San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, August 2, 2013

Montana Is Overrated

My wife and I spent all of last week in Montana.  We had originally planned on spending the week climbing some interesting peaks in the San Juan mountains of Colorado.  Then,  just a couple of days prior to our scheduled departure date, my wife came down with an ailment that required emergency surgery.  Being the tough sort that she is, she spent one night in the hospital and came home to recuperate.  We decided that climbing Wetterhorn and the Southwest Ridge route on Mount Sneffles was probably not a good idea, especially since she was not allowed to lift any weight or use her abdominal muscles in any way for at least a month.  Perfect time for a road trip, we decided.
My wife spent some time in southeast Montana years ago.  I had never been to the state, although I did have some preconceptions about what it might look like.  As it turned out, most of those preconceptions were wrong.  Every time I have talked to people about beautiful places I find that most folks believe Montana to be at the top of the list.  Stupendous!  Grandiose!  Superb!  Glorious!  Will make Colorado look like a sandbox!  Those are just some of the things I have heard over the years.  I wondered, could these folks be right?
Let me start with the positive.  Montana is pretty, very pretty.  Montana is charming, very charming.  Montana is green.  Montana has lots of nice fishing streams.  Montana has some mountains that are quite rugged.  Here is one of them:



The mountain is called Bearhat Mountain.  It is found near Logan Pass in Glacier National Park.  We had hiked (yes, my wife did a four mile, 700 vertical foot hike less than ten days after surgery) up to a place called Hidden Lake Pass and this was the view that presented itself to us.  Very nice.
Montana also has some interesting wildlife.  Glacier National Park has lots of mountain goats. Many people live their entire lives without ever seeing one of these fantastic creatures.  I have had the opportunity to see dozens of them over the years, while on mountaineering adventures in the Colorado Rockies.  Here is an old Billie who was sauntering along the trail to Hidden Lake Pass:



Montana is home to many historic sites.  We visited the Little Big Horn battle site as well as the site of the worst mining disaster in history up until that time.  The mining disaster was in Butte.  A fire in a mine shaft ended up killing almost half of the men who were underground working at the time.  Reading the letters that they wrote as they slowly asphyxiated was emotionally powerful.  Standing on the hill upon which George Custer lost his life was an interesting experience as well.  As I stood there I could not help but think about the senseless waste of life that had taken place at that point.  Monuments to the Indians who died in the battle were there as well.
We spent a day in the Flathead Valley and tasted the most delicious cherries we have ever eaten.  We purchased a couple of pounds of Rainier and Lambert cherries from a roadside stand.  They were plump and juicy, unlike any cherry I had eaten before.  We even managed to play nine holes of golf on a golf course in Kalispell that had been constructed in 1936.  My wife caddied for me.  She couldn't swing a club but she could walk and pull my hand-cart.   All in all it was a very enjoyable trip.  But there is more to the story.
Montana was not what I expected.  I expected freedom.  At first I thought I had entered a state that is free.  Practically every Kwik-E-Mart in the state has a "casino" associated with it.  In fact, dozens of different businesses have casinos associated with them.  My favorite was "Bob's Tack and Feed and Casino."  In most cases the casino is nothing more than a couple of slot machines in the corner but still I was impressed that people were free to gamble if they wanted to.  In addition, most of the Kwik-E-Mart/Casinos also heavily advertised tobacco products.  In the land of the Marlboro man I thought it might be the case that a person could smoke without being relegated outside to face the cold Montana winter winds.  Such was not the case.  Each establishment I entered had the usual regulations declaring that all smokers must be banished to some outside location far enough away from the normal people that their offending odor could not be detected.  Even worse, Montana had more roadside billboards and television commercials telling me that just looking at a tobacco plant will cause me and all of my relatives, both dead and alive, to die from cancer in the near future.  So much for freedom.
What surprised me the most about Montana was how few majestic mountains it had.  I was expecting row after row of jagged peaks, covered in snow and glaciers.  I stupidly thought that Glacier National Park would be crawling with glaciers.  As it turned out, the park is named Glacier National Park only because the peaks within it were carved by glaciers years ago.  Most of Montana turned out to be rolling, rim rock type country.  It was green (the rainy season had just ended) and it was pretty but it was not majestic.  The most majestic part of the state was found in Glacier National Park.  And that is a big problem.
National parks are extensions of the government.  Instead of being wild, as was the original intention (does government ever get it right?), they have become the equivalent of large outdoor zoos.  The animals are tame.  Well, almost tame.  The grizzlies are wild.  The trail we were on was closed because there were grizzlies in the area.


I wished we were hiking in a real wilderness where men can hunt and animals have some fear of men.  By the end of the day I was tired of looking at tame goats that barely noticed my presence.  The mountains, although certainly dramatic within the park, are made of uplifted limestone and not particularly nice to look at.  Where were the quartzite peaks?  Where were the uplifted sedimentary peaks of various colors?  Everything was a dull brown.  Outside of the park there were only a scattering of mountain ranges that were quite charming, but not dramatic.
I concluded that Montana is overrated.  Give me the San Juan mountains of Colorado any day.  The San Juans are majestic.  They are dramatic.  They are remote.  They are varied.  Montana was a nice place to visit but I will live in Colorado.

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Fox News vs CNN / Martin vs Zimmerman

It has been an interesting couple of weeks.  I was on vacation in Montana for all of last week.  After doing all our our tourist activities for the day my wife and I would settle into our motel room and tune into Fox News.  After watching Fox News for an hour or so we would change the channel and watch CNN.  What we learned by this little exercise was quite interesting. 
As I am undoubtedly not telling you something you do not already know, the Treyvon Martin/ George Zimmerman verdict has captivated cable news networks for the past several weeks.  The response of the networks was entirely predictable.  Liberal networks are on a crusade to prove that the verdict was racially based and proves that the Socialist Democracy of Amerika is a fundamentally racist nation in need of massive government civil rights programs to set things straight.  Conservative networks bristled at the accusation of racism and changed the topic of discussion from the alleged racism in the Zimmerman verdict to the failure of the current civil rights complex to raise black citizens out of the cycle of out-of-wedlock children, dropping out of school, drugs and violence that so plagues large portions of black society.  The solution to the problem in this case was an expansion of government welfare programs.  As usual, both sides were speaking past one another.  As usual, both sides had political agendas to advance that had nothing to do with the real issues.
According to this report by the FBI, there were 2,922 crimes committed in 2011 that were racially motivated.  5,731 of the perpetrators of all "hate crimes" were apprehended.  "Hate crimes" includes categories of crime other than those that are racially motivated so the number of perpetrators is larger than the total number of crimes that were specifically related to racial hatred.  Nevertheless, what would you guess is the racial breakdown of those who have been convicted of committing "hate crimes"?  If we live in a society in which white racism is endemic, the percentage of white hate crime perpetrators should be larger than the percentage of whites in society.
Last time I checked, whites made up about 70% of the citizens of this land.  Blacks make up about 15% of the citizens of this country.  I would expect, therefore, that hate crimes would be committed about 70% of the time by whites and about 15% of the time by blacks.  What does the report state?  According to the FBI, 59% of hate crimes committed in 2011 were committed by whites and 21% of hate crimes committed in 2011 were committed by blacks.  Draw your own conclusions.
Despite the yelling and screaming that took place on each news program, there is one thing that both CNN and Fox News are in full agreement about.  Both networks believe that the solution to whatever problem might exist (racism for CNN and social degradation in black communities at Fox) is to be found in more government.  Neither side is willing to admit that the problems that exist, largely exist because of government programs already in operation.  Neither side is stridently calling for less government in our lives.  That is a serious problem.
Biblical law requires two witnesses to convict a person of murder.  There were not two witnesses to the killing of Martin.  On that basis alone Zimmerman should have been acquitted.  Justice is never perfect.  Some people who commit atrocious crimes will have to wait until they die to be punished for what they have done.  That is not to say that Zimmerman was guilty of murder.  The people who sat on the jury declared that he was not guilty.  I was not there.  I do not know.  It is none of my business.  In fact, it is nobody's business but the parties that were involved.  The decision of the jury is final (no double-jeopardy) and that should be the end of the matter.  Unfortunately it was not the end of the matter. Career politicians with huge axes to grind immediately jumped into the fray and made the decision their business.  How it is that people cannot see that they are being manipulated by these politicians is a mystery to me.  When members of the "the SDA is racist" industrial/political complex begin to tell you that you have been treated unjustly, you should run the other way as fast as you can. 
Conversely, conservative talk about how "we" need to "do more" for the blacks in "poverty", whatever that means.  Black children are born out of wedlock 73% of the time because the SDA government pays black girls to have babies.  Aid to Families with Dependent Children guarantees that this pattern will continue.  Want to stop the torrent of bastard children?  Stop AFDC.  At the same time, the "war on drugs" has done more to increase violence in black communities than any other government policy.  Just like Prohibition created the Mafia, the war on drugs has created gang wars in the SDA.  Want to solve the problem of black violence?  Decriminalize all drugs.  Buy this book to learn the truth about the history of drug usage in the SDA.
What did I learn last week?  Nothing really.  At least what I observed is what I already knew to be true.  Powerful politicians and the media companies that support them will exploit whatever news item happens to be hot in order to advance their particular statist agenda.  Nobody who believes that the solution to our problems should be less government is ever given a voice.  Nobody who believes that people should work out their own problems in the absence of government intervention is worth listening to.  Most certainly, nobody who believes that government should be less involved in our daily lives will ever be given a chance to express that opinion.  

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

What Is "Fair Capitalism"?

Bruce Most of Denver wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post extolling the virtues of what he calls "fair capitalism".  He was responding to an article by syndicated author Cal Thomas that had previously appeared in the paper.  Here is what he had to say about the Thomas article:  "Cal Thomas believes government anti-poverty programs are an abject failure, and that poverty is best addressed by charitable organizations and the GOP's mantra of 'personal responsibility'.  He is wrong about the government's role.  But what he completely ignores is the best anti-poverty program around:  capitalism that benefits all workers, not just the wealthy."
I wish Bruce had taken the time to explain why Mr. Thomas was wrong about the role of government in fighting poverty.  Mr. Thomas had taken the time to present a cogent argument about how government programs have failed to alleviate poverty in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  If Bruce really believes Mr. Thomas is wrong he at least ought to give us a reason why.  Instead Bruce was greatly disturbed by what he believes Mr. Thomas failed to address in his article.  Bruce believes that the best anti-poverty program known to man is something he calls "fair capitalism".  His definition of fair capitalism is "capitalism that benefits all workers, not just the wealthy."  He goes on to further describe his utopia:
"Capitalism that pays its workers a living wage, that isn't anti-union, that doesen't ship jobs overseas, and that is not driven by the kind of greed and corruption that destroyed trillions in economic value would do more to reduce poverty than all charitable and government programs combined.  Too bad Thomas and the GOP don't believe in capitalism with a heart."  Capitalism with a heart!  Now that is an interesting concept.  Allow me to take some time to examine it.
According to Bruce capitalism with a heart will benefit all workers, not just the wealthy.  Now that is a strange way of looking at an economic system.  Capitalism does not exist for the purpose of employing people.  Capitalism exists because some people, called entrepreneurs,  desire to serve others, called consumers.  Entrepreneurs have ideas about things other people might want to own and they do their level best to produce those things for them.  The driving force behind capitalism is the goal of satisfying the desires of consumers.  Creating employment is always a by-product of capitalism.  It is never the goal of capitalism.  Bruce's belief that the primary goal of capitalism should be to create jobs that pay wages he believes are equal to some imaginary "living wage" is known as socialism.  Calling his socialist system "fair capitalism" is ignorant at best, contradictory at worst.
According to Bruce entrepreneurs in the free market have a moral obligation to pay something he calls a "living wage".  He never defines what a living wage is so it is really difficult to understand what he is writing about.  If he is like most socialists he believes that entrepreneurs are morally required to pay more than what the free market for labor would ordinarily dictate.  Although I suspect Bruce typically does not go around paying more than the price asked for the goods and services he purchases, he somehow believes that business owners have a moral responsibility to do exactly that with the labor services they purchase.  What a hypocrite.
Bruce's fair capitalism also is forbidden to employ laborers who are not members of unions.  Why this must be so is never explained.  Once again Bruce's system sounds strangely reminiscent of socialism, not capitalism.  Maybe Bruce should go back to Economics 101 and study the differences between the two systems.  He also believes that it is morally wrong for a business owner to hire a man who lives across an arbitrary geo-political boundary to perform work for his company.  Here Bruce is quite inconsistent.  I suspect he would permit the business owner to hire people on the other side of a state boundary but he is quite adamant about the immorality of hiring a person on the other side of a federal boundary.  What makes the federal boundary sacred is not explained.  I suspect that even Bruce himself does not know.
Bruce also believes that proponents of the free market were responsible for the Great Recession.  He is wrong.  The very government he adores is the exclusive cause for the Great Recession.  Bruce concludes his letter by asserting that all of the activities of these "fair capitalists" will somehow magically eradicate poverty in this land.  He does not describe how that will happen.  He simply asserts that it is so.  I have a hard time understanding how his conclusion can be correct.  With all of the impediments to growth he puts in his system of "fair capitalism" it is pretty much guaranteed that the end result will be essentially the same as what we have now.  What we have now is a grotesque distortion of capitalism that consists entirely of pockets of economic activity regulated, governed and controlled by multiple levels of bureaucracy.  In fact, what we have now is socialism.  And socialism, I believe, is precisely what Bruce wants.

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Obama Is Dead Wrong About Income Inequality

King Obama delivered a speech last week in which he railed against the evil system of capitalism that is responsible for the creation of income and wealth inequality in this land.  He announced that he is dedicating the remaining years of his disastrous administration to the cause of eradicating income and wealth inequality from the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  The notion of income inequality and its associated belief that disparities in income and wealth are evil is common in communist and socialist countries.  It does not surprise me that a socialist king like King Obama would make the statements he made.  Still, there is so much wrong with what he had to say that I am compelled to issue a correction.
The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  Somehow folks with a socialist bent have been able to distort the words found above into the assertion and belief that all people should have equal income and equal net worth.  Did the framers of the Declaration really believe that there are no differences among people?  Did they really believe that all people are the same?  Did they really believe that it is the role of the State to ensure that all people make the same amount of money and have the same net worth?  Hardly.
Even a cursory examination of the Declaration of Independence reveals the clear meaning of the framers.  The equality written about in the Declaration has nothing to do with equality of outcome.  It also has nothing to do with equality of ability.  According to the Declaration of Independence, men are equal ontologically.  By virtue of men being men they are self-evidently recognized as having equal rights to their own lives, their own freedom and their own property (generally described as "happiness" by the founders).  That is what is meant by "equality" in the Declaration.  Nobody has a lesser right to his own life, his own freedom or his own property.  The Declaration clearly asserts that there is no caste system among men.  The framers never intended to assert that all men are equal in their physical, spiritual, mental or business skills.  The framers never intended to assert that all people are of equal intelligence.  They certainly never intended to assert that all people are of equal physical strength or capable of equal physical feats.  They never intended to assert that all people are equally industrious and they most certainly never intended to assert that all men should be equally compensated for their disproportionate labors in the free market. 
King Obama disagrees.  Our King believes that he knows better than the founding fathers of this land.  Our King believes that the CEO of a corporation should receive the same compensation as his secretary.  Obama believes that the manager of a particular division of a corporation should receive the same compensation as the janitor who cleans his office at night.  King Obama rails against income inequality.  He blames capitalism for the fact that some people make more than others.  He blames the free market for the fact that some people accumulate more wealth than others.  He blames everyone but himself for the alleged fact that income and wealth inequality is accelerating in our time.  While blaming everything and everyone associated with the free market and capitalism Obama manages to totally ignore the one area where compulsory inequality is being foisted upon the citizens of the SDA.  He manages to ignore the one area where inequality is a serious national issue and problem.  Yes, King Obama ignores the role of government in our land.
Government declares that men do not have an equal right to their freedom all the time.  People are by no means "equal before the law".  Preferential treatment and capricious sentencing guarantees that no one in this land will ever find equality before the law.  A man may smoke marijuana in Colorado.  That same man, if caught smoking marijuana in Kansas, will be sent to prison.  His freedom will be taken away.  That is the law of the land.  Clearly there is no equality for men in the eyes of the law.  Officers of the law are never issued tickets for speeding.  The fellowship of the blue uniform guarantees that those government employees who are paid to enforce the law are themselves well above it.  To top it all off, Congress specifically exempts all if its members from every single piece of legislation it creates.  How can that be considered equality?
One man gets into a drunken brawl with another man.  He ends up knocking the other person out.  He is arrested and sentenced to 60 days in jail for being drunk and disorderly.  Now imagine the same situation only the "other man" is an officer of the legal system.  In other words, the man who is knocked out is a government employee charged with enforcing the myriad contradictory government laws and rules.  The man who beat him up is arrested and sentenced to 60 years (an actual case) in prison for his actions.  This is fair?  This is equality before the law?  Clearly there is no equality before the law when it comes to dealings with government employees.
49% of the citizens of the SDA pay 98% of the federal income taxes.  The top 10% of the income population pays about a third of all federal income taxes.  This is clearly unfair because it is clearly unequal.  The Declaration of Independence asserted that all men have an equal right to keep their money.  The Federal government says otherwise.  The Federal government says if you are in the upper half of the income population you will be treated with severe inequality.  You will have much of your income forcible extracted from you and given to those in the lower half.
Politicians dedicate their lives to propagating and enforcing the principle of inequality among men.  They campaign endlessly on the specific principle of inequality.  They make long lists of promises to pander to the envy of the lower income groups in which they declare their intentions to take the money of the upper income groups and give it to them.  They promise to make laws that will make various groups less free.  It is fair to say that government in the SDA today essentially exists for the purpose of creating ontological inequality in the citizens of this land.  Government exists to make one group less free and prosperous and to make other groups favorites of the political establishment.  And then, to top things off,  career politicians like Obama have the gall to tell us the free market is evil.
Lots of people like to quote Jesus these days.  These folks tell me how Jesus believes that we should love our fellow man and be kind and forgiving to each other.  I wonder if those folks know what Jesus had to say about income inequality?  I suspect most people do not know that Jesus spoke about the issue of income inequality. He did, you know.  Jesus gave us His doctrine of income equality in the parable of the talents.  It is found in Matthew 25 if you want to read it for yourself.  Here is some of what He had to say:
"For it (the Kingdom of Heaven) is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves, and entrusted his possessions to them.  And to one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey."  Did you notice it?  Jesus recognized that His slaves were not equal in their ability to manage His possessions.  He gave different amounts of money to each slave because they had differing abilities to manage it.  That is discrimination!  That is unfair!  That is income inequality!  That is net worth inequality!  Or at least that is what the politician of today says.
Jesus goes on to describe how the first two slaves took the money they had been given and managed it to the point where each was able to double the initial investment.  When the Master returned they gave Him their accounting and He received them joyfully into His Kingdom.  The third slave, on the other hand, did not do anything with the money and when the Master returned he simply gave it back to Him.  This is what Jesus had to say to the lazy slave, "You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I scattered no seed.  Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest.  Therefore take away the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents.  For to everyone who has shall more be given, and he shall have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, evern what he does have shall be taken away."  Did you catch that?   I underlined it so you would not miss the point.
When it comes to income and wealth inequality Jesus clearly asserts that it is a good thing.  He clearly supports the system that rewards the more productive members of the free market.  He clearly supports the system that punishes the lazy members of the free market.  Jesus declares that income inequality is a good thing and does everything He can to support it!  I wonder what Obama thinks about that?

Monday, July 29, 2013

Folks Ignorant Of Biblical Truth Should Shut Up

There was an interesting letter to the editor in the Denver Post last week.  The letter was entitled, "Where Does Bible Say One Man, One Woman?"  It was written by Karl Epstein of Denver.  It is obvious from the letter that Mr. Epstein considers himself to be biblically literate.  In fact, he might even consider himself to be an expert in biblical truth.  At the very least he believes he is qualified to write to the Post and instruct its readers on what the Bible has to say about the doctrine of marriage.  Here is some of what Mr. Epstein had to say:
"So a paranoid, small-minded group has formed On My Honor, an alternative to the Boy Scouts.  The group's leaders say it will be 'founded on principles and values that reflect a Christian worldview,' including the tenet that marriage is between one man and one woman.  Can someone please tell me where this is mentioned in the Bible?  Here is a short list of biblical figures who had multiple wives: Lamech, Jacob, Abraham, Gideon, Esau, Saul, David and Solomon."  Well, since Mr. Epstein asked, I will answer his question....in a moment.  First, let me continue with his rant.
"How tolerant will they possibly be of openly gay members, when that is the one thing that led them to form their own group?  The golden rule of Christianity is to love thy neighbor as thyself.  Bravo to this group for raising another generation of judgmental, frightened, bigoted, insular people who will feel guilty whenever they attempt to think outside their small box."   There is so much wrong with everything good old Karl has written that I hardly know to start with my stinging criticisms.  Still, I will try.
Allow me to begin by answering Karl's question about the biblical passage that teaches "one man, one woman."  I am surprised that a biblical scholar like Karl does not appear to be aware of the main teaching passages on the subject.  There are several sections of the Bible that clearly teach the family principle of one man, one woman.  It is first found in Genesis.  Perhaps the best passage is found in Matthew 19 where Jesus is recorded responding to an attack from the religious leaders of his time.  The Pharisees were attempting to trap Him in regards to His doctrine of marriage.  They asked Him if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason.  Here is His response:
"Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?  Consequently they are no more two, but one flesh.  What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate....Because of the hardness of your heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.  And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery."
The reaction to Jesus' teaching on marriage and divorce was immediate and severe.  The disciples, who were listening in on the conversation, immediately perceived that Jesus was teaching a strict form of monogamy that they were not necessarily familiar or comfortable with.  They responded to His teaching by saying, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry."  They were so upset by the strong monogamy found in Jesus' teaching that they declared celibacy to be the superior way to live.  There is no doubt they understood what He was teaching.  Yet today people like Karl seem to miss the rather obvious point.
God is the author of the family unit.  He created the family unit using male and female beings.  He declared the family unit to be good.  He ordered men and women to be monogamous.  He declared their physical union to be "one flesh".  He permitted aberrations from His declared will for the family (bigamy, polygamy, easy divorce) because of the "hardness of their hearts".  Yet from the beginning of creation it has been the revealed will of God that the family consists of one man and one woman.  Anyone stupid enough to deny this basic biblical principle needs to seek professional help for his mental incapacities.  I do not know how this principle could be made any more clear.
Karl also seems incapable of permitting a group of people to voluntarily associate without first getting his permission to do so.  He wants to control everything.  He is a control freak, as they say.  What is wrong with the On My Honor folks writing the rules for their own voluntary association?  If they do not want homosexuals to join their group that is their business and anyone who does not like that should leave them alone.   I wonder, if some group formed that refused to allow heterosexuals into membership, would Karl be as offended?  I suspect not.
Perhaps most interesting in all of Karl's ravings is his repetition of the false belief that Christianity can be summed up in the phrase "love thy neighbor as thyself."  For some reason self-professed biblical scholars always leave out the first half of that passage.  It begins by declaring that all men are to "love God with all their hearts, souls and minds".  Why is that always ignored?  Furthermore, what does it mean to love God with all one's heart, soul and mind?  David, mentioned by Karl in his letter as a sterling example of biblical behavior, declared that his love for God was primarily evidenced by his love for God's law.  Now this is where it gets interesting.
God has declared that there are certain groups of people, sinners He calls them, who so irritate Him with their behavior they should be executed by the state and sent to His throne room for immediate judgement.  This list includes, among others, murderers, kidnappers, adulterers, the incestuous, witches, blasphemers and homosexuals.  Can anyone tell me how it is possible to love God and, at the same time, accept, defend and promote the behavior of homosexuals?
I wonder if Karl considers himself to be a Christian?  I suspect he does not.  I also suspect that he considers himself to be morally superior to Christians.  I suspect he believes that even though he wants nothing to do with organized Christianity he nevertheless is a paragon of human virtue.  I suspect he is convinced that he always loves his neighbor as he loves himself.  That likely being the case, I wonder.....has Karl loved his Christian neighbor?
Karl has declared that his Christian neighbor, who just might be forming a branch of the On My Honor club in his neighborhood right now, is "paranoid", "small-minded", "judgmental", "frightened", "bigoted" and "insular" all because he happens to agree with God's law on the doctrine of homosexuality and the family.  How is Karl displaying the love for his neighbor he so eloquently writes about?  It does seem as if there might be a paranoid, small-minded, judgmental, frightened, bigoted and insular person around here.  I think his name is Karl.