Baseball and Christianity
by Kerby Anderson

            Is there a place for Christianity in Major League Baseball? You wouldn't even think that would be an issue. But apparently it is for one sportswriter for The New York Times.

            Murray Chass has been crusading against voluntary baseball chapels. These are the chapel services held in major league locker rooms on Sunday mornings. And that's not all. He is also upset with the various "faith nights" that eight of the major league teams hold in which a Christian music concert is held following the game.

            This sportswriter complains: "Just what baseball needs—peanuts, popcorn and proselytizing." His solution is simple: separate Christianity from baseball. He argues that since the U.S. Constitution "provide for separation of church and state," baseball executives should institute a "separation of church and baseball."

            Let me emphasize that these are voluntary chapels for baseball players who would never have an opportunity to attend church on game day. Usually they are held in one of the stadium rooms, so a player has to know where it is taking place and has to leave the locker room and find the room where chapel is held. You could hardly call these chapels intrusive or disruptive.

            So what about the Christian concerts? Major League teams do all they can to get fans in seats. They give out caps, bats, and baseballs. They bring in special singers and even schedule concerts. When a concert is scheduled, it doesn't begin until 30 minutes after the game is over. Have you ever been in a baseball stadium even ten minutes after the last out? The fans have cleared out long before the first note of music is played at that Christian concert.

            I guess I supposed that the sports pages would be the last place you would see a bias against Christianity. Apparently I was wrong. At least one sportswriter at The New York Times feels we need to have a separation of church and baseball. I disagree.

            I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

Monuments and the Court
by Kerby Anderson

            The U.S. Supreme Court will decide next term whether a city must post a New Age monument next to the monument to the Ten Commandments. The case went to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and will be one of the more important religious liberty free speech cases to go the Supreme Court in many years.

            The case surrounds a group known as Summum that was founded in 1975 by a former Mormon who says he has received visits from "highly intelligent beings" also known as "Summa Individuals." He and his group want to place a monument to its "Seven Aphorisms" alongside a monument to the Ten Commandments that was donated by the local Eagles Club in the 1950s.

            At first glance this merely seems like a case based upon fairness. After all, if one group can put up a monument, why can't another group do the same? But various Christian legal groups from the American Center for Law and Justice to Liberty Legal Institute see something else.

            They argue that mayhem and confusion will result if a city, a county, or a state is forced to put up alternative monuments. If you have a monument erected by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, would you also have to allow an anti-war group's monument? Would this also apply to the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C. and countless other memorials? Can atheist groups post a monument to free thought next to the Ten Commandments?

            Hopefully, the high court will attempt to inject some common sense into this discussion. One would hope that they could see the difference between the Ten Commandments (which are the basis of our laws) and the "Seven Aphorisms" of psychokinesis, correspondence, vibration, opposition, rhythm, etc. We will see when the court hears oral arguments this fall.

            I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

Income Taxes
by Kerby Anderson

            Today is income tax day. If you haven't filed your income tax forms you better get busy or file an extension. For those of you who have filed your income taxes, why don't you take a moment to look at how much you paid in taxes? Can you believe how much you paid?

            Most people are not aware of how much they pay in taxes because their taxes are withheld automatically. When they get a tax refund, they get excited even though that really means they paid too much. And most of us do not know how our current tax rate compares to previous years.

            Fortunately the Heritage Foundation has done some calculations. The results are surprising. They found that in 1965 the tax bill per household (in inflation-adjusted 2007 dollars) was slightly over $10,000. By the 1990s, it was almost $16,000. Today the tax bill per household is just over $22,000. Put another way the tax bill per household (when adjusted for inflation) has doubled in the last forty years.

            This is a fact that you should not only consider on income tax day. You should remember it the next time a politician wants to raise your taxes. I knew taxes had increased but I had no idea they had increased that much since 1965. The Heritage Foundation collected these figures from the Congressional Budget Office, from the Census Bureau, and from government watchdog groups.

            They also found that the top one percent of earners pay a much greater share of the tax burden than before. And they also found that the bottom 20 percent pay much less of the tax burden. Again these are percentages worth checking the next time a politician talks about who shoulders the tax burden.

            During this campaign season all sorts of economic facts and figures are going to be thrown around about taxes and the tax burden on certain households. It's worth checking these comments against the Heritage Foundation figures.

            I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

Can a Man Give Birth to a Child?
by Kerby Anderson

            Can a man give birth to a child? Well, not technically, but that is what was discussed the other day on Oprah Winfrey's program. A former woman had her gender changed but did not remove her reproductive organs. She acknowledged that she kept her reproductive organs so that sometime in the future she could have a child. That time is now, and she (now he) will give birth to a child.

            As you would imagine the story has created quite a controversy. He (now she) is now named Thomas and is married to Nancy. Nancy had two children from a previous marriage, but is now unable to have children because she had endometriosis and the doctors had to remove her womb. So the couple decided to inseminate Thomas at home with a syringe. I might also mention that they had a difficult time finding a doctor who would help them conceive.

            Thomas was originally born Tracy and said that she felt trapped in the wrong body even though she was a Miss Teen Hawaii finalist. So she decided to become a man by removing her breasts, taking testosterone, and growing a beard. She was asked why she did not remain a lesbian. She (now he) said she felt more comfortable being the male gender.

            Before we go on, I might comment on my decision in this commentary to use the phrase "he (now she)" when describing this transgender man. Most of the news articles on this describe Thomas (formerly Tracy) as a man and thus seem to be affirming her decision.

            How does God view this person: as a woman or a man? If we were do a genetic test, would it come back as XX (for a female) or XY (for a male)? It seems to me that whether you look at this from God's perspective or look at this from a genetic perspective, she is still a female even if she has changed her outward appearance.

            As I argue in my new book, A Biblical Point of View on Homosexuality, just because a transgender person mutilated his or her body and takes hormones doesn't change their gender.

            I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

Born Gay?
by Kerby Anderson

            One of the clichés of the homosexual movement is that some people are born gay. Recently ABC has been promoting this idea with a feature entitled "Can a Baby Be Gay?" First, there was the promo on ABC's Good Morning America. Then there was the special on ABC's 20/20.

            As I talk about in my book, A Biblical Point of View on Homosexuality, there has been a deliberate strategy to convince the public that some people are born gay. There have been various studies of cadavers and twins as well as a search for a gay gene. Although many of these have been discredited, the latest round of programs demonstrates that the homosexual activists working through the media have not given up trying to prove that people are born gay.

            Robert Knight (Culture and Media Institute) recently wrote about how ABC is following "the script proposed in the gay strategic manual After the Ball, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen." The authors recommended that activists "use the media to portray homosexuality as in-born, and homosexuals as victims." And as you might imagine they also wanted to portray those with moral or biblical objections to homosexuals as haters and bigots.

            When you look at the latest ABC special, you can easily see this strategy being played out. We learn of a boy named Zack who according to his parents was born gay. They believe that homosexuality was in their son's DNA. We are then introduced to a scientist who believes that a substantial contribution to sexual orientation is genetic.

            Now do we hear from anyone who disagrees? Well, yes we are introduced to Dr. Stanton Jones. He is introduced as a clinical psychologist and evangelical Christian. By the way, he is the only one introduced by noting his religious affiliation. The clear implication is that his views are religious not scientific. Never mind that Dr. Jones is the co-author of a significant work entitled, Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation.

            As far as I can tell, ABC seems to be following the script of the gay activists, but that doesn't mean it's true.

            I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

Violent Video Game
by Kerby Anderson

            Many of the point-and-shoot video games are violent, but one game is so violent even members of Congress are getting involved. The Manhunt 2 video game follows the violent rampage of a sociopath who escapes from a mental hospital.

            Lt. Col. David Grossman, author of the book Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill, has testified about the impact of violent video games. He believes that: "This game teaches children how to kill." Ted Baehr, chairman of the Christian Film and Television Commission, says the games "teaches susceptible children to commit sadistic violence."

            In most of the first-person shooting video games, the shooter is being attacked and has the defend himself. But in this game, you play a crazed psychotic killer hunting down innocent victims.

            The response from various agencies has been noteworthy. The British Board of Film Classification banned the sale of Manhunt 2 in the UK. They ruled that way because of what they called its "unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone." They also believed that it encourages "visceral killing."

            In this country, the Entertainment Software Ratings Board gave it an adults-only rating. The video game manufacturer made a few changes so it could get an M rating (for mature audiences – meaning it may be suitable for those 17 years of age or older). It is worth noting that the Federal Trade Commission found that 42 percent of undercover shoppers (13 to 16 years old) were able to buys games with this rating.

            Some members of Congress have become involved. Senators Bayh, Brownback, Clinton, and Lieberman have written to the ratings board asking for them to reconsider their ratings system. Representatives Baca and Wolf want more transparency in the rating board's process. They also want clips of the video games posted online so parents can view them.

            I think it is time to reconsider this rating and warn parents about the potential dangers of this game.

            I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.