Latest news reported from Israel is disheartening. It seems that among the problems of leadership there is an anti-religious movement attempting to gain traction.
Israeli Education Minister, Rabbi Rafi Peretz, is sitting on a pile of hot coals. Peretz is an orthodox rabbi and has been approved by the Israeli Prime Minster Bibi Netanyahu to join the coalition. By doing that he has given the religious parties a major role boost in forming the political leadership and policy.
Rabbi Peretz, in keeping with the Jewish traditions, will not shake hands with a woman nor approve the LGBTQ movement.
The left wing political parties are livid, calling for the immediate removal of the Education Minister.
Here in the USA the Mississippi Republican state Representative, Robert Forster, refuses to be with a woman reporter for a ride-along private day. This is in keeping with the famous Minister Reverend Billy Graham’s policy that kept him out of trouble ‘No man should be with a woman in a room or private area unless there is another man with them.' Our Vice President, Mike Pence, refuses to be alone or even dine with a woman unless there is another person present. There have been too many outcries of abuse and disrespect for women and too much harrassment by men.
I wonder, if we kept the Reverend Billy Graham’s rule, would the President Clinton fiasco have happened? Would President Moshe Katsav of Israel have been sent to jail for sex abuse of his office staff? Would we have movie producers or money investors, or anyone in power being accused of sexual harassment or worse?
Now we are being forced to reevaluate our attitude in how we should think and judge moral values. This leads me to make the following observation.
Lately many of our leaders consider themselves moral experts -"mavens." The Pentagon, Mental Health experts, ecclesiastic leaders, senators and congressman all wish to debate the rights of alternate life-styles for the LGBTQ. This has suddenly become the debate of our generation.
What rights are they talking about? Who is not getting their rights? I had always thought that these practices had to do with the Greek way of life. The subject had been put to sleep when we witnessed the disappearance of the Greek influence and became enlightened through Judaeo-Christian religious values. Now it seems that I have missed the boat.
I have a question: what is a "right" anyway? And how is it defined?
When I grew up, I went to a "Yeshiva" (a Jewish parochial school). I studied the Old Testament laws and was taught right from wrong. In the school hallway there was an old bulletin board stating the Ten Commandments. In the Sanctuary was a huge painting of Moses carrying the Tablets. Every child over five years was required to know the Ten Commandments. My Christian neighbor assured me that his version of the Ten Commandments was the very same as mine. That was one thing we always agreed on.
As a child I never fully appreciated the depth and wisdom of the Ten Commandments. But as I grew older, I began to relate to the Commandments that spoke of honoring my parents and the big "NO-NO's"; you shall not murder, commit adultery, steal, testify falsely, nor covet your neighbor's wife, servant, etc. After all, flesh is weak and who doesn't desire wealth, property, and possessions? There are some of us who would like to take something belonging to another; their money, a beautiful home or even the wife of our neighbor.
Are we to accept these desires as the norm, as a right to take what we see? After all, Homo Sapiens have needs, some real and others illusionary. The answer is we dare not! These actions are forbidden in the Bible. Adultery and desire are temptations that we need to control. The Commandments put control on things.
When taking a look at the Old Testament we find that the Almighty forbade incestuous sexual relationships and provided mankind with normal sexual outlets and encounters. At the same time the Almighty forbade certain cruelties and indecencies. The Bible never made distinctions for sexual rights. It just states that which is right or wrong; thou shalt not commit murder; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal. No explanation or reason is given nor is one needed.
"Well", you may say, "people have rights." But do they have a right to pick which Commandment to obey and which to disregard? Do they have a right to impose their way of life on us? To do so publicly?
What would happen if a person came to me and explained that he wanted to sleep with a married woman, the wife of a congregant? Would I even think of condoning this as his right? Furthermore, what would happen if a few adulterers got together and decided to set up a new congregation called "The United Adulterers' Nation" with a non-profit status? This would create a new movement uniting adulterers!
They would then explain and debate the rights of adulterers; they would demand protection from society (mostly husbands), anti-discriminatory legislation for housing rentals, and respect for their personal needs. All would be paid for by your tax dollars and granted by the Constitution of the United States.
They might even have a scientific study explaining that their aberration is due to the size of their brain. They are born with a peculiar shape of their brain and being different predisposes them to adultery. They would postulate that this behavior is actually a human need and a right that must be granted. Now just because they may be after the wives of others, or your wife, should be no cause for alarm; after all, they cannot control themselves; their brain size produces this uncontrollable drive within them. In time controversial studies will prove it. True, they may end up with the most incurable sickness but that's their life and their choice. Give them a break and grant them their rights. This is America, a free country.
Would anybody in their right mind accept this impaired reasoning?
The answer is obvious! Just as there is no way to justify adultery under the explanation of uncontrollable needs, so too we have no reason to debate the rights of a LGBTQ life style. It is an individual decision. There is no need to air political disagreements nor call for a consensus. Just as there is no justification for adultery, as it's a non-negotiable act, so too is homosexuality non-negotiable.
True there are those who engage in alternate lifestyles but that's no reason to change the basic premise. I would rather live with a good old-fashioned hypocrite than a self-revealed LGBTQ. At least the hypocrite knows he is doing something that is not deserving of public acceptance..
We also know that this does not create a new generation. Imagine the results had their parents followed a LGBTQ lifestyle: they, the LGBTQ would not exist. This trait is self-debilitating and selfish.
I truly, believe that sexual orientation is based on free choice. Therefore, there is no insult intended, nor is a derogatory attitude suggested. One is to act towards a LGBTQ in a respectful and sensitive fashion.
It's high time for the American leadership to stand up and speak the truth. LGBTQ lifestyles have, in the past, contributed to the destruction of society. Now it's making people sick, wrecking families and causing havoc to our world order.
It's our right to be right about the right things!