And I agree that he seems to have tunnel vision with many issues such as home schooling, creationism, gun control, etc. He speaks like fundamental evangelicals have a monopoly on home schooling, but doesn’t seem to realize that there are many non-religious people who have chosen to home school. He doesn’t want parents to “indoctrinate” their own children, but I guess it’s okay for their children to get indoctrinated at school. As if public school teachers are immune to bizarre thinking and attitudes. I can appreciate that much harm has come from misguided fundamentalists, but there are misguided people in all walks of life no matter what religion they follow, including atheism. I would very much appreciate it if Frank would “STOP” lumping all Christians in the same heap. It’s annoying and only further confuses the masses. At worst, by lumping us all together, he is a danger to those of us who want to quietly worship our God. He’s promoting the idea that being a Christian is dangerous and evil. It feels almost like he’s trying to start a witch hunt for Christians.

Having said that, I can see some of the problems Frank brings up, however, I don’t agree with his solutions. I understand he wants to help, but with his angst, no thank you. In particular, I do not think that parents should “not” be allowed to teach their religion to their kids. Our country is already suffering as a result of moral decline. Nor should the government be allowed to tell us what religion to follow. After all, atheism is a religion, too.

I agree with Frank that there has been a lot of harm caused by the so-called-right-wing. But who the right wing is is debatable. I can say that many of them like Palin, Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly and others do not represent all Christians. Frank needs to understand that and be “very” clear when he writes. Otherwise he demeans us all.

Thanks again,

Marla

Regarding marriage, it appears to me that the original purpose of marriage is not the same today as what the purpose of marriage was in the past. From listening and reading many of the discussions and arguments supporting gay marriages, the common line of reasoning is that “love can not be mandated.” Well that may be true, but what does that have to do with marriage? Marrying solely out of love is a relatively new concept. Early marriages were often arranged by the parents or other relatives of the family for the purpose of continuing the family line. That is, marriage was intended to create off spring. Same sex couples can not biologically create off spring since a male and a female is required to make off spring. Thus same sex couples can not fulfill the purpose of a marriage because they can not carry on the family line through the union of their blood lineage. No matter how much gays want to share in the privileges of a real marriage union, they can not because it is biologically impossible. Whether the couple loved each other was irrelevant when arranging marriages. Love has not always been a requirement of marriages. A pedophile can love a child, but that does not qualify the two to legal marriage no more than a person who engages in bestiality can marry his beast because he loves his beast.

So as far as I see, in addition to the reasons you mentioned in your post, the union of same sex couples just do not fulfill the original purpose of marriage as they can not, and will not, produce a biological offspring between the couple without a surrogate. In that case, the surrogate or the donors of the true egg and sperm union would be the biological parents, not the two same sex couples. Fight as they might, and even if gay marriages do become legal in court, their union will never fulfill a true marriage. So what good is a same sex marriage really? If they want the world to know they love each other, then fine, live together and proclaim it to all the world, but just producing a marriage certificate doesn’t prove love any more than it proved love in the early days of arranged marriages. Marriage is a specific type of union between a man and a woman. If same sex couples could produce offspring, then yes, they would be somewhat equal to a heterosexual couple in that they could continue the family line. The truth is, they can not, thus a same sex couple is not equal to a heterosexual couple.

Marlakins

I really enjoyed your critique of the article as well as I was think along the same lines–the author was essentially oblivious to the fact that God is much more capable than we are. If God created us and all the universe, and as we know there is still so much that is unknown about the human body and the universe, it’s only logical that God is infinitely more intelligent than we are and obviously knows a lot more than we do. To think that author believes that just because “the brain reaction’s electrical potentials can be recorded only by special sensors on the scalp in shielded rooms” that God can’t possibly detect those electrical reactions is assuming to know what God’s limitations are. The most advanced computers today do not equal the God’s creation of the brain. Obviously there is still a large knowledge deficit on our part regarding the workings of the brain, and this guy has that audacity to conclude what God can and can not do? Ha! And to say that there are too many languages in the world for God to understand?! Ha ha! God was the author of all those languages! When men were scattered from the Tower of Babel it was written that “God confused our languages.” Are we to think that verbal languages are more complicated to God than all that is required to create man, the universe, and all the creatures on Earth?

Rather than rail too much on that article (it would take up too much space here), I give it a hearty laugh and two thumbs down. But two thumbs up on your critique. . .

Marlakins

- Jason.

ZA

Marla