#1621 (6/15) "In the Wake of Orlando - A LOVE-SHAPED APOLOGETIC"

"In the Wake of Orlando - A LOVE-SHAPED APOLOGETIC" - By: John Stonestreet| Breakpoint.org: June 14, 2016;

http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29420 [AS I SEE IT: 1) Without question, we should all pray for the families grieving for the deaths of their loved ones and we should do what we can to assist them - such as giving blood or donating to a fund to help them. HOWEVER, I do think that we - as Christians - should be careful to not allow our sympathies to extend to supporting the homosexual lifestyle.[You've probably heard the expression "Love the sinner but hate the sin."] It may be more comfortable and politically correct in the present environment to say that we "stand" with them to include their lifestyle but it's important we make that distinction. We surely can extend love while not approving some action that the Bible condemns, and 2) Do you remember it was not too long ago in South Carolina that a guy opened fire after a church Bible study and killed about a dozen people? I don't recall the media - here and around the world - rallying people to stand with/support Bible-believing Christians. And some still insist the mainstream media is not biased. Really?,and 3) Not surprisingly, this tragedy has been turned into a media event - especially here in Orlando where I live. HOWEVER, I can't help but think of the many others who die tragically every day that never get this kind of media attention - from long suffering illnesses, car accidents, suicides, etc. They also have families who grieve. Furthermore, it's said that every day in the world over 150,000 people die! Death and evil claim lives every day and probably most who die will not spend eternity with God. Is THAT not the tragedy we should mourn each day! - Stan]

Christians ought proclaim the love of Christ with our lips, and in our lives. And the events in Orlando underscore how the two must never be separated.

Recently, I’ve been reading some of the very first works of Christian apologetics: by Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Athenagoras. Today, someone known as an apologist primarily attempts to make a case that Christianity is true, or answer a critique of Christianity, or show other worldviews—such as atheism or pantheism—to be false. The earliest apologists did all of this as well.

But because they were writing at a time of Christian persecution, the earliest apologists did not aim their work at the masses. They wrote to Roman authorities, pleading for the end of persecution. And to make their case, the earliest apologists pointed not only to truthfulness of Christianity, but also to the goodness of how Christians lived their lives.

Christians, they argued, were chaste, gentle, loving to both friends and enemies, good citizens, and sought to live peaceably for the love of God and the love of neighbor. Not only were Christians innocent of the absurd charges of incest and cannibalism leveled at them, they were the best of citizens.

Watching the news of the worst shooting in American history, an act of radical Islamist terror at a popular gay nightclub in Orlando, I found myself thinking: Can Christians claim that sort of apologetic today? Of course we can argue for the truthfulness of Christianity, but can we legitimately claim that we fully live out and embody the Gospel we claim?

Without question, this despicable act targeted LGBT men and women. But where the shooting took place matters not in terms of how Christians ought respond. Every single victim, no matter how they “self-identify,” bears the image of God. They have eternal value simply by virtue of being human.

Yet the event is being used by some to throw radical Islam and Christianity into the same “culturally unclean” bucket. And it shouldn’t surprise us. Any moral stance taken against homosexuality will be lumped in with this vile act of murder.

In this environment, arguing for the clear distinctions that exist between the radically differing moral frameworks of Islam and Christianity will be difficult, if not impossible. Yet this shouldn’t discourage us from making our case. But even more, it should drive us toward embodying that love that most distinguishes the Christian faith.

Christians, as my colleague and co-author Warren Cole Smith is fond of saying, are known for running toward the crisis, not away from it. The claims of the earliest apologists, we now know from the work of historians such as Rodney Stark, were vindicated in the lifestyle of our forebears in the faith and resulted in changing culture and human history.

But we can’t merely say, “Look at how great Christians have been in tough times” if our lives today do not also reflect that same love. Nor should we love out of any sort of practical calculation, as in, “Hey this will get people to see that Christianity is true and give us the upper hand in the culture again.”

No, it’s because we’ve experienced the love of God and salvation in Christ that we embrace the dignity of every human being. That same loves sends us to the blood banks to donate. It compels us to gather together to pray for the victims and their families. It leads us to mourn with those who mourn—even and especially in times like these.

And by “times like these,” I don’t just mean in response to the specific events in Orlando. I mean in times like these, where any sort of moral truth claim is determined up front to be guilty by association. It is in this cultural moment that our most effective apologetic will be a life of love united with the truth of who Christ is.

Now we’ll be told that truth and love cannot really fit together, that we choose one at the expense of the other. We must not allow that thinking in our hearts and minds. Jesus Christ, the center of history, is Himself truth and is Himself love. The tension between the two is resolved in Him.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - As John has stated, Christians demonstrate by their words and their actions that truth and love do belong together. Pray for the families and friends touched by violence in Orlando, as well as in other parts of our nation and our world.
"The Terrorist Attack in Orlando: Christian Responses from around the Web" - BreakPoint.org | June 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/articles/entry/12/29419
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mourning in America" - Tony Perkins, Wasington Update, June 14, 2016; http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA16F21&f=WU16F08

#1619 (6/13) "Right and Wrong Reactions to the Tragic Massacre in Orlando"

"RIGHT AND WRONG REACTIONS TO THE TRAGIC MASSACRE IN ORLANDO" - Michael Brown  | Jun 13, 2016; http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2016/06/13/right-and-wrong-reactions-to-the-tragic-massacre-in-orlando-n2177104

  Shortly after the 9/11 terror attacks, my wife and I realized that her only brother, Douglas, used to work at the World Trade Center. Was it possible he was among the victims? Tragically, although he no longer worked there regularly, he was doing a trade show there that day and he perished along with 3,000 others, leaving behind a wife and two young children.

Four years ago, a graduate from our ministry school was assassinated by Islamic terrorists while serving in an impoverished Muslim community in the Middle East. He was like a spiritual son to us, and he also left behind a wife and two young children.

So, I write these words with pain and with empathy for the victims of this latest terror attack, the deadliest on our shores since 9/11. I also write these words knowing that these deaths will be politicized for better or worse in the coming days. How should we respond to this tragic carnage?

1. Our first response can only be shock, grief, and outrage. It doesn’t matter if these people were at a gay club or in an office building. They are fellow-human beings who were murdered in cold blood. Whether they were murdered in a straight bar, a sports stadium, or a park they were murdered nonetheless and without any justification.

If you tell me that the punishment for homosexual practice is death, I’ll tell you that the Bible prescribes the death penalty for all kinds of other sins practiced by Christians all the time (see Romans 1:29-32; the list includes gossip and envy). Now is not the time to point fingers.

A young woman who works in our ministry texted me moments ago. For a number of years she lived as a lesbian and often performed in that very nightclub. She wrote, “I think I’m in shock. I feel like some of my friends had to have been victims.” Yes, these were family members, friends, and co-workers, and before we politicize this massacre, we must grieve over it. May the Lord have mercy on the wounded and on the family members of those slain.

2. We must take Muslim terrorism even more seriously without condemning all Muslims. At Muhammad Ali’s funeral service, leftist rabbi Michael Lerner said, “We will not tolerate politicians or anyone else putting down Muslims and blaming Muslims for the actions of a few people.” A few people, as in perhaps 200-300 million Muslims worldwide who are sympathetic to radical Islam? A few people, as in the few responsible for the 28,576 deadly Islamic terror attacks since 9/11, including 60 in the first 7 days of Ramadan, resulting in 472 deaths?


Reports indicate that the Orlando murderer, Omar Mateen, “became a person of interest [to federal authorities] in 2013 and again in 2014,” and the FBI “at one point opened an investigation into Mateen but subsequently closed the case when it produced nothing that appeared to warrant further investigation.” Similarly, the San Bernardino killers were missed by federal authorities, resulting in another bloodbath.

At the same time, there are plenty of peace-loving Muslims in America who are not only appalled at this violence but who now fear for their own lives. Our response must be measured.

Whatever it takes, we must devote more energy and resources to rooting out Islamic terrorism from our land (perhaps Israel can help us with this?), even if it means making some Muslims uncomfortable. They, are on their part, can show their good will by working aggressively with American authorities to expose Islamic terror, while those who are not so forthcoming will thereby mark themselves for further scrutiny. At the same time, we cannot demonize all American Muslims.
Again, our response must be measured.

3. We must renounce all rhetoric that leads to violence without restricting freedom of speech. It is one thing to say, “You gay vermin deserve to die, and I’ve got a bullet waiting for you!” It’s another thing entirely to say, “I love you as my neighbor and I’m committed to your well-being, but I believe marriage is the union of a man and woman.”

Unfortunately, in a climate in which religious freedoms are already under serious attack, this terrible massacre could have a chilling effect, further restricting our freedoms, as God-fearing, people-loving Christians will be lumped together with radical, murderous Muslims. A Christian colleague of mine posted on Twitter, “Just read reports of the act of terrorism at the night club in #Orlando. I’m so grieved by this. Come Jesus.” Someone responded, “Your work creates a culture that dehumanizes us. That makes it easier for people to kill us. Don’t grieve, repent.”

You can expect comments much more intense than this in the coming days from political leaders, journalists, social media experts, and entertainers, as if Christians who renounce violence but who teach that homosexual practice is sinful in God’s sight were complicit in the slaughter of men and women in a gay bar.

Not surprisingly, someone posted on my Facebook page, “I blame YOU and people like you for the tragedy in Orlando. As of now, 50 people are dead, 53 injured, including at least one police officer, due to homophobia. And you, and your ilk spreading your messages of hate daily directly contribute to senseless tragedies like this. . . . SHAME ON YOU!” I responded, “You're attacking the wrong person. I get death threats and death wishes on a regular basis from the LGBT community, but I will continue to preach the love of God.”

Our words must be guided by truth and love. The recent guidelines passed by the European Commission in conjunction with Microsoft, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, while well-intended, could also have a dangerously restrictive effect, as they target “racism, xenophobia, and all forms of intolerance.” What exactly is meant by “all forms of intolerance”? As I’ve documented for years now, calls for “tolerance” often result in acts of extreme intolerance towards others.

4. We have an obvious gun problem in America, but gun free zones are not the solution. I personally don’t believe that when our Founders guaranteed our right to bear arms they envisioned our inner-cities being war zones and police being outgunned by criminals and terrorists. At the same time, as in many mass murders in America, the Orlando massacre was in a gun free zone. Is there some middle ground that can be found between the two positions? If we forget about our political viewpoint for a moment and simply talk about common-sense safety, is there no solution we can find? I am no expert in this area, but I have to believe that there is a better way.

Having said all this, let’s return to where we started. This is a time for mourning and pain. May God have mercy on America. We are a broken nation in need of massive restoration and repair.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Dr. Michael Brown (www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is The Grace Controversy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Obama’s Shameful Pivot to Gun Control After Orlando" - James Carafano / June 12, 2016; http://dailysignal.com/2016/06/12/obamas-shameful-pivot-to-gun-control-after-orlando/
"The Orlando Horror and Hard Truths" - Guy Benson Guy Benson |Jun 13, 2016; http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/06/13/the-hard-truth-radical-islamist-terrorists-hate-our-values-n2177032
" ... The difficult work of preventing future lethal strikes will be complex, uneven, and imperfect, but it at least demands the rejection of blinding self-delusion on the part of Western civilization.  So, America, in this highly-charged election year, here is what our values require of us.  They require conservative Christians to set aside longstanding and deep-seated political differences and stand in unflinching support of the precious humanity of gay people, who were deliberately and specifically singled out in this radical Islamist attack.  And they require liberal gay rights advocates, feminists, and their ideological allies to set aside their dogma of political correctness to condemn and fight -- free from hedging or hysterical equivalencies -- an implacable enemy, for whom the killing of LGBT individuals abroad and now here on our shores is a ghastly matter of course.  Confronted with this bloodthirsty evil, lovers of the freedom and security we cherish in America can and must make common cause.  We'll either join together to mount a staunch defense of the shared values that are under assault by radical Islamism, or we'll tear each other apart with petty, stupid recriminations.  This ongoing process will never be easy, and serious disagreements and thorny gray areas will undoubtedly arise along the way.  Let's grapple with them together, and strive to make the right choices -- while never losing sight of a mutual enemy whose monstrous inhumanity and fetishism of death must always unite us in our humanity and love of life."

#1618 (6/12) SUNDAY SPECIAL: "You Are Your Body - MATTER MATTERS IN A CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW"

"You Are Your Body - MATTER MATTERS IN A CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW" - By: John Stonestreet|Breakpoint.org: May 26, 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29321

How we view our bodies says a lot about our worldview. Are bodies something we merely “have” or are they core to who we are?

Every time I check the weather on my phone these days, I first have to watch an ad video from a local fertility clinic. The doctor asks, “Are you ready to have children, but your body is not?” And then he goes on to describe his services.

I find his question odd. Of course, wanting to have a child and not being able to is a terrible thing to experience. So I’m not questioning that at all. What I am questioning is the assumption behind his question—that we are somehow disconnected from our bodies. And that what we feel or want is superior to our physical realities.

This assumption, by the way, permeates all expressions of the sexual revolution these days: For example, think of the man who’s had an affair but says to his wife, “it just happened. She meant nothing to me,” as if his body’s desire, which meant everything during the act of adultery, wasn’t really his desire.

Or think of the young gender confused Christian who says, “I prayed that God would make me feel like a boy, but he didn’t, therefore I must be a girl.” But wait a minute, while it’s true that God may not have changed the young man’s feelings, He also didn’t change the young man’s genitalia. Why is a change of feelings relevant, but not a change of biological reality?

Or consider this example from an article authored recently by my Colson Center colleague Shane Morris, of the Christian who justifies watching smutty movies with sex and nudity by saying, “they’re just actors,” or “it advances the story.” But the actor’s body, even when they are in character, is still their real body. Just because the character is made up doesn’t change the fact that a real person is being exposed.

These example are just new expressions of an age old heresy—one of the first heresies, in fact, dealt with and condemned as such in the early church. Gnosticism divides reality between the physical and the spiritual. The spiritual is good, but physical matter is bad, or at least irrelevant. Gnostics within the Church taught that Jesus could not have really taken on physical flesh, because the physical is bad. He only appeared to be a man.

But the Church fathers saw this for the heresy that it was. If Jesus did not really have a body, who was crucified? And who rose from the dead? And how could he really be one who, in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin? Didn’t Paul say if Christ be not risen from the dead, our faith is pointless and we’re without hope?

Contrary to Gnosticism, Christianity does not teach that reality is divided between physical and spiritual. Christianity teaches reality is divided between creator and creation. Think of the creation of Adam. God forms man out of the dust of the ground—that’s physical—breathes into him the breath of life—that’s spiritual. And man becomes a living soul. We don’t have souls; we are souls. And to be a human soul is to be embodied. Our bodies are essential, not incidental, to our humanness.

And this goes to the heart of what for the ancient pagans was the most scandalous of Christian teachings: the resurrection of the body. Just as God raised Jesus’ body from the dead, He will someday raise our bodies, too. When Jesus says in John 6 that He will raise believers “up on the last day,” He’s talking about our bodies.  How our glorified, resurrected bodies will resemble our current bodies is a mystery. But we do know the disciples recognized Jesus after the resurrection, including the wounds of His crucifixion, even though he could pass through walls. As Paul says, our bodies will be sown as perishable, but raised imperishable.

Or, to quote R. C. Sproul, “For the Christian, redemption is of the body, not from the body.”

This has huge implications for our cultural moment. It’s no little irony that for years atheists accused Christians of being trapped in spiritual fantasy, living an esoteric myth, ignoring the “real world.” But all along and still today, we’re the ones saying the physical world, especially when it comes to our bodies, truly matters.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - The importance of the body is apparent by the fact that Christ came in the likeness of men, living within the reality of a physical body just like we do. As John mentioned, our bodies will be redeemed; they do matter.

"Our Bodies, Our Destinies: Jesus’ Resurrection and Ours" - Eric Metaxas | BreakPoint | March 18, 2013; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/breakpoint-commentaries-search/entry/13/21723

"The Origin of the Soul " - R. C. Sproul | Ligonier Ministries; http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/the-origin-of-the-soul/
"A Glorified Body: The Necessity of Our Resurrection" - John MacArthur | Grace to You | July 1, 2013;http://www.gty.org/blog/B130701/a-glorified-body-the-necessity-of-our-resurrection

#1617 (6/11) PRO-LIFE SAT - " Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards Promotes Margaret Sanger in Commencement

"PLANNED PARENTHOOD CEO CECILE RICHARDS PROMOTES MARGARET SANGER IN COMMENCEMENT SPEECH - Micaiah Bilger, May 20, 2016 | http://www.lifenews.com/2016/05/20/planned-parenthood-ceo-cecile-richards-promotes-margaret-sanger-in-commencement-speech/

Through her job, Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards arguably has prevent more young people from graduating college – or even going to college – than most. Her business aborts more than 300,000 unborn babies each year, more than any other group in the U.S.

Ironically, however, Richards was invited to give the commencement address to the graduating class of the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health on Tuesday. Teen Vogue gave a glowing report of Richards’ remarks to the graduates. The piece never mentioned abortion or the Congressional investigation into whether Planned Parenthood illegally profited off the sale of aborted baby parts. Instead, it allowed Richards to paint her abortion business as a caring, compassionate women’s health care provider, and to encourage the graduates to become abortion activists.

Richards’ key piece of advice to the students was “Get in trouble,” the magazine reported: No, Richards didn’t telling the public health students to go rob a bank. Rather, she instructed that disrupting the status quo to make the world a better place, “100 percent means there are times you are extremely unpopular.” Just take Planned Parenthood, which helps 2.5 million women and men receive affordable and sometimes life-saving health care a year, as an example.

“We started 100 years ago when a young nurse named Margaret Sanger… hand[ed] out pamphlets about how to prevent pregnancy — which was completely illegal,” Richards told the 600 graduates. “The great thing is, she was busted by an undercover cop posing as a mother. She was carted off to jail where she taught her fellow inmates about birth control. And a movement was born! Yes, it takes time. Yes, there are setbacks. But it is worth the fight!” Although half of the United States is currently trying to shut down Planned Parenthood, Richards said, “Ironically, in the face of the attacks on reproductive health care, we have seen a resurgence of activism and it is heartening!”

Calling Planned Parenthood a life-saver and its founder Margaret Sanger a heroine are deceptive. Sanger was a eugenicist who began promoting birth control because she believed in eliminating certain groups of people with less desirable qualities.

Sanger wrote in Pivot of Civilization, “They are … human weeds, reckless breeders, spawning … human beings who never should have been born.” She routinely advocated for sterilization and segregation of minorities, the sick and disabled and once spoke to the Ku Klux Klan. In a 1934 interview with America Weekly, Sanger even advocated for a government system similar to China’s brutal one-child policy, saying it has “become necessary to establish a system of birth permits.”

Of course, Richards did not mention any of this to the Columbia graduates. Nor did she mention how Planned Parenthood’s business model is all about making a profit off abortions, as former employees have exposed. Richards also left out how Sanger’s eugenic mission lives on at Planned Parenthood today. The abortion giant continues to target poor and minority women and their unborn babies for abortions, placing 79 percent of its abortion facilities in minority neighborhoods, according to a study by Protecting Black Life.

This is the kind of “trouble” that most Americans don’t want, but it’s the kind that Richards and Planned Parenthood are deceptively promoting to this year’s college graduates.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

#1616 (6/10) "Pentagon Fishes For Rainbow Clout"

"PENTAGON FISHES FOR RAINBOW CLOUT" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, June 09, 2016; http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA16F18&f=WU16F06

It probably feels like every day is "gay pride day" in the Obama military, but yesterday [6/8], it came with cake. In the big courtyard inside the Pentagon's five rings, the Obama administration continued the five-year rainbow parade it started with the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." As part of June's LGBT month, Secretary Ray Mabus tried to persuade people what the research doesn't: that sexualizing the military is the greatest thing to happen to America's force.

In direct defiance to the quantifiable data on suicide, retention, recruitment, morale, job dissatisfaction, and sexual assault, Mabus argued that anyone who opposed open homosexuality in the ranks (which most military leaders did) is "exactly the same flawed logic as those who had earlier opposed racial integration or gender integration, claiming that policies of inclusion would erode the war fighting capabilities of the United States. That's a suggestion that is not only an insult to the professionalism of our armed forces, but it undermines our core values as service men and women and as Americans."

Like the commander-in-chief, Mabus brushed by the internal crises and tried to paint a rosy picture of a military on the brink. Just as planes and carriers are falling apart, so too is the unity that was once the hallmark of U.S. Forces. But instead of addressing those concerns, the president's political appointee spent most of yesterday's event glossing over the major fallouts of the White House's social engineering. "When we faced racial integration, when we integrated women into the service, when we repealed 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' every time those changes were proposed -- every time! -- there were naysayers saying the force would be weakened and unit morale would be decreased. And yet the Navy, the Marines, the Army, the Air Force, the Coast Guard are the most powerful forces in the world today..." The president tried the same spin last week at the Air Force Academy. Unfortunately for both of them, ignoring the facts doesn't make them go away.

The administration likes to say, as Mabus implied Wednesday, that "discriminate" has no place in America's armed forces. Tell that to Christians, who are being shown the door the Pentagon opened to LGBT activists. Marginalizing faith has serious long-term consequences, as we learned 50 years ago in the public schools. Now the same thing is happening in the military, and what's the result? We're celebrating gay pride at the expense of American pride. And five years into this radical experiment, very few of our brave men and women would say that it's been a positive one. Certainly not the 6,083 victims of sexual assault in 2015 -- many of whom were men. "Declaring such behavior 'normal' may work for the political cowards in Washington and Hollywood," Lt. Colonel (Ret) Bob Maginnis told the Washington Times, "but fails the straight-face test in Middle America."

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

#1615 (6/9) "Fundamentally Trans Forming the Military"

"FUNDAMENTALLY TRANS FORMING THE  MILITARY" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, June 07, 2016; http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA16F15&f=WU16F05

When the Obama Pentagon celebrates LGBT pride [yesterday, 7/8], the Left was hoping it would have something to announce. Unfortunately for the president, his transgender agenda is just as unpopular with military leaders (maybe more so!) as it is with the rest of America. Stories are already buzzing at the enormous friction inside the building's five rings when it comes to rolling out the red carpet to the clinically unstable men and women.

After putting the policy on the fast-track for repeal last July, Secretary Ash Carter is increasingly frustrated that the Defense Department won't just get on board with this latest sexual revolution. His six-month study was supposed to be completed by January, at which point, it was almost a foregone conclusion that the branches would begin implementing one of the last pieces of President Obama's radical agenda. Like most of us, the military has had five years to see the effects of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal -- and they aren't exactly flattering ones. With military sexual assaults and suicides through the roof, leaders have serious concerns about multiplying those problems.

Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James, one of the first to call for the integration of the gender confused, tried to sidestep the heated debate in a conversation with the media. "I think the review on the transgender policy should be complete within the next few months would be my best guess. It's proceeding. These are somewhat complex issues, and by the way, I am certain that the policy is going to change. I'm certain that transgenders will be allowed to serve in a more open way." Reporters pressed more, asking if there were strong objections within the service to the idea. "Do you get a sense that there's reaction against allowing transgender troops to serve openly?" one asked. Lee James treaded carefully. "Again, there's differing opinions on this, but I think the piece of this -- which the one that is under the greatest review and discussion at the moment -- is the accession of new people who are transgenders. How do we do that? How do we approach that? That's the piece that is the final piece that we're trying to get right." Later, Pentagon spokesman Peter Coko tried to dodge the policy's opposition. "There have been a range of -- I'm not going to get into private deliberations... but the secretary challenged people within the department ... to try and resolve this issue."

Of course, as FRC has argued time and time again, the military is not about self-actualization. It's about fighting and winning wars. Does the integration of men and women confused about their gender make us better prepared to defend our nation? If the answer is no, why are we even considering it? As FRC's Lt. General Jerry Boykin (U.S. Army-Ret.) says, warfare is not fair. The military has always excluded people who don't meet their mental and physical requirements. Just because you want to serve in the military doesn't mean you're qualified to do so. There's no "right" to join the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, or Coast Guard. Every day, the military turns down people who have health problems or vision problems -- people who are overweight or too small. The goal is to have the strongest, most elite military in the world. If these men and women are confused about their gender, what's to keep them from being confused about their mission?

What's worse, General Boykin points out, is that by opening the doors to people who identify as transgendered, the military is creating a protected class. In a sexually-charged environment like the Obama military, the pressure to give special treatment to these confused men and women will be enormous. It will be far tougher for commanders to discipline or fairly evaluate them, since they'll be increasingly worried about discrimination complaints and other distractions. The military should be a place where everyone is equal. That's how you create the brotherhood necessary to build unit cohesion. Decisions like this tear at the very fabric of that brotherhood -- threatening, not just the security of our troops, but the country's as well. 

 As the president rushes to finish his fundamental transformation of America, this is where Congress needs to step in and stop him.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

#1614 (6/8) "Disability Advocates React to ‘Me Before You’: ‘Our Suicides’ Are ‘Tragedies’"

"DISABILITY ADVOCATES REACT TO 'ME BEFORE YOU':'OUR SUICIDES ARE TRAGEDIES'" - Leah Jessen / June 03, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/06/03/disability-advocates-react-to-me-before-you-our-suicides-are-tragedies/

Will Traynor, played by Sam Claflin, became quadriplegic after a traffic accident in the movie "Me Before You." (Photo: LILO/SIPA/Newscom)

Note: major movie spoiler alert. The lead, disabled character in the newly released movie “Me Before You” chooses to end his life, leaving the newfound love of his life instructions to “live boldly” and encourages her to live well.

“‘Me Before You’ literally romanticizes a death wish,” Tom Shakely, executive director of the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network, told The Daily Signal. “And it romanticizes Dignitas, a Swiss death clinic that, if it were offering its lethal drugs to prison inmates, would be universally condemned for its lack of a hopeful approach to remediate personal challenge and suffering.”

“Me Before You” is an adaptation of Jojo Moyes’s fictional book by the same name. In the film, Will Traynor, played by Sam Claflin, became quadriplegic after a traffic accident. The movie depicts 30-some-year-old Traynor confined to a wheelchair, paralyzed from the chest down. Traynor, despite the wishes of his mother and his caretaker (turned very special friend) Louisa “Lou” Clark, played by Emilia Clarke, decides to go through with his intention to die.

“The film asks and answers its own question in the affirmative: Wouldn’t life be better if you were dead?” Shakely said. “This is fatalism as raw material, and if we let romanticism about a foreign death clinic influence our notion of human rights, we’ll have created a much darker world than the one we were born into. Does it feel right to treat suicide as medical care?”

Pro-life activist Stephanie Gray wrote about the book on her blog:
     When she [Louisa] learns that the parents have agreed to assist Will in his suicide in 6 months’ time, she quits because she doesn’t want to be part of killing. …Then she decides to return to work, realizing she can spend the next few months trying to make Will’s life as incredible as possible so he doesn’t choose suicide. …Then she takes Will on a life-creating and spirit-building vacation and tells him she wants to devote her life to loving and serving him, but he refuses saying he still plans to commit suicide, so she cuts him off in a decision to remove herself from the killing. …But then it all goes downhill.“Almost every single character caves,” Gray wrote. “They all encourage, facilitate, or are actually present at Will’s suicide the way he wants it.” The one character in the movie who does not “cave,” Louisa’s mother, encouraged her daughter not to be present when Traynor dies. Lou did not listen to her mother.

John Kelly is the New England regional director of Not Dead Yet, a disability rights group that opposes legalization of assisted suicide. He has the same level of spinal cord injury as Traynor’s character, but said that he and other quadriplegics are better off alive than dead.
     “Book and screenplay author JoJo Moyes admits she knows nothing about quadriplegics, yet her ignorance is allowed to promote the idea that people like me are better off dead,” Kelly said in a press release. “We are not ‘burdens’ whose best option is to commit suicide. No one’s suicide should be treated noble and inspirational. We reject this discrimination. Our suicides should be viewed as tragedies like anyone else’s.”

Ben Mattlin, who was born with spinal muscular atrophy, wrote in an op-ed for the Chicago Tribune: "Make no mistake: Quadriplegia is hard, and it can be tempting to give up. Like Will Traynor, the paralyzed heartthrob in the movie (played by nondisabled actor Sam Claflin), I rely on constant assistance from paid aides and family members. It’s nearly impossible to find a job, let alone a restaurant or store without steps or with an accessible restroom. It’s a good thing I’m positively bursting with self-confidence and know I do want my life to continue. But how many of those who are struggling to maintain self-esteem, who feel unsure of their right to exist, possess the courage and sheer chutzpah to withstand the invidious message that they’re better off dead?"

Disability advocates and anti-euthanasia groups have criticized, protested, and urged their supporters to boycott the film, released for a general audience in the United States on June 3.
     “Our society places a high value on physical appearance and ability and at the same time really stigmatizes significant disability,” Kelly Buckland, executive director of the National Council on Independent Living, said in a press release. Buckland is a spinal cord injured husband and father. “We understand what it means to deal with issues like the loss of one’s former dreams as well as the loss of physical abilities,” Buckland said. “When someone is first hit with this, they may spend time feeling that they’d be better off dead. If assisted suicide had been legal in the past, many of us would not be here today.”

Currently, Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Vermont allow doctors to offer prescription medication to mentally sound, terminally ill patients to kill them. California will join these states June 9, when California’s End of Life Option Act goes into effect.
     “We need people to distinguish between euthanasia, which is illegal throughout the U.S., and medical aid in dying, which is available in Oregon and four other states,” Charmaine Manansala, political director for Compassion & Choices, an organization that advocates for medical aid in dying, said in a statement provided to The Daily Signal. Manansala has been living with multiple sclerosis for 15 years. Manansala added: "Medical aid in dying is not for people with disabilities—unless they are also terminally ill. I myself live with MS and I wouldn’t be advocating for aid-in-dying laws if they were for people like Will Traynor’s character in ‘Me Before You.’"

Katie Driscoll, president of Changing the Face of Beauty, an organization that aims to empower people with disability by advocating for inclusive imagery, brings up another point. “Media has such a strong influential voice on the perceptions of our society and this movie seems to communicate that people with disabilities are a burden,” Driscoll told The Daily Signal. “I would definitely rather see more positive examples of the disability community in entertainment, but to be honest, the biggest concern I have is the casting of an able-bodied actor portraying a character who is paralyzed. There are so few roles available to the disability community, why wasn’t this role given to an actor who is paralyzed?”

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Leah Jessen is a news reporter for The Daily Signal and graduate of The Heritage Foundation's Young Leaders Program. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 “Me Before You” Movie: “Why Do You Want Me Dead?”" - Micaiah Bilger, Jun 6, 2016;
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/06/06/11-year-old-wheelchair-athlete-slams-me-before-you-movie-why-do-you-want-me-dead/
"‘Me Before You’ Reveals the Decline of Hollywood’s Imagination" - Katrina Trinko / June 07, 2016;http://dailysignal.com/2016/06/07/me-before-you-reveals-the-decline-of-hollywoods-imagination/ ...
"The Culture of Death's Love Story?" - Brent Bozell Brent Bozell |Posted: Jun 10, 2016; http://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/2016/06/10/the-culture-of-deaths-love-story-n2176352
"‘Me Before You’ - PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES AREN’T BETTER OFF DEAD" - By: John Stonestreet| Breakpoint.org: June 10, 2016;
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29399 - "...Ella, a world wheelchair-skating champion, doesn’t let her disability slow her down. And she understands why suicide is no less tragic for the disabled than it is for the able-bodied:“I believe we are all made in [God’s] image and likeness,” she writes. “…if our value comes from God, then nobody has the right to say someone who walks is worth more than someone who doesn’t.”