to ask what the Bible says. O’Reilly probably did not want to go there, and the time slot was up anyway.
Of course, those who read and study the Bible know what it teaches regarding homosexuality (Rom. 1:26). But where is the proof that someone is “born that way”? To date, no credible evidence exists to establish that point. People are not born polygamists, monogamists, homosexuals, adulterers, or craving a sex change operation. They become such, which is proven by the fact that there are exes of all of these—which is precisely what the Bible teaches (1 Cor. 6:9-11).
A CHILD LEFT TO HIMSELF
Lynn Parker
I was still in my twenties when I met the boy. He was a high school student. I was a young deputy sheriff in a Texas hill-country county. His father had left the family. The mother was trying to provide by working at several jobs. Her elderly parents helped as they could. Still, the boy was almost always home alone.
He picked his own friends and did a pretty poor job of it. Some were much older and spent their evenings drinking beer and cruising the roads. No surprise then when this boy, at sixteen years of age, became a heavy drinker. The first time I met him he was stumbling down a street toward his home. I picked him up and took him to the house where I met with his mother and grandfather. The mother’s reaction was one of amusement. She pretty much attributed it to sowing wild oats. “Don’t all boys do that?” she asked in defense of her son. The next time I saw him was when he broke into a house in town. Again, he was picked up, and again he was drunk. The mother was contacted and she couldn’t brush it off—her son was going to juvenile court on a felony charge. But this tragic story does not end there.
Late one evening, just about bedtime, the phone rang. An excited voice said, “Deputy Parker, you need to get here quick. We’ve got a shooting.” It was a neighbor of this troubled young man. I arrived and found the teen had shot himself in the head with his grandpa’s pistol. He died in route to the hospital. His blood alcohol content was more than 0.20.
Here’s what the Bible says:
“A foolish son is a grief to his father, and bitterness to her that bare him” (Prov. 17:25).
“The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself causeth shame to his mother” (Prov. 29:15).
—From the March 9, 2009 Beacon (Pensacola, FL)
ACCEPTING CHRIST IS
ACCEPTING THE WORD OF CHRIST
G. K. Wallace
Only those who accepted the teachings of Christ while He was here in person accepted Christ. Likewise, all who come to Christ today must do so by the teachings and instructions given by Him. Christ draws all men through teaching (John 6:44-45). When the apostles went out to preach the great commission, they were thereby preaching Christ. This was the burden of all their discourses. The prophet said, “all thy children shall be taught of the LORD” (Isa. 54:13). Therefore, all who have been properly taught through the living oracles concerning Jesus of Nazareth—and have obeyed those words—have come to Him.
Christianity has never changed. Its ordinances are still the same as they were in the first century. It is ridiculous, absurd, and sectarian to talk to people about coming to Christ, and leave the impression that they can do so without doing what Jesus taught. To deny that baptism is a part of the grace of God is to deny the Bible. If baptism does not belong to the grace of God, it belongs to the grace of the devil. If you have been baptized, your baptism is either of the grace of God or the grace of the devil.
Suppose you are sick and nigh unto death. Your beloved doctor diagnoses your case and tells you that he is positive he can be of assistance and effect a cure. You rejoice at hearing his words; then he picks up his pen and begins to write. You turn to him and ask, “What is that you’re doing, doctor?” The physician replies, “I am writing a prescription suited to your case which you should carefully take, according to my instructions.”
Then suppose you say, “Doctor, I can have nothing to do with your pills and powders. I believe in you! I want you personally, but your pills and powders can have no place in my life and cannot be a part or a means of healing. My confidence is in you.”
The physician would likely reply, “He that rejects my remedy, rejects me, and he that has no confidence in what I prescribe as a means of healing has no confidence in me” (cf, John 12:48).
The book of Acts was written to illustrate the laws of the kingdom of God and particularly those that relate to primary obedience. Such examples as the conversion of Saul and the eunuch (Acts 22:16; 8:35-39) make the way of obedience so plain that no one but the most prejudiced can fail to understand what to do to be saved.
It should be our custom today to preach with the same vigor and force that was characteristic of pioneer preachers of previous generations. Human nature has not changed, and it will ever remain the same. The needs of man are the same, and the answer to those needs was revealed in the Word of God 2,000 years ago.
As it did for the eunuch and Paul, the blood of Christ still cleanses men today who believe in Christ (John 8:24), repent of their sins (Luke 13:3), confess that faith (Mat. 10:32; Rom. 10:10), and are baptized into Christ for the remission of sins (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38).
—From the May 4, 2009 Beacon (Pensacola, FL
“Drink Your Cocoa!
Hot cocoa fights disease better than wine or tea. One cup of hot cocoa contains 611 mg. of phenols and 564 mg of flavonoids, two powerful antioxidants that protect against cancer and heart disease. By comparison a glass of red wine has 340 mg and 163 mg respectively, while green tea had 165 mg and 47 mg…and black tea has only 124 mg and 34 mg. Bonus: Although chocolate…is high in saturated fat…the equivalent amount of cocoa contains less than 1 gram of saturated fat (Chang Y. Lee, Ph.D., Cornell U., in Healthy Home News, June, 2009).