True Colors

Who would have thought that an important role
in defending liberty and the family would be played by
. . . chicken sandwiches?

In the vanguard of modern culture's assault on the institutions of marriage and family is the small (only four percent of adult Americans) but vocal group of people who identify themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender, together with their activist allies in the political, media, academic, and entertainment spheres. Due to the wealth and prominence in high social circles many of them enjoy, and their proximity to the levers of cultural and political power, the gay community wields an influence in our society out of all proportion to their numbers--and despite the adherence of most Americans to traditional standards. This can be credited in no small measure to their tactic, in recent years, of characterizing their cause as one for tolerance and justice--things generally acknowledged as good--and against hatred and abuse--things everyone regards as bad. In their crusade to undermine Judeo-Christian values in public and private life, they have staked out what they believe is the moral high ground, or at least what passes for it today, and--with the help of an eagerly compliant media establishment--have been wrapped in the aura and the rhetoric of the African-American civil rights movement. The recent controversy surrounding national fast-food chain Chick-Fil-A, however, exposed for all to see just how misleading that posture is.

It all began in early July when the company's president and COO Dan Cathy, son of its founder S. Truett Cathy, was interviewed by the Christian news organization Biblical Recorder and answered a question about the company's support of the traditional family.  "We are very much supportive of the family—the biblical definition of the family unit," Cathy said. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives.  We give God thanks for that. … We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families." If you read the full interview (reprinted by the Baptist Press) you'll see that Cathy was never asked and never brought up the subjects of homosexuality or "same-sex marriage"; his remarks concerned exclusively how the company works to strengthen family life in general and that of its patrons and employees. Cathy said later in a radio interview that, “as it relates to society in general, I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’ . . . I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about.”

 Dan Cathy, President of Chick-Fil-A

None of these remarks included a condemnation of gay people personally, advocated their mistreatment, or purported to be a statement of official Chick-Fil-A policy. Nevertheless, they were seized upon by gay leaders and the mainstream media, and twisted into a corporate declaration of war against them (several commentators have noted CNN's overt mischaracterization of the original interview as having mentioned "gay marriage"). Almost immediately the Jim Henson Company, which created toys for the chain, backed out of the partnership and pledged to donate money the company had received from Chick-fil-A to a gay rights organization.

Predictably, grandstanding politicians sought to capitalize on the gay community's "outrage."  Without any evidence that Chick-Fil-A refuses either service or employment to gays, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino sent Dan Cathy a letter accusing the company of "discrimination" and warning that its efforts to locate in that city would be resisted by local authorities. San Francisco mayor Ed Lee tweeted: "Closest Chick-fil-A is 40 miles away and I strongly recommend they not try to come any closer."  Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel declared that Chick-fil-A did not represent "Chicago values," and voiced support for a city alderman's intent to block construction of a Chick-fil-A restaurant in his district. Another alderman demanded that Mr. Cathy stop associating with groups that oppose same-sex marriage as a prerequisite for a business permit, and a councilman in New York made a similar threat.  Some college students even launched a campaign for the closure of Chick-fil-A restaurants on their campuses.

This assault on freedom of speech and commerce prompted quick, loud, and suprisingly universal condemnation in newspaper and magazine editorials around the country (google "Chick-Fil-A editorials"), and even by some gay bloggers. It moved former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to call for Americans to stand with Dan Cathy and his company by patronizing his stores on "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day," Aug. 1. In response, millions of people flocked to Chick-fil-A outlets that day, enjoying their chicken sandwiches and waffle fries as a way to show support for the restaurant and for the freedom to express Biblical values. Most stores were packed and in many waiting lines snaked out the door; in some, the food ran out well before closing time. Chick-fil-A sales that day beat previous records by as much as 50 percent, and it has been estimated that the chain booked almost $100 million in sales in just one day. The controversy bought Chick-Fil-A more free, positive publicity than it could have ever purchased with money.

Perhaps stung by the unexpected outpouring of support for their foe, gay allies vandalized a Chick-Fil-A store in Torrance, California by spray-painting "Tastes Like Hate" on the side of the building, and bullied a Chick-Fil-A employee at a drive-through window. The young lady later publicly forgave the man who had berated her.



Several days later the gay community tried to mount a demonstration of support for its cause at Chick-Fil-A stores, in the form of a "kiss-in" featuring same-sex couples publicly smooching. It was sparsely attended, and barely registered as compared to traditional marriage proponents' Appreciation Day.

On top of all this, on August 15, one Floyd Lee Corkins II, a strong supporter of gay rights who worked at a Washington, D.C. community center for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, entered the headquarters building of the conservative Family Research Council--which has steadfastly supported the president of Chick-Fil-A and his opposition to same-sex marriage--and shot a security guard after stating, "I don't like your politics," or words to that effect.  At the time he was carrying a backpack full of Chick-fil-A sandwiches. After the wounded guard took away his gun, Corkins said,"Don't shoot me, it was not about you, it was what this place stands for."

In a nutshell, the whole Chick-Fil-A affair has turned out badly for the gay community and its allies. Their "leaders," especially the politicians, did them a great disservice through their intolerance and "bullying"--the very sins of which they accuse people of faith. This, and their effort to demonize and punish any differing viewpoint or speaker, have exposed gay activists as would-be brownshirts--the nickname for SA street thugs in Nazi Germany who intimidated Jews and socialists (and homosexuals, coincidentally), and enforced boycotts against Jewish-owned businesses. This doesn't look much like Martin Luther King and his civil rights hosts peacefully marching and singing "We Shall Overcome."

At the heart of gay activists' problem is their own program to equate, in the public mind, Biblical faith and traditional moral and family values, on the one hand, with "bigotry," "intolerance," and "hatred" on the other. These words, of course, are now deeply associated in the American consciousness with racial prejudice and discrimination--things generally understood in civilized society as contemptible, illegitimate, and even illegal.  For one who accepts this equivalence, even unconsciously, it follows that such faith and values--especially with respect to the definition of marriage, the gay cause de jour--are likewise beyond the pale and socially unacceptable. For the same reasons, anyone who adheres to or expresses agreement with such faith and values is necessarily a bigot or "homophobe," today's version of a "racist."  The clear intent in popularizing these notions is to delegitimize Biblical concepts of morality and family, and those who espouse them, thereby undermining their political influence and encouraging their banishment from public life. By this means the public is "softened up" to accept gay marriage and behavior as entitled to at least equal dignity within society and before the law, and removes political roadblocks to implementation of the activist gay agenda. It also serves to wear down resistance among Christians themselves. No one wants to be thought of or publicly denounced as hateful and abusive toward others, or associated with those who are; certainly not serious, reflective Christians. So they relent, through a combination of guilt feelings and social intimidation, and buy into the concept that a Christian acceptance of gays as people must carry with it acceptance of their activist leaders' political and social demands.

Notwithstanding the success of this program for activist gays and their allies in some parts of the country, the Chick-Fil-A controversy has shown its very serious flaws. One is that the activists' heavy-handed tactics have prompted a backlash by millions of religious believers fed up with being painted as hateful and equivalent to racists, and fearful that, unless they forcefully respond, their beliefs, values, and freedoms will be suffocated to death by the new "religion" of political correctness. Politicians and policy-makers cannot ignore the vast numbers in which believers turned out to support Dan Cathy and Chick-Fil-A, or the increasingly united front that people from diverse faith traditions are presenting to exert their influence and expound their common principles through such efforts as the Manhattan Declaration.

Those same demonize-and-punish tactics exemplified in the Chick-Fil-A affair also tended to paint gays and their allies as enemies of free speech. Citizens and commentators theretofore ambivalent about same-sex marriage, or even generally in favor of it, were brought out in support of Dan Cathy's and other believers' constitutional right to express their views without government retaliation. In this respect the gay community should take a lesson from history: in the 1830s- and -40s, many thousands of people in the northern United States, who had been indifferent to slavery or even sympathetic to Southern interests, were won over to the abolitionist cause when hostile mobs in the North, egged on by local politicians and civic leaders, invaded churches, assaulted abolitionist speakers, and trashed or tried to shut down businesses owned by abolitionists or free blacks. Many thousands more fence-sitters rallied to the abolitionist cause after 1850 when the new Fugitive Slave Law authorized federal officers to force any citizen, anywhere in the country and regardless of his convictions about slavery, to help capture and re-enslave runaway bondsmen. As one historian observed, "[w]hites who wavered on the question of abolition could be drawn to [its] support . . . if they became convinced that the long arm of slavery was reaching into their personal lives, whether by mob action, economic threat, free speech and free assembly restrictions, opposition in churches, or denial of the right to petition the government." [Milton C. Sernett, North Star Country: Upstate New York and the Crusade for African American Freedom, p. 52 (Syracuse University Press, 2002)]

Moreover, the demonization of Biblical views about marriage and family has so corrupted the thinking of political leaders, some of them sporting law degrees, that they failed to appreciate the foolishness of making plainly unconstitutional threats against a legal business merely because its owner expressed opinions with which they disagreed--threats from which they were soon forced to retreat in confusion. If they thought it was the right thing to bar Chick-Fil-A from Chicago or Boston because its owner's relgious views were inconsistent with local "values," were they going to then going to expel from their cities the Roman Catholic, Mormon, evangelical Christian, orthodox Jewish, and other religious organizations and their members, or businesses associated with them, because their beliefs and opinions are consistent with those of Chick-Fil-A's owner?  Would they start burning Bibles? Again, this resembles less a civil rights crusade than the portent of a modern-day Kristallnacht (the night in 1938 when Nazi brownshirts attacked Jewish-owned stores, buildings, and synagogues).

Open and honest debate about marriage and family issues, and their just resolution through democratic processes, are impossible to the extent either side tries to gain political advantage by demonizing the other and discouraging or obstructing the free expression of its views. If either seeks the moral high ground, it must accord people who hold different beliefs as much tolerance, respect, and acceptance as they demand for themselves. Religious believers and others who oppose the "gay agenda" should remember that most gays are not fanatical activists but people just trying to live their lives, and learn to interact with them in the respectful, considerate way they would like others to treat them. They should accept gays as fellow children of God, errant though they may be, and refrain from speaking to or about them in contemptuous epithets. And, if believers are to be credible and persuasive advocates for Judeo-Christian family values, they must condemn and avoid heterosexual misbehavior (including adultery and pornography) at least as forcefully as they do homosexual conduct. For their part, gays must respect others' right to express views different from, and even contrary to, their own. They need to accept that one can disapprove of their behavior or lifestyle, or or oppose their political agenda, without being a bigot--and can even accept them as people.

And, everyone needs to acknowledge that the defense of traditional marriage and family life, against efforts to redefine them for the benefit of gays or any special interest group, is a legitimate point of view backed by thousands of years of teaching and social experience in all cultures--not an expression of hate justifying its demonization. Dressing up suppression of this point of view in the guise of a crusade for "civil" or "human" rights is simply a perversion of those terms, and won't change the fact that it is as least as much bigotry as is "homophobia."

POSTSCRIPT:  On a short road trip this past weekend, my family was privileged to have lunch at a Chick-Fil-A near Cleveland, Ohio--our first visit to one (living in Western New York, the closest stores to us are in Erie and Scranton, PA). What a marvelous experience! The store was clean and nicely decorated; the food was hot and delicious; and the staff was incredibly helpful and friendly. They came around repeatedly and filled our water cups, even though we hadn't even paid for the drinks!  The wall decorations included boards that explained the company's charitable, leadership, and family-building programs. The manager was floating about helping the staff with various chores, and he chatted with us for several minutes (and gave us a small bag of their scrumptious barbecue sauce packets to take home). If you've never visited a Chick-Fil-A, give them a try next time you're near one!

Sarah and Todd Palin at Chick-Fil-A

MORE FUN:  Think that one-man/one-woman marriage, and the freedom to advocate it, is an exclusively Christian matter?  These things are also important to conservative and orthodox Jews, as demonstrated by this delightfully tongue-in-cheek article by rabbi and businessman Yaakov Rosenblatt called My Beef With Chick-fil-A.

Book Review: The Miracle of Freedom

Individual freedom, democracy, and the rule of law are under wider assault in the West, including the USA, than at any time since at least World War II. In Europe, especially the United Kingdom (formerly known as "Great" Britain), an irresistible tide of political correctness has led to the suffocation of personal freedom under national and local laws "protecting" (read: promoting) favored interest groups such as homosexuals and atheists, as well as to a paralysis of police and the courts to deal effectively with mobs of "protesters" and a horde of immigrants demanding the adoption of "sharia law." In the United States, we have a federal administration bent on seizing and expending (directly and indirectly) unprecedented, ever-growing amounts of private wealth; requiring individual citizens to purchase products and services they do not want; extending government surveillance and control to every aspect of citizens' lives; declaring and implementing its own policies through executive order regardless of Congressional will; and going to war against the states to prevent them from dealing with critical problems of immigration, health care, environmental control, education, and threats to the family such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

These developments would be more actively resisted if citizens better appreciated how dearly bought, and how fragile and fleeting, freedom and democracy have been in history. Providing that awareness is the mission of authors Chris and Ted Stewart in their recent book The Miracle of Freedom: Seven Tipping Points That Saved the World (available from publisher Deseret Books and from Amazon.com, among other outlets). Released in June, 20011, the book has been as high as to No. 2 on Amazon's best-selling list and reached No. 11 on the New York Times' Top 25 best-selling nonfiction and e-book lists.

According to the authors, less than 5 percent of all people who have ever lived on the earth (and most of those being persons who are still alive today) have lived under conditions that today could be considered “free.” The "miracle" is that there have even been that many, given the terrible weight of flawed human nature throughout history.

The authors define "freedom and democracy" according to the following five criteria: self-government; fundamental rights; equal dignity and opportunity of persons; commitment to justice; and commitment to the rule of law. The authors then discern from the human record a series of critical events or "forks in the road" that, had they happened differently or not at all, would or could have resulted in the extinction of any hope that the ideals of freedom and self-government might be realized.

• The defeat of the Assyrians in their quest to destroy the kingdom of Judah
• The victory of the Greeks over the Persians at Thermopylae and Salamis
• Roman Emperor Constantine’s conversion to Christianity
• The defeat of the armies of Islam at Poitiers
• The failure of the Mongols in their effort to conquer Europe
• The discovery of the New World
• The Battle of Britain in World War II

The book describes and analyzes these events, each chapter accompanied by a fictionalized but well-written and engaging "you are there" portrait of individuals at the time--most of them common people--who might have participated in or been immediately affected by these events. In addition to a concise narration of what transpired, each chapter explores what led up to and resulted from the event, and how the future of human liberty would have been changed--or snuffed out altogether--had the outcome been different. Some of these positive outcomes were fantastically improbable, such as the survival of Judah against the Assyrian onslaught, the Greeks' defeat of the Persian hosts at Thermopylae and Salamis, and even Britain's triumph against the mighty Luftwaffe in 1941-1942. As the authors observe, "Many of these critical forks in the road occurred thousands of years before the event would bear the fruit of freedom. Some have happened in modern day. All of them were necessary for the world to enjoy the sudden expansion of free governments that we see today."

Chris and Ted Stewart

The authors' selection of these historical "tipping points" seems driven by the correct premise that the concepts of freedom and democracy--as they came down to us over the generations and as we understand and enjoy them today--sprang from the marriage of Judaic theology and Greek philosophy. Thus, the extinction of those early civilizations or of their successors in Europe would have prevented the survival and realization of these ideals in modern times. Inevitably, minds clouded by conventional and politically-correct views will complain that historical Judaism and Christianity bred regimes that made endless war and often cruelly oppressed, rather than liberated, individuals (free-thinkers, women, and homosexuals, for example) and colonial peoples as well as their own. The authors of Miracle of Freedom do not dispute the guilt of those Western "leaders" who perverted Judeo-Christian principles to serve selfish ends, but stress that the fault lay not with the principles themselves, or with the cultures that spawned them, but with the inescapable flaws of human nature:

[T]hough they may seek to represent the ideal, no nation or institution is ever pefect. All cultures and religious institutions are occupied by mere mortals, making them subject to all the frailties of men. And the simple fact that they do seek the ideal, ironically, opens them up to charges of hypocrisy and scorn. Second, often these are not only multigenerational but multimillenial institutions. Their stories may stretch over thousands of years. During the passing of so many centuries, every nation or institution will have its ups and downs, experiencing high points of moral leadership, but low points of decadence as well.

This being the case, wouldn't it be unfair--and historically inaccurate--to judge a nation or institution on only one episode in its history or during one particular span of time?

In our story, we also have to recognize the difference between the leaders or members of the Christian faith and Christian doctrine. The shortcomings of one may not accurately reflect the value of the other. Indeed, history shows that there have been times when the teachings of Christianity remained an ally to the development of freedom even when the Christian church did not.

Reading The Miracle of Freedom, one is struck by how improbable was the birth, survival, and eventual flourishing of freedom and self-government; how long that process took; how much it owed to the heroism and self-sacrifice of a relative few individuals; and how fragile those ideals are in a world ever tending to corruption and madness. As Mssrs. Stewart point out:

[D]emocracy and freedom are very fleeting—they can be possessed and then lost. A nation might be democratic for a period of time and then, through spasms of internal strife or war, revert to despotism. Over the past 225 years this has been shown again and again to be true, the tides of democracy causing many nations to sample and then lose the great gifts of freedom and democracy. The experience of Germany prior to World War I, immediately thereafter, and then during the reign of Hitler is a graphic example of this truth.
****
For those of us living in the United States, a nation that has experienced more than two hundred years of unparalleled liberty, it is easy to take for granted the extraordinary gifts we have been given. And for most of us, it is much easier to become lackadaisical about these gifts than it is for the inhabitants of other nations who are forced to struggle every day in their battle for liberty. In fact, unless we are serious students of world history, or have traveled extensively, we might not recognize how unique the blessings of liberty actually are.

We should all remember this lesson, in this time of grave peril to liberty here in the USA and around the world.

The Miracle of Freedom is written with the common person, not the professional historian, in mind (though it certainly can appeal to the latter). Most of it reads more like a historical novel than an analytical text. It is an absorbing and highly informative work, and would make an excellent Christmas or Hanukkah gift.

"Christian" Terrorism?

It's been almost two weeks since Anders Behring Breivik blew up a government building in Oslo, Norway and then went to nearby Utøya Island dressed as a police officer and fatally shot 69 people, most of them teenagers, at a Norwegian Labour Party youth camp. I caught the story early on the Internet, and became sick with horror and sadness as it unfolded. How could any thinking, feeling person do such a thing? How could someone coolly shoot down children, some face-to-face and others as they begged for their lives or tried desperately to run or swim away? Is there no limit to human depravity?

Well, it seems depravity has its echo in the cynical opportunism of those who would exploit a tragedy to serve their own political and social agenda--in this case "liberal" commentators and and the mainstream media. As soon as Breivik was arrested and the first details of his background emerged, the media were referring to him as a "Christian fundamentalist" and continued to do so even even after Breivik's own writings on the Internet ("2083: A European Declaration of Independence"), in which he denied that he was a religious person and disclaimed any personal relationship with God or Jesus Christ, became widely known and available. (Unfunny) comedian Bill Maher insisted on his TV show that Breivik is a "Christian terrorist." Other commentators, including Sally Quinn and Mark Juergensmeyer, support this characterization.

Why are these people--most of whom are at least skeptical of any religion and particularly of Christianity, or (like Maher) are downright hostile to it--pushing this line with such enthusiasm? And why does the mainstream media continue the drumbeat as though Breivik's Christian identity was a self-evident, universally recognized fact? Columnist Ed Stetzer offers this explanation for why juxtaposing the terms "Christian" and "terrorist" appeals so to media types and left-leaners:

1. Many in the media have deep suspicions about what they call "fundamentalism." They do not understand these strange people and are afraid of what they might do. . . .

2. Some desire to create a moral equivalence. There are Muslim fundamentalists and they are bad. There must be Christian fundamentalists who are equally bad.

3. Many believe that Christian fundamentalists are just a moment away from violence. . . .

A narrative is being fashioned about conservative Christians (and to the media, just about all evangelicals would be very conservative). That narrative is that they are simple, angry, persecute gays, cling to God and guns, and are close to violence at any moment.

The opinions of these people might be readily dismissed if it weren't for their considerable (if baleful) influence on public opinion and government, and the potential for their views to mislead and discourage many from finding God. So, the things they say should not go unanswered.

Is there any basis for the suggestion that Anders Breivik is a "Christian"? One commentator notes in Breivik's "manifesto" an assertion that he believes in Christianity "as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform," which he says "makes [me] Christian." But he also stated that " . . . you don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter))." In addition, Breivik declared: "I’m not going to pretend I’m a very religious person as that would be a lie. I’ve always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment."

Thus, Breivik's own writings make clear that he is not a spiritual Christian at all, but sees Christianity in abstract intellectual terms only, as the historical and social underpinning of a culture he claims to value and wishes to defend against the onslaught of an alien culture (Islam). He fancies himself a Knight Templar, flashes the Templar Cross, and wants to start a modern-day crusade to defend "Christian" Europe (for a remarkable exploration of Breivik's writings as they reveal his twisted mind, see Susan Shannon's "Anders Breivik’s 2083 European Declaration of Independence: In Depth Analysis"). Does that make him a "Christian"?

In Matthew 7:16-20, Christ Himself taught us how distinguish His true followers from "false prophets":

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

It can hardly be said that the fruits of Anders Breivik's musings and passions, however inspired by some vision of defending Christian/European culture, were anything other than "corrupt." Even if his broader motives and non-homicidal efforts in behalf of Christendom were thought laudable, Christ warns us in Matthew 7:21-23 that mere outward virtue and pious works do not make us true disciples:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Again, who would seriously suggest that the mass murder of children accords with the will of our Heavenly Father? A genuine follower of Christ would heed and live His teaching:

But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. (Luke 6:27-31)

Not only did Anders Breivik not love his "enemies," or turn his cheek to those he thought were seeking to smite him and his kind, he did the worst possible violence to people (mostly teenagers) who were innocent and posed not the slightest threat to him or anyone.

What Anders Breivik did is what almost always happens when passionate, desperate, or hate-filled people eschew genuine faith in God and His eternal Kingdom, and take the law--and the power of life and death--into their own hands for what they claim is the greater good. God has already warned those puffed up in their own minds, like Anders Breivik, that "when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood." (Isaiah 1:15)

So, it's demonstrably (and, let's be honest, patently) absurd to refer to Breivik as a "Christian." Perhaps he thought himself a Christian and a noble crusader for the Christian heritage of Europe, but it was all a fantasy twisted by an evil lust for vengeance and personal glory. Bill Maher and his ilk know that, but truth is of little concern to them; they keep up the "Christian terrorist" drumbeat simply because it denigrates something they despise, mocks its followers, and (so they think) diminishes its stature and influence in society. They might rightly refer to Breivik as a "terrorist who calls himself a Christian," or even as a "self-described-Christian terrorist." But they choose to use the more colorful and provocative term, as it better suits their social agenda.

Justification for using the "Christian terrorist" label has also been claimed by some as a proper response to what they see as widespread "Islamophobia" among people in this country, a disdain for Muslims on the presumption that they all condone or encourage jihadist terrorism, if not practice it themselves. Breivik's actions just amounted to "Christian" jihadism, so the thinking goes; are the Muslims really any different or any less trustworthy than Christians? Or are the latter any less dangerous?

There is some merit to this point; no one should treat Muslims generally, or individuals of the Muslim faith they may meet, with out-of-hand suspicion or contempt just because a handful of their coreligionists have committed despicable acts. But it's equally unwarranted and unjust to tar all Christianity with Breivik's brush. And, there are differences: Breivik apparently was an army of one (though he might have a few sympathizers), while we know that thousands of radical jihadists, many trained, supplied, and controlled by far flung networks, are at murderous work in dozens of countries around the world. And not a single bona fide Christian, so far as anyone knows, has come to Breivik's defense. In contrast, crowds of thousands regularly dance in Arab streets when Jews are slain in terrorist attacks in Israel. So, it may not be quite valid to equate Anders Breivik, monster that he is, with Osama bin Laden (monster that he was).

The "Christian terrorist" narrative being spun by the mainstream media and liberal pundits must be answered vigorously, so that people aren't swayed into rejecting Christianity or "religion" generally because of the bad things done, today or in the past, by many people who merely call themselves Christians or religious. Styling oneself something, or taking some action in its name, doesn't alone make him or her so; one must LIVE what he or she professes, and if one falls short, as is most often the case, it doesn't make the faith itself invalid. Nothing really worthwhile is easy. By nature people are incredibly weak and subject to corruption; the Bible acknowledges this everywhere. We mustn't allow scorners and mockers to exploit this fact and hold up as a universal example of our faith those who talk the talk but don't walk the walk so well. Rather, we must identify and loudly celebrate the countless "good" and selfless faithful among us, and trumpet their example. It's a war for the souls of our children and neighbors, and we must not yield the field to the Deceiver's minions.

All Marriages are NOT Equal

As I write this, the New York legislature is considering a bill--introduced by Governor Andrew Cuomo this past Tuesday--that would make New York the sixth state to allow same-sex marriage. Thirty-one of 62 state senators have publicly indicated support, which means that the bill--already assured of passage in the Democrat-dominated Assembly--needs support from just one more senator to pass.

I'm sure my views on this subject won't matter to anyone in Albany, but I feel compelled to express them. I hate to see yet another chink in the social armor that is the family, and having it gouged out by my "own" state representatives. There is (and has been, since at least the 1960s) a war going on for the soul of America and the future of Western civilization, and homosexuality (or "same-sex," to use the more polite, politically-correct term) is one of its hottest battlegrounds. I recently "fought" a skirmish in that war on Facebook, pitting my younger, college-age son and his friends against me and my sister, over an article Colin posted favoring same-sex marriage and criticizing someone else's suggestion that its legalization would devalue traditional marriage. Fortunately, the discussion stayed pretty civil and we thanked each other for conducting it that way. I doubt any minds were changed at that time, but no one knows what may happen with a seed once planted.

I'll leave to the Lord any judgments about the immorality of homosexual conduct (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27). Many Christian believers oppose same-sex "marriage" on this ground, contending that it dignifies and elevates a profoundly sinful practice to the same status as the God-ordained institution of marriage between a man and a woman, and so denigrates that institution as well as its Author. I rather agree, but question how persuasive such an argument can be for non-believers, who now make up an increasingly large if not a majority portion of the population. Perhaps a more broadly acceptable ground of objection is the adverse effect on individual, family, and social health, over time, of "equalizing" in people's minds and in the law heterosexual with homosexual and other abnormal types of relationships.

Marriage between one man and one woman is an institution, established over millennia among the vast majority of the world's peoples, designed to create and nurture children in a stable family structure where they can learn from both genders how to be healthy, confident, well-balanced, and giving adults with a normal heterosexual identity, able to provide the same guidance to their own children, and so on down through the generations. Civilized society needs individuals and families like this not only to thrive, but to survive. This is why traditional heterosexual marriage has long been favored in culture, protected under the law, and consecrated by religious institutions. No other type of relationship or "family" structure, particularly homosexual, can effectively perform these functions.

But if we accord the same dignity and grant the same legal rights and benefits to people in homosexual and other "alternative family" relationships, including polygamy and incest, traditional marriage and family will come to be regarded as no better than they are--as just another "lifestyle choice"--and will thus lose their place in society as the standard on which future generations and a healthy, stable civilization depend. In the prevailing climate of political correctness, the equality of all relationships and "family" structures will be celebrated and endorsed in popular culture, and enforced by governments. Over time, without effective support by law, schools, religious institutions, and culture, the unique and indispensable value of traditional heterosexual marriage and family will become widely denied, obscured and forgotten. Such arrangements will be seen as a quaint relic at best, or as personally stifling and socially irresponsible at worst. Heterosexual relationships, loosed from the values and obligations that traditional marriage imposes, will become increasingly transitory and unstable, and ineffective to nurture or teach children what they need to know about themselves and others to become well-adjusted members of a strong, productive society. Steeped in a culture of moral boundlessness and self-gratification, and without clear guidance and modeling by a man and a woman working together to build a lasting family unit, young people will remain confused about their sexual identities and impulses, and spend their lives drifting in and out of relationships of all kinds--with catastrophic personal and social consequences.

It must be acknowledged that the contemporary decline of traditional marriage and family cannot be laid solely, or even primarily, at the feet of homosexuals. To this point, heterosexual immorality and infidelity to values and commitments--encouraged, to be sure, by a depraved popular culture--have probably done much more damage to the family than have relationships between gay people. But the answer to this crisis is a restoration of moral values and a culture of monogamous heterosexual marriage and family, not promoting relationships that are simply incapable of doing for society and for future generations what the traditional family can do.

Today, homosexuality and homosexual relationships are generally tolerated in society, and even celebrated in the arts, entertainment, and academia. Current laws favoring traditional marriage and family do not prevent gay people from loving each other, from making homes together, from bequeathing their property to each other, or from expressing their sexual identities. New York and many other states already have laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in most commercial and life activities. Even many conservatives don't object to the enactment of some form of civil union that secures to gay couples most of the same personal rights and legal benefits as are currently enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. So, is the relentless pursuit of absolute "equality" between straight and gay marriage just about being able to claim the title of "married"? Is it just about being able to "feel equal"? Or is the real, long-range agenda--at least among homosexual/bisexual/transgender activists--to legally redefine and repurpose the family, to bring more children into gay homes through adoption (which is already skyrocketing and being aggressively promoted by the Obama administration), or in other ways to help indoctrinate young people to embrace homosexuality?

My views were recently given voice by Richard Waghorne, a commentator for the Irish Daily Mail who is himself a homosexual. Mr. Waghorne warned that “selfish” attempts to introduce same-sex marriage are in reality “a demand for marriage to be redefined.”

Marriage is vital as a framework within which children can be brought up by a man and woman. Not all marriages, of course, involve child-raising. And there are also, for that matter, same-sex couples already raising children. But the reality is that marriages tend towards child-raising and same-sex partnerships do not.

. . . So the question that matters is this: Why should a gay relationship be treated the same way as a marriage, despite this fundamental difference? A wealth of research demonstrates the marriage of a man and a woman provides children with the best life outcomes, that children raised in marriages that stay together do best across a whole range of measures. This is certainly not to cast aspersions on other families, but it does underscore the importance of marriage as an institution.

. . . If gay couples are considered equally eligible for marriage, even though gay relationships do not tend towards child-raising and cannot by definition give a child a mother and a father, the crucial understanding of what marriage is actually mainly for has been discarded. What that amounts to is the kind of marriage that puts adults before children. That, in my opinion, is ultimately selfish, and far too high a price to pay simply for the token gesture of treating opposite-sex relationships and same-sex relationships identically.

Another worrisome aspect of the "marriage equality" crusade is the platform its success would give activists to muzzle the defenders of traditional marriage and family. Although the bill currently before the New York legislature purportedly protects clergy and churches from being required to perform or host same-sex marriage ceremonies, I question whether politicians will be able to resist future demands by gay partisans that churches and other organizations resisting the tide of same-sex equality lose their tax-exempt status for "discrimination;" that Catholic Charities and other religious social service agencies be forced to participate in "gay adoptions" or risk being barred from their work; and that anyone who publicly expresses disapproval of homosexuality, gay marriage, or the like on religious grounds will face prosecution for hate speech. These things are already happening in Canada, Australia, and Great Britain.

One's stance on the issue of same-sex marriage should not be all about open- or close-mindedness as, or toward, individuals. Nor should it turn only on abstract notions of "equality" or "justice," "privacy" or "freedom" of individuals or groups. At some point, the long-range needs of society and its members as a whole need to be weighed in the balance at least as heavily. As a society, we have no duty to embrace, endorse, encourage, honor, celebrate, or sanctify every lifestyle or relationship that individuals or groups want or feel a need for, no matter how sincere they may be.

I'm not worried that the mere existence of gay marriage will lead increasing numbers of people to "become" gay. Rather, the deleterious effect of same-sex marriage would be its gaining equal dignity with traditional marriage, and the eventual confusion this would engender in the minds of children--who become adults--about what a real (i.e., nuclear, two-parent, two-gender) "family" is and needs to be.

All individuals may be created equal in the eyes of God, but that is not true of all domestic arrangements and lifestyles. In terms of society's most fundamental needs, some really are "better" than others.

(Pennsylvania) Dutch Treat

Recently Melany and I were able to get away for a few days to that beautiful area known as the Pennsylvania Dutch country (for a good description of the geography, history, and culture of this area, click here; for a good tourist portal, click here) around Lancaster, Pennsylvania. It was spring-break week for Melany, and since her school bus driving work prevented her from accompanying me on a family visit to Florida in March, she came up with the idea of this trip as something we could do together when she finally got a few days' vacation. It's remarkable how refreshing and fun a short road trip like this can be for a couple, at least when things go well, as they did on this occasion (and when they don't go so well, you treat it as a God-sent test of your patience, faith, and love!).

Armed with a GPS device that we received for Christmas, and which we'd never used before on a real road trip, we shoved off early Wednesday morning, April 20. We were blessed to escape the heavy rains that fell that day on western New York, and had a pleasant drive down New York State Route 17 and U.S. Route 15 through the Allegheny Mountains and along the beautiful Susquehanna River. We arrived at our initial destination, Ephrata, Pennsylvania, shortly after noon, couldn't find the local eatery we were looking for, and finally decided to have lunch at an Applebee's we happened upon (on a Christmas gift card from my parents--thanks, Mom and Dad!). With a couple of hours to spend before we could check into our nearby bed & breakfast, we headed to the cultural heart and namesake of the town, called Ephrata Cloister.

Located on several quiet, shaded acres at the center of town, Ephrata Cloister is one of America's oldest religious communities. It was founded in 1732 by Conrad Beissel of Eberbach, Germany, who fled the violent religious conflicts and persecutions of 17th-century Germany in search of solitude and closeness to God in the New World. He didn't find the solitude he was looking for; instead, like-minded people found him. According to a good Wikipedia article about the Cloister:

Around this charismatic leader a semi-monastic community (the Camp of the Solitary) with a convent (the Sister House) and a monastery (the Brother House) was established called Ephrata. The members of the order were celibate. In addition to celibacy, the members believed in strict interpretation of the Bible, and self-discipline. Members were required to sleep on wooden benches 15 inches (380 mm) wide, with wooden blocks for pillows. They slept six hours per night, from 9 P.M. to midnight, and from 2 A.M. until 5 A.M., with a two-hour break to "watch" for the coming of Christ. They ate one small vegetarian meal a day. The only time the followers of Beissel were permitted to eat meat was during the celebration of communion when lamb was served. The members of the cloister spent much time at work or praying privately. Services every Saturday were led by Beissel, often being several hours long.

That's quite the regimen! The "Solitary" brothers and sisters also wore nearly-identical white robes and slippers, indoors and out. There were other, more "normal" members of the community, however:

Other believing families [called "householders"] settled near the community, accepted Beissel as their spiritual leader and worshipped with them on Sabbath. These families made an integral part to the cloister, which could not be self-sustaining without them. The brothers and sisters of Ephrata are famous for their writing and publishing of hymns, and the composition of tunes in four voices. Beissel served as the community's composer as well as spiritual leader, and devised his own system of composition.

The community's "dormitory" buildings were remarkable, as they soar four and five stories high--quite impressive for their time! It's remarkable, too, that they've survived almost 300 years virtually intact.



The indoor working areas, where the members engaged in writing, printing, art work, and music, as well as ate and slept, were very cramped and spare.



One amazing find during a 1998 archaeological excavation at the site, and which I saw on display in a small museum at the Cloister, is a glass trumpet, apparently from Germany, and the only one of its kind in North America. Its excellent condition led archaeologists to believe that it was intentionally buried, perhaps sometime during the 18th century.

Here's another remarkable item: a slipper found in an upstairs closet in the women's residence, which apparently had laid there undisturbed for more than two centuries:

Late Wednesday afternoon, we left the Cloister and drove a short distance to our bed & breakfast, a beautiful 1795 stone residence called the Kimmel House. The place is beautifully decorated in early American style; the owners, Dave and Bonnie Harvey, haven't missed a detail! Our room was furnished with lovely Shaker furniture, including a four-poster bed with an exquisite handmade canopy. Each day began with a delicious breakfast cooked by Bonnie. We were the only guests on the two days we were there, so we were the only ones at the dining table, but Bonnie chatted with us gave us lots of help with our day's plans.

After settling in at the Kimmel House and taking some rest, we hopped back into the car and drove a few miles to the village of Bird-in-Hand, where we had dinner at the Plain & Fancy Farm Restaurant. I chose this place based on my pre-trip Internet research, which has its limitations. It turned out that Plain & Fancy is housed in a rambling, rather modern building with an attached store full of made-in-China souvenirs, although there were some locally-produced items--kind of like a Pennsylvania Dutch-style Cracker Barrel, complete with non-Amish employees dressed in Amish-"inspired" uniforms! We could choose to eat "Family Style" and sit at a long table with other customers, passing around the plates, or personalized meals--we selected the latter. I was afraid that our meal was going to be as cheesy as the surroundings, but thankfully the food was very good and the service was friendly and capable. I had a traditional Pennsylvania Dutch meal of pork sausages (made on the premises), noodles with browned butter, pepper cabbage, dried sweet corn, and of course, shoo-fly pie for dessert! It was getting dark by the time we were done, so we drove back to the Kimmel House and relaxed in our room for the rest of the evening.

Following a marvelous breakfast Thursday morning, we spent a couple of hours touring shops in nearby Adamstown, Pennsylvania, known as the "Antiques Capital of the USA." Around noon we drove to the village of Lititz and visited the Julius Sturgis Pretzel Bakery, the first commercial pretzel bakery in America (est. 1861). The "tour" was a bit disappointing, but we learned about pretzel history and how to twist a pretzel by hand, bought several bags of pretzels (one of my very favorite snack foods!) in the attached store, and even savored a couple of hot, soft pretzels for lunch! After that we poked into several craft shops in Lititz, then headed down the road a few miles to the village of Intercourse. We explored several more shops there, especially The Old Country Store and The Village Pottery where I bought a nice mug made by a local Mennonite artisan. Then it was on to dinner at the nearby Stoltzfus Farm Restaurant. In contrast to the Plain & Fancy Farm Restaurant where we ate the night before, the Stoltzfus place was located on a working farm in what was once a real farmhouse, unconnected with any store, and had a much quieter, more authentic atmosphere in a warm and inviting dining room. The meal was served family-style, but we arrived somewhat early and had a table to ourselves. Once again we had a traditional Pennsylvania Dutch meal, this time including ham loaf, sausages, fried chicken, pepper cabbage, chow-chow, potato stuffing, corn, and for dessert, shoo-fly pie (me) and pumpkin roll (Melany). The food and atmosphere were excellent--while we ate, Melany watched a little Amish boy out in the nearby fields playing with his dog!

After dinner, we decided to spend the remaining couple of daylight hours driving along the back roads through the countryside. This turned out to be the most interesting and fun part of our trip! Since the only printed maps I had of the area were pretty sketchy, our GPS unit was the only thing that enabled us to cut loose and still find our way back to the Kimmel House. As the sun slowly settled toward the horizon, we drove over and around the hills in the heart of Amish country, past many beautiful old farms--some with houses and barns obviously a century or more old (many of these places have been in the same family since the 1700s!). Family members of all ages and both genders were often out in the fields and barns working, even when the sunlight was almost gone. In these surroundings, seeing people live and work in the same clothes and using the same tools as people did two centuries ago, I felt transported back in time in a more compelling way than ever before!



We had two especially interesting experiences during this jaunt. We saw a group of mules or donkeys (I can never remember which is which) cavorting in a field near the road, apparently just after having been unhitched from a plough. We stopped to watch them, at which moment a group of cows in a field on the other side of the road galloped up to the fence to see what the fuss was all about. When was the last time you saw a cow gallop (are Amish-raised cows more alert and active than others?)? They made a hilarious sight jostling each other at the fence for a place in my picture!

We drove around a while longer. Just as the sun was setting and we started thinking about heading back to our B&B, we happened by a house near the road with a small sign announcing a scrapbooking-and-quilt store inside. Needless to say, we HAD to stop and check it out--and it was the best shop we visited the whole trip! Called Farmhouse Memories (no web site yet), it's run by a very nice lady named Rachel (write or call us, if you'd like, for the address and phone). She and Melany hit it off instantly--to hear them gab on about scrabooking, sewing, fabric, crafts, children, etc., you'd think they had known each other for 20 years! Up to that point Melany hadn't found in the other stores we'd visited much she liked at the right prices, but all that changed in Rachel's little shop! We even got to meet her little nephew, who showed us some cards he had made (very skillfully, too--we even bought some!). We were in there the better part of an hour, but finally parted feeling like we had made a new friend, not just found a store we liked. How often do you have an experience like that?

By this time, it was getting pretty dark, so we decided to go straight (in a manner of speaking; our route was anything but) back to the Kimmel House. Put to its greatest challenge, as we were out in the middle of farm country in the dark with no clue how to get back, the GPS performed flawlessly! Sometimes technology really can be a blessing!

Friday morning, after another of Bonnie's magnificent breakfasts, we decided to forego visiting the huge and rather crowded Green Dragon Farmers Market & Auction, there in Ephrata, and proceed on to Buffalo to pick up our dog Frank and cat Chloe from our son Rob's house, where they'd been staying during our trip. It was a long drive (7+ hours), but we had great fun chatting about our delightful visit to Pennsylvania Dutch Country (let us know if you'd like to make a trek there, and we'll supply you with all kinds of information and brochures)!

Life and "Choice"--A Vital Debate

I'm starting to look like a "one-trick pony"--only three posts in five weeks, and they're all about abortion. It turns out that work and home demands keep my from posting much more often than that, but my ongoing discussion of the abortion issue with my son Colin is as important and engaging as anything else in my life right now. I could be wrong, but it seems like the distance between us on this issue is narrowing, and that's a wonderful thing. Maybe we've never been as far apart as either of us thought, since our basic values and principles are much the same even if our fundamental beliefs and approaches to social policy differ. I can't put into words how happy I am that we're able to explore such a difficult subject and still respect, admire, and love each other. If a civil discourse like this could be replicated in society generally, we might find a solution to this knotty problem that satisfied most people. Nevertheless, I think we're kept apart largely by divergent assumptions about why abortions are sought and the effect of limitations on the procedure.

I was encouraged by Colin's statement that abortion "should always be used as an absolute last resort, something to pursue only after all other avenues have been exhausted." Sadly, that's not how things typically happen between pregnancy and abortion. If adoption is regarded as one of these "other avenues," far more more women are opting for the "last resort" of abortion: according to AbortionFacts.com, only four percent of non-marital births are placed for adoption, or about 50,000 non-related adoptions a year as compared to over a million babies aborted annually.

Indeed, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health organization, nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions occurred. Clearly, since Roe v. Wade, abortion has not been treated by most women who have had one (or, by almost half, more than one) as a "last resort."

There is also a widespread misconception (if not a knowing deception) among abortion-on-demand proponents that a large portion of, if not most, unintended pregnancies don't result from a deliberate choice on a woman's part to have sexual relations. For example, Colin states that "I think most health and law enforcement officials would wholeheartedly disagree with you that rape-induced pregnancy is rare. Unfortunately, especially in big cities, it is quite common, and that fact alone should be strong enough to keep abortion legalized." However, multiple studies by law enforcement and medical researchers have calculated that, on the average, at most 8 per 1,000 women who are raped or the victims of incest become pregnant in the United States. This is equivalent to 0.8 percent, or less than one percent. Even the most "liberal" estimates place the adult pregnancy rate associated with rape at about 4.7 percent.

Additional information provided by the Guttmacher Institute is revealing. Among the reasons surveyed women gave for having an abortion, three-fourths cited concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths said they couldn't afford a child; three-fourths said that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half said they did not want to be a single parent or were having problems with a husband or partner. This data suggests that most women seeking abortion are doing so to avoid the expense, burdens, and complexities of bearing and caring for a child.

"Pregnancy often poses a massive threat to the health of the mother, and if abortion were illegal then that mother would have no choice but to risk her own life to carry out the pregnancy, which would surely be a violation of human rights." Pregnancy itself always poses some risk to the mother, but the danger is "massive" only in cases of ectopic or other "defective" pregnancies, or when the mother suffers from an unusual medical condition that is or could become life-threatening due to the increased physical and mental stresses of carrying a child to term (some doctors have observed that abortion is almost never a medical necessity to save a woman's life). As I noted in my earlier posts, relatively few people who consider themselves pro-life would oppose abortion in the very rare cases when it is truly, and professionally certified as, necessary to save the mother from death or life-long physical or mental disability.

As noted in an article by the University of Toronto Students for Life:

Pro-choice advocates tend to appeal to hard cases, which are rare, and then extrapolate to all abortions. “What if a woman was raped? What if a woman’s life is in danger?” These are serious and complex issues — but they account for a small percentage of all abortions. These are bad arguments for all abortions being legal, ethical, or “medically necessary,” and honest pro-choicers know it.

The hard cases are a red herring. The real issue, and what most concerns "pro-choice" advocates, is whether and how to confine abortion to those hard cases--that is, whether access to abortion should be restricted or denied in the overwhelmingly typical case of a woman (or parents; it takes two to tango) who seeks to avoid the unintended (if entirely natural and foreseeable) consequence of a free and deliberate (or careless) act because she (or they) deem it too difficult, painful, burdensome, expensive, or embarrassing to endure. To be sure, some of these situations, as where the mother is a young teenager entirely unprepared to raise a child, might even approach the "hard case" category. In any event, what the pro-life movement seeks is a legal process by which abortion is limited to those situations in which it is a true medical "necessity" or the only reasonable answer under the circumstances, with the burden of proof and justification on the person who seeks to terminate the unborn child's life. Colin and others favoring unrestricted abortion object that "such a process could take weeks or even months to complete, and by that time the baby could be only weeks away from birth." But judicial systems in many states and localities already provide specialized courts for juvenile and other family matters, including expedited hearings and relaxed rules of evidence. Such procedures need not take weeks and months to complete, and the judges who typically preside tend to be highly experienced in domestic matters and know how urgently some matters need to be resolved.

Changing the rules on abortion certainly won't solve all social problems associated with unwanted children, nor would it come without a price. Such a change could put serious strains on court systems, medical resources, adoption and public assistance agencies, and child protective services--and ultimately, taxpayers. And yes, despite all the prenatal support and postnatal adoption resources available, many women will resort to black-market abortion providers rather than follow the law and endure the burdens of childbearing. Ending abortion-on-demand would save many children's lives, but merely changing the law isn't enough to avert a potential host of new problems. Clearly a much greater investment in maternal, child support, and adoption services would be necessary. But a change more fundamental even than this is necessary: a new--or renewed--culture of personal responsibility, sacrifice, commitment, and love; a culture of marriage, and of life. As much as abortion-on-demand has undermined the moral fabric of society, I think it's also a symptom of a breakdown that began years before Roe vs. Wade, as moral relativism, hedonism, materialism, and the state came to replace common decency, religious faith, and the family in American life. Only when we embrace these ideals anew, individually and as a society, can we hope to replace today's culture of selfishness, depravity, and death with one that encourages and supports life. Mothers and children deserve nothing less.