Another rogue school board? Perhaps.

“If you consider that adults’ No. 1 fear is public speaking (death is seventh on that list), then a citizen who has summoned the courage to address the board certainly deserves the board’s full attention and respect. This is especially important when you do not agree with that person’s perspective.” – “Five rules to follow for great school board meetings,” by Steve Horton, school board services consultant

Fox and Yahoo News recently reported on Oklahoma middle school families who are alarmed over their daughters sharing a bathroom with a transgender student.

The Stillwater (Oklahoma) School Board, at their April 12, 2022 meeting, received public input on the issue. Speakers were given 3:00 minutes – except Brice Chaffin, whose input was too religious for the board. At about 56 seconds in the board President interrupted, saying that Brice was supposed to be speaking to the bathroom policy; then later (about 1:44) tells him to either get on topic or move on. The board stopped Chaffin while he still had about a minute of time left, including cutting the mic so he could not be heard. Chaffin left without incident, though Stillwater PD escorted him from the podium. A community member can fill out form BED-E, requesting to address the board of education. The board stopped him from addressing them, because his references to Scriptures offended them, while claiming this was “off topic.”

The Stillwater News Press explained the incident this way:

Brice Chaffin is removed from the Stillwater Board of Education meeting Tuesday for continuing to recite Bible verses after being asked to confine himself to the topic he signed up to discuss.

One might argue that Brice Chaffin could have done a better job arranging his address to the school board. On reflection, he might well agree. However, what the Bible says about any issue is “on topic” for the Christian. Are men and women different? Why does it matter whether a biological male uses the girls’ bathroom? “The Bible tells me so.” It appears, had Chaffin been allowed to finish, that he concludes that physical, natural, and moral law all address the topic of biology, sex, and which bathroom to use! The incident, how it played out, and its consequences, (and body language as well), display the obvious bias of the Stillwater school board against Christians being informed on this topic by the book of their faith, the Bible.

The Bereans “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” Acts 17:11

You can watch the entire April 12, 2022 School Board Meeting of Stillwater (Oklahoma) Public Schools in context HERE (Chaffin speaking starts about 1:04:24) or cut to a YouTube clip that includes only that portion of the meeting HERE.

In a more recent meeting, unwilling to make a decision, the Stillwater School Board punted their duty of oversight to the state.

Abortions, Vaccines, and Transgenderism

LifeSiteNews is a site that I find beneficial for news about and promotion of the Pro-Life stance. I appreciate their work. However, two articles I recently read there I found troubling – and wonder just how and why they passed muster. Both are by the same author, Nick Bell.[i] I do not know the author, but question the worth of these articles in the promotion of the cause of God and truth.[ii]

First, there is “Until Republicans point to dangers of COVID shot, their opposition to mandates rings hollow.”[iii] This rather curious article suggests we should not oppose mandates that might be good for us. It makes an ill-advised comparison between “mandating” against abortion, which is murder, and mandating for a vaccine that has both benefits and risks.

“If the COVID-19 vaccine is effective enough that you dedicate an entire ad to asking people to take it, why not mandate it? Most Republicans support a mandate that prohibits killing a child in the womb. Why not support this mandate that save lives too?”

Bell’s comparison is apples and oranges. The first is opposing the murder of human life. The second is mandating a form of health care. We should not support mandating things just because those things might be good for us. Bell implies that mandating the Covid vaccine would be fine if it were good for us, and the reason to not mandate is that it is dangerous. I agree that the Covid-19 has dangerous knowns. I further assert that it is full of unknowns. However, I do not have to know that it is, or even might be, dangerous to be against government entities mandating the Covid vaccination. A better comparison would be between Covid vaccination and our brushing our teeth. It does not matter whether brushing our teeth is good or bad; it is outside the government’s purview to start mandating that everyone must brush their teeth three times a day because it is beneficial.

Bell’s article does well to point out the dangers of the Covid vaccination. The invalid comparison to abortion as a similar “mandate” actually diminishes the strength of the case against abortion. Abortion is not just a health issue – it is a murder issue, the immoral snuffing out of a life created in the image of God.

Second, there is “Matt Walsh’s debate with transgender activists on Dr. Phil show left a lot to be desired.” I cannot speak for Matt Walsh, but when I stand for a cause, I always look back and see where I could have done better (i.e., “left a lot to be desired”). I do not mind constructive criticism in such cases. Nevertheless, rather than applaud Matt Walsh for taking on the enemy in the marketplace of ideas, Nick Bell sits on the sidelines and nitpicks.[iv] And weirdly so. I find it shocking that in the midst of criticizing Walsh, Bell defends the transgendered guests on Dr. Phil as “likable people” and “well-meaning people.” That they have struggles is certain. That they need prayers and even pity is true. However, we should not defend those promoting this ungodly agenda as “well-meaning.” Bell further suggests that we should acquiesce to their personal delusion by “simply using their preferred pronoun.”

“Conservatives can only win this debate in American society by forthrightly responding. This requires making the case that transgenderism inflicts unacceptable damage not only on those who dissent from it but also on the transgenders themselves, as well as children caught up in a ‘social contagion.’”

Why does transgenderism inflict “unacceptable damage?” Bell appears to have gone over to the philosophical side – it is wrong because it does damage. It does damage. It does damage because it is wrong. It does damage because it inflicts disorder to the order of God’s creation.

Ultimately, Bell’s conclusion misses the mark. “The argument for truth and honesty in sex and gender is dramatically more powerful when the true stakes of the issue – the happiness and wholeness of real, vulnerable people – are at the forefront.” The “true stakes” of the issue is that God made man in his likeness – and “male and female created he them.” If that biblical truth is not the foundation of the truth of two genders, then the entire case fails. There we must drive down our stake. There we must begin.

I am neither prophet nor fortuneteller. I do not know how these things will end in our society. I do know that God, the Bible, and science are all on our side in the abortion debate and the gender debate. Taking the eternal perspective, that is a winning combination.

---

[i] There is a Nick Bell who is an author at The Federalist. This Nick Bell formerly as served deputy director at the Center for Faith and Opportunity Initiatives at the Department of Education, and was a candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates, VA-39 (did not win). I am uncertain whether this is the same person, but it seems probable (another article on LifeSite indicates their Nick Bell lives in Fairfax County, which is in District 39).
[ii] In addition, Nick Bell got some of the basic facts wrong, including how he identified the two transgender guests and what one of them said about the bathroom issue.
[iii] To be clear, I favor not only Republicans, but also public servants in general, doctors, nurses, and anyone with the platform to do so, to point out the dangers of Covid-19 vaccinations.
[iv] Complain if you will, but Matt Walsh went alone into the enemy camp, faced them down 3-against-1, and stood for the biblical and biological truth that there are only two genders. Further, Walsh seems to have made the arguments that Bell says he did not make. This is not a personal defense of Walsh, of whom I know little.

Hear me roar

Yesterday, David Moye of HuffPo told us that Representative Madison Cawthorn’s Definition of a Woman Gets Thoroughly Mocked. What Moye failed to explain is that the only thing the Twitters can do is mock, because they are unable to answer Cawthorn’s argument!

USA Today also jumped into the I-can’t-tell-if-she’s-a-woman fray (particularly in defense of Justice Nominee Kentaji Brown Jackson’s “I’m not a biologist” comment) asserting that even “a competent biologist would not be able to offer a definitive answer” to the question of what is a woman.[i] That is politically correct mumbo-jumbo. Medical examiners regularly verify whether unidentified bodies are those of men or women, and forensic anthropologists identify whether thousand-year-old bones are those of men or women. It just does not sit well with the agenda of the woke crowd to be able to identify a living person as male or female.[ii]

When I was a young man (still in school, 1971), Helen Reddy knew she was a woman, and challenged us “hear me roar.” Today she’ll need to take that back; “we” can’t tell anymore.

Lord, help us.

---

[i] Oddly, most dictionaries are still able to tell us what a woman is: “an adult female human being.” And a human female is “a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei.” This is surprisingly similar to Cawthorn’s definition, “XX chromosomes…” No telling how long the radical wokesters will allow dictionaries to continue to define woman this way.
[i] Since they must be allowed to “self”-identify.

Strange fact check

Fact check: Popular wolf photo in meme about protective women is actually of 3 male wolves

This seems a strange USA Today fact check. Perhaps they fell prey to a sudden rush of gender acknowledgement. USA Today did not say how they actually made the determination that it was 3 male wolves. Today, with people, you have to ask them how they self-identify in order to make such a determination! However, in the end I decided that this must fall into USA Today’s “See, we told you that every fact check is not about Trump” category.

1 Timothy 3:1-7, gender-neutral

1 Timothy 3:1-7 is a passage of scripture that has gotten a gender work-over in some new Bible versions. This helps clear the way for female pastors as well as males.

The Common English Bible changes singular pronouns (he) to plural (they) and masculine (husband) to neutral (spouse).

1 This saying is reliable: if anyone has a goal to be a supervisor in the church, they want a good thing. 2 So the church’s supervisor must be without fault. They should be faithful to their spouse, sober, modest, and honest. They should show hospitality and be skilled at teaching. 3 They shouldn’t be addicted to alcohol or be a bully. Instead, they should be gentle, peaceable, and not greedy. 4 They should manage their own household well—they should see that their children are obedient with complete respect, 5 because if they don’t know how to manage their own household, how can they take care of God’s church? 6 They shouldn’t be new believers so that they won’t become proud and fall under the devil’s spell. 7 They should also have a good reputation with those outside the church so that they won’t be embarrassed and fall into the devil’s trap.

The Contemporary English Version makes slightly different changes that accomplish the same end.

1 It is true that anyone who desires to be a church official wants to be something worthwhile. 2 That’s why officials must have a good reputation and be faithful in marriage. They must be self-controlled, sensible, well-behaved, friendly to strangers, and able to teach. 3 They must not be heavy drinkers or troublemakers. Instead, they must be kind and gentle and not love money. 4 Church officials must be in control of their own families, and they must see that their children are obedient and always respectful. 5 If they don’t know how to control their own families, how can they look after God’s people? 6 They must not be new followers of the Lord. If they are, they might become proud and be doomed along with the devil. 7 Finally, they must be well-respected by people who are not followers. Then they won’t be trapped and disgraced by the devil.

Some versions do not use the words “man” or “husband” but keep the pronouns “he” and “his.” The New International Version, for example:

1 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

Here is the text in the Authorised (KJ) Version:

1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Your job is serious business

On Tuesday, June 11th, I sent the following letter to Travis Clardy, Representative for District 11 (Cherokee, Nacogdoches, & Rusk Counties) in the Texas State House of Representatives.

Dear Representative Clardy,

This is a response to your reported comments in the Tuesday, June 11, 2019, Nacogdoches Daily Sentinel newspaper (“Clardy: 86th Legislature a success”). Within the overall upbeat report, you made this derogatory remark about the bathroom bill from the 2017 Legislative session: “We didn’t get sidetracked this time talking about a lot of stuff that nobody cared about.” You clearly had the bathroom bill in mind, since, according to the Sentinel, you followed that flippantly with “We didn’t spend time talking about bathrooms unless there was somebody visiting the capitol who said, ‘Where’s the bathroom?’”

As someone who has consistently supported you in the past, I take umbrage at your assessment that “nobody cared about” the bathroom bill. Perhaps you and your colleagues did not care. Perhaps many of your constituents do not care. Apparently, the Senate cared. Seemingly, the governor did as well. Other of your constituents care.

The bathroom bill is not one of my highest priorities. It can probably best be resolved, when practical, by those responsible providing public facilities for individual/single use so that gender will not matter. Yet it is not practical that this will be done anytime soon because for many it will be cost prohibitive. People who are truly confused about their gender likely present little threat in public restrooms. Nevertheless, accommodation for the so-called “transgender” provides cover for those who wish to enter deceptively into restrooms and dressing facilities of the opposite sex. Who can be sure in every case whether the bathroom visitor is transgender or simply up to no good? Someone should care! You should care.

I can easily live without your voting for a bathroom bill. (I suspect, though, that Speaker Straus did not allow a vote on the issue so none of you would be on record.) I cannot quite as easily live with your ambivalence toward the issue, which creates in me an ambivalence toward casting future votes for Travis Clardy for House of Representatives District 11.

Thanks for listening. Have a good day.

Curiouser and curiouser

On the LGBT front, things just get curiouser and curiouser. CNN tells us that Planet Fitness revokes woman's membership after transgender complaint.

Yvette Cormier "went to the front desk after someone who looked like a 'man' entered the women's locker room while she was changing." The person at the front desk, rather than react like some of us might except, told Cormier that they had "no-judgment" policy. She warned others about this problem and in the end lost her own Planet Fitness membership. Planet Fitness allows people to choose which changing room they prefer -- based on "their sincere, self-reported gender identity." Any man who reports to the front desk that he would prefer to be a woman may use the women's dressing facilities? Apparently so! Now all the "Peeping Toms" know the policy as well.

McCall Gosselin, director of public relations at Planet Fitness's corporate office, claims, "Planet Fitness is committed to creating a nonintimidating, welcoming environment for our members. Our gender identity nondiscrimination policy states that members and guests may use all gym facilities based on their sincere self-reported gender identity."

So much for a non-intimidating environment for Yvette Cormier.

Stop the insanity!

Whose Gender? Which Identity?

* Whose Gender? Which Identity? -- "Aside from the predictable and largely justified outrage, the policy and the action offer insights into the fundamental confusions that lie at the heart of transgender politics."

...any health care professional opining on this matter is not actually making a statement about a verifiable medical condition but rather making an unfalsifiable philosophical judgment about the personal and social significance of a subjective psychological state.

If gender is a social construct or a psychological state, independent of biological determination, then why is there a need for biological procedures to address the issue?

...is there not a tragic incoherence to that person who denies that his body has any authority with regard to his gender identity and yet who demands that his body be changed because it is so significant to his gender identity?

Good arguments are no protection against bad arguments or no arguments at all, especially when the latter are allied to the rhetoric of medical professionalism and personal sincerity, touching story lines, and the organized determination of small groups of activists.

Do you know...

...the difference between men and women?