Gay Protests For The Wrong Reasons

I disagree with you here.

Consider the issue of gay "marriage". Gays and straits have the exact same rights. The laws do not deal with marrying the "person you love" or "your chosen partner". They allow individuals to marry someone of the opposite sex. Sexual orientation isn't even dealt with in this topic. To the extent that these laws are denying equal protection, it is on the basis of sex rather than orientation.

The counter to this argument is that gays don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex, so they aren't equally protected.

But marriage laws by their very nature offer some people benefits which are denied to others. Those who do not wish to marry don't get protections afforded to married couples.

Numerous laws provide benefits to people provided they do something to qualify. Some might say I don't want to do x, I want to do y, and if I can't qualify by doing y, I am not getting equal protection. This argument fails. You are free to meet the requirements to receive the benefits or to refuse to not do so, but equal protection does not require that the law be changed so that an individual can benefit while acting in a manner different than that which the law prescribes.

The solution is to change the law so that the individual's action is included.

Contrast the marriage laws to a Colorado law that was struck down on equal protection grounds. There a local government denied gays something because they were gay. The Supreme court said that this was an unconstitutional denial of equal protection. Gays were singled out for disparate treatment.

The unalienable right to liberty means that you and I may do anything we want . . . except infringe on anyone else's like right to liberty. If you and I -- two consenting adults -- agree that we wish to marry, it is our unalienable right to do so . . . regardless of whether or not we are of the same sex.

For those who find such offensive, please note that we do not have an unalienable right to be unoffended. It is well to also note here that it is the sole enumerated role of the federal government to protect liberty.

I have zero problems with gays openly serving in the U.S. military. Both Israel and Britain have adopted policies allowing gays to openly serve, and the prophesied morale and discipline problems never materialized.

It turns out that British and Israeli soldiers don't really care about the sexual preference of their fellow soldiers. They don't care what sex you want to feel; what matters most is your fealty to your unit and the soldier next to you. I firmly believe the same would be the case in the U.S. military.

Ancillary issues, such as leftists using the policy to leverage OTHER things are very real. I understand that. But they can be dealt with.

You are confusing a right to do what you want with a right to make the government give you something or do something for you.

You are free to have a sexual relationship with anyone you chose. You can call your relationship a marriage if you want to. No one will arrest you for doing so (except perhaps with polygamy). You can have a wedding ceremony in a church that is willing to perform the ceremony. You have the liberty to do all of these things.

You even have a right to ask the governement to respond to your choices in a particular way, but when the majority don't want the government to respond in that manner, it isn't required to do so.

Liberty is being left to act as you wish without governmental interference. It is not forcing the government to act in a particular way.

"You are confusing a right to do what you want with a right to make the government give you something or do something for you."

I asked the government to give someone what? I asked the government to do what? If two persons wish to marry, what I ask of the government is that it get the bejeebers outa da way!

I understand why you disagree. The discrepancy between sexual orientation and sex is still poorly understood. But it has become more evident as we learn more about biology and identity that sexual orientation is as innate as a person's sex.

The fact remains that legally speaking, the protections offered to heterosexual couples are different than those of homosexual couples. This isn't so in every case, but in many cases throughout the country gay partners do not have the same legal rights because in the eyes of the law they aren't 'married.' This is why the gay community isn't often satisfied with domestic partnerships. A lot of laws out there state that 'marriage' is needed for certain benefits. If the state could offer those same benefits so that each couple is represented equally, then this would not be an issue. But the fact remains there are some differences.

I agree thta the solution is to change the law so that the individual's action is included. These laws should properly apply to all individuals regardless of sexual orientation. Gays cannot get any privlidges (like hate crimes legislation) anymore than non-gays get privlidges (like more marriage benefits). It's the same problem on both ends. It's singling out groups for special treatment and under the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment, that is unconstitutional.

Thank you for your comments, Isaiah.

Best regards,
Jack C.

I agree with you fully. A free society means people are free to do as you please so long as you don't infring on the life, liberty, and property of others. As John Stossel so wisely put it, "Anything so long as it's peaceful."

What could be more peaceful than two people loving each other? It may offend some people, but you're right. People don't have a right NOT to be offended. Personal tastes cannot be dictacted in a free society. Otherwise, all you're left with is tyranny.

You may be right about the issues surrounding gays in the military. Some people with ulterior agendas may use it as a means to get special favors from the government. Groups have been doing that for years and it has led to such unconstitutional policies like affirmative action and hate crimes. As soon as any group, gays or otherwise, try to get special exemptions that set them apart in the eyes of the law and in society they lose their moral high ground. They are no longer the ones being oppressed. They are the ones being the tyrants and history is never on the side of the tyrants.

get NO benefits from the government. The government has NO assets that it doesn't take by force from others.

The government is explicitly charged with protecting liberty and property, and when it robs Pete to pay Paul, it's doling the opposite. Government needs to stop granting and start ungranting, stop doing and start undoing.

It is almost a certainty that leftist victocrats and those with a larger gay agenda would try to capitalize on gays being allowed to serve. Via legal avenues and in emotional arguments.

"They're good enough to die for you, but you won't let them get married...." Sigh... I can see it now.

We would certainly have to fight those battles down the road, but that does not dissuade me from my conviction that we should accept gays openly in the military now. We can fight those other battles later.

Right now, a patriot who wants to serve honorably is a person to be praised and encouraged, not shunned.

Yes to gays in the military.

I agree. Constitutionally speaking, there's no just reason for denying gays that right. According to the 14th amendment all citizens have equal representation under the law. No citizen can have rights that others do not. That means a gay person can't be denied rights that a straight person has. Serving in the armed forces has always been considered a deeply patriotic act and if people want to fight for their country, why would anyone want to deny anybody such an honor?

It's a simple matter of principle. In a free society, every individual has the same basic rights as another. To deny any individual that same right is just bigotry. It's okay to have opinions or beliefs. It's okay to lob hateful speech as well. But it's not okay to deny someone their rights. The people who are so offended by homosexuality for moral and religious reasons are without excuse. Of course it may make them uncomfortable, but nobody has a right to NOT be offended. This is a free country. Freedom is championed, not personal tastes.

I was wondering the extent of your firsthand military experience.

And perhaps, your firsthand experience with homosexuals.

And I'm pretty sick and tired of hearing the same excuse I used as a child, "everybody else is doing it." I always heard, "that don't make it right".
It seems to me, that in many many instances, Britian has had their hiney handed to them, except that good old Uncle Sam has pulled them out. Also, Israel is no doubt highly grateful for our support also-it might also be useful to note that in Israel, EVERYBODY serves, due to thier unique border and manpower situations.

Using the lesser in comparison to the greater is no comparison.

As far as constitutional rights of the military members, the Supreme Court:

“...has long recognized that the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society…(t)he rights of men in the armed forces must perforce be conditioned to meet certain overriding demands of discipline and duty.”-MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST; Parker v. Levy, 1974

"Everybody else is doing it." I always heard, "that don't make it right".

You're right, Chiefest. It isn't right even if everyone is doing it. It used to be that slavery was very prevalent. But that didn't make it right. But when we're talking about homosexuality, it isn't about peer pressure or something of that nature. These, like the slave issue, are matters of human rights in a free society.

Homosexuality is part of who someone is. It isn't a choice. Science has proven this time and again no matter how many times Christian skeptics try to brush it off. A person cannot stop being gay anymore than they can stop being white, black, etc. To deny them their equal protection under the law as dictated by the constitution is an affront to freedom and a free society. For one individual to be denied a right that another individual has is by the logic of the 14th amendment, unconstitutional. So policies like "Don't Ask Don't Tell" or orders banning gay marriage are not constitutional.

"So policies like "Don't Ask Don't Tell" or orders banning gay marriage are not constitutional. "-jack

Militarily, I guess you know better than the (former) Chief Justice. (See Rehnquist's previous quote).

Just because you believe it that way, doesn't make it so.

Chiefest, I wasn't claiming to know better than a chief justice. I was stating the facts. I have yet to hear a sound arguement from anybody in any position of power as to how these policies don't violate the 14th amendment that grants equal represtentation under the law for all citizens regardless of their differences. I've heard some use excuses like executive privlidges and military autonomy, but the fact remains it goes against the constitution and the constitution is the law of the land.

"and the constitution is the law of the land."-jack

Wrong again, jack. Ultimately, the Constitution is the law of the land, only so far as it has been interpreted. What you are doing is saying your interpretation is the right one, and the Chief Justice erred.

Now that IS prideful, especially seeing how it's not YOUR JOB to interpret the Constitution, but the Supreme Court's. Perhaps you are a dissenting member? I highly doubt it.

with your "Ultimately, the Constitution is the law of the land, only so far as it has been interpreted." The Constitution is what it says, original words and phrases, original meaning.

If I am employed by XYZ Inc. and company policy is that I may not talk outside of work about company plans or secrets, if I do so, I'll get fired. And that will NOT be a violation of the 1st amendment.

When I join the military, I agree to suspend my rights and constitutional protections. The Justice got it right, but he didn't make it right.

Chiefest, I'm not saying the law doesn't have interpretations. It does. That's the nature of law. What I'm focusing on is the underlying philosophy of the law in relation to a free society. That is the tenant used by the founding fathers. They fought the revolution for freedom and to break the bonds held by an overbearing government. The free society as championed by them and the enlightenment emphasized the right to life, liberty, and property. Part of those rights include the liberty do as one pleased so long as it was peaceful and not infringing on the rights of others. Above all, it was making sure that the state did not impose their tastes on the people.

In regards to homosexuality, the movement against it is nothing more than bigotry. Some people don't like it so they want the state to condemn it and deny them their natural rights. The interpretation of the law may be forever ambiguous, but the spirit of the law is on the side of the oppressed. You don't have to like homosexuality or even approve of it. But in a free society, homosexuals have the same rights as you and me and shouldn't be denied as such whether it is marriage, serving the military, or adopting kids.

Honestly jack, how many of the founders you seem to know so well would have included homosexual perversion as one of the "liberties" for which they were pledging their lives, fortunes and sacred honor?

Now, YOU are putting words in THEIR mouth, if you say they founded this country on your notion of "liberty to do as one pleased".

"Ultimately, the Constitution is the law of the land, only so far as it has been interpreted." -me again

If you don't believe it, look at all that's "unconstitutional" in our goverment today. As I said, ultimately, it all carrys the weight of law and is constitutional until it goes through the SC and is pronounced otherwise.

And if I work for XYZ Company or enter the Military, and under contract I agree to suspend my rights, no one is taking them away (I would be protected under law). However, I would be giving them up, pursuant to my permission executed with the hypothetical contract.

For example a typical induction oath:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

I get no say in the matter after I say "I do" and sign my name. I agree to do what I am told.

Chiefest, I didn't say that the founders would approve of homosexuality. For their time, they probably wouldn't. I mention them because they laid out the notions of life, liberty, and property for the early republic and the tenants of a free society. It is immaterial how they felt about homosexuality. The point is if you don't give homosexuals the same rights the founding fathers espoused, then that's just more tyranny. The philosophy is the same. People have the same basic rights even if you don't like them. To deny them equal representation under the law is to be a tyrant.

"The Constitution is what it says, original words and phrases, original meaning."-drpete

I quote from drpete for this illustrates the founders intent.

I do not misunderstand, jack, instead I disagree. The founders intent was not to condone nor enable moral bankruptcy. As a matter of fact, some even said this government they designed would not stand if the people rejected God and His Law.


"Our laws and institutions must necessarily be based and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it be otherwise...." Supreme Court -Richmond v. Moore, 1883

"Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly INADEQUATE for the government of any other" John Adams 1798

et al.

If you had opportunity to get to know God, you would understand His commandments are not "grevious" (1 John 5:3). Instead He has "thoughts of peace" ( Jeremiah 29:11)concerning us, and we follow His Word for our "good" (Deuteronomy 10:13). That is what the founders knew, understood, and enabled in this country.

Not the perversion it has become.

I've pointed out before Chiefest and I'll keep pointing it out as much as I have to. Quote mining doesn't prove anything. It's a major fallacy that offers no substance to an argument. It does not matter what the founders have said about morality or whatever. It does not mean the underlying principle supports your view.

The fact remains there is no clause in the constitution that emphasizes a certain kind of morality. The constition is a fixed body of laws set to ensure the government does not abuse it's power by doing things such as harassing minorities with their opposing viewpoints or denying certain people their natural rights because their religion says they should.

It doesn't matter that the founders were religious. They were white too, but that doesn't play a part in this matter. The underlying principle is that of the free society. Life, liberty, and property is part of the constitution, not quotes from the bible decreeing some holy edict.

Just because it says in the bible that homosexuality is bad, that isn't reason enough to deny these people their basic rights. The bible also says homosexuals, disobedient children, and unwed virgins should be killed. Why single homosexuals out? If you can do one you can do the other. It's bigotry, plain and simple. And bigotry has no place in the laws governing a free society.

"The underlying principle is that of the free society. Life, liberty, and property is part of the constitution, not quotes from the bible decreeing some holy edict."-jack

These underlying principles, as you call them were, according to our founders, a direct result of the providence of God. And as a result, no man or government can deny these rights (ever heard of unalienable?-see the preamble to the Declaration of Independence). Therefore we can deduce, according to the founders, it is the "will of God" that men be free.

When you remove the Christian God (the "Redeemer") from the equation, the rights of man become based only on the willingness of other men to recognize these rights. It is not the "rule of law" but the "law of the jungle" that becomes the norm. The "strong" will conquer the "weak"; and the wise will convince them it is for thier own good. These rights are then taken away, and are being so today, because there is no more a solid foundation for them.

Any other foundation but God is a shifting one, based on the moral relativism which you are well aquainted with.

This is what the founders meant when they said this government they were establishing is inadequate for any people who do not hold to a Godly foundation, and as the SC quote that I cited said, it is "necessarily" so.

In the moral vacuum of today's climate , this government would have no opportunity to become established, so how can you say the founders moral beliefs were irrelavent?

Socialist forms of governement always fail. Look at history. They cycle between less and more freedom, sometimes changing hands along the way. This is why this government will fail also, because its citizens disregarded the Godly foundation upon which it was built.

I know you don't believe any of this, so there is no point in engaging you further upon it.

"These underlying principles, as you call them were, according to our founders, a direct result of the providence of God."

Simply put Chiefest, no they are not. Some of the founders may have believed that. Many do believe that freedom is a gift from god. It's a fine belief, but has no basis in reality. The principles of a free society did not come form god or religion, otherwise it wouldn't have taken over 1500 years for something like the American Republic to be set up. That's just plain logic. The notions of a free society were a product of various social movements that included the enlightenment, the scientific revolution, and the protestant reformation. There was nothing holy or divine about it. History documents it as a societal shift, not one dictated from the top down by an invisible deity.

God has never been a part of this. Only the belief of god has been part of it. It is immaterial to the point I'm making. Rights as they've always been defined come through force and law, not through god. And law and force are not set. That's why there are shifts and why republics try to limit the power of government to keep those freedoms. When government steps outside those bounds you get things like these anti-gay crusades that deny people their rights because you get moral crusaders like the Christian Right trying to get the government to impose their will since they can't persuade people enough on their own. It's cowardice, plain and simple. It's not a matter of too much or too little god. It's a matter of government overstepping it's bounds in a republic.

I said "according to the founders". They said so explicitly.

What they said is irrelevant, Chiefest. It's still quote mining. Many of the founding fathers had their own view for the country. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson had famous opposing views. But those opposing views did not win out over each other. The overarching philosophy of liberty and self-determination was the prevailing thought and it is that concept that carries over today. It is this philosophy of life, liberty, and property that guides the principles of the free society that all the founding father's championed. And society cannot be free of bigotry and hatred is legislated and imposed by the state for religious and personal reasons.

I'm "quote mining" because it illustrates the founders intent, which is where we started. I fail to understand why it is taboo to quote somebody. Evidently it contradicts the "relativism" doctrine to prove one's point. It is disingenious to say that the founders beliefs had no bearing on the nation, and how they designed this nation to operate.
When they signed the document, did that signature not mean that they agreed with its contents?
Have you ever signed a contract? Why is it the law holds you liable for the contents of anything you sign? BECAUSE YOUR SIGNATURE MEANS YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE CONTENTS.
To go back later and say they had divisions is disingenious and a clear attempt to obfuscate.

Why does one obfuscate? because he has no other recourse-his argument can't stand on the merits.

The reason I keep calling it quote mining, Chiefiest, is because it is a major fallacy. Quotes are not evidence of anything other than someone else's subjective views. The issue at hand is more objective in nature, that is the issue of the free society and the philosophy behind it. It was not just one man's view. It was a social movement that came forth from the Enlightenment that built of historical precedents going all the way back to ancient Greece. It's worth noting that the very word 'freedom' derives from Greek. What the founders believed may have guided them, but it was not end all, be all of what became the American Republic. What they signed was the fixed body of laws that became the backbone of the republic. Their personal feelings were secondary. It was the underlying philosophy that led the free society. I'm not trying to shoot down your worldview. I'm merely contesting your claims.

Quotes are not evidence of anything other than someone else's subjective views.-jack

How ridiculous of anyone like me to think that the Founders subjective views influenced the founding of this country! How absurd! We're the quotes taken out of context? no. We're they fabricated? no again. Are they uncomfortable for moral relativists such as yourself, who feebly attempt to brush them aside as inconsequential? YES.


Don't you worry, jack, your not going to shoot down my worldview, believe you me.

If I write a document, that others agree to, even vehemently so (lives, fortunes, and sacred honor-would you call that vehement?), it is said to be representative of their views. When they become signatories to it, they are espousing it. Try signing a contract today and breaking it. You'll be sued for not upholding it, if it's very important. I believe the Declaration and the Constitution were important.

No matter how relative you try to make it, the founders views formed the "backbone" as you put it, of our nation. Had it not been for thier views, this "backbone" would have dissolved before now and gone the way of other revolutions of the time.

We Americans would do well to heed their prophetic advice. I'll spare you their prophetic quotes.

"How ridiculous of anyone like me to think that the Founders subjective views influenced the founding of this country! How absurd! We're the quotes taken out of context? no. We're they fabricated? no again."

The issue isn't whether the founder's beliefs played a part in their decisions. I'm sure they did. The issue is you using their quotes as evidence for your position. It isn't evidence. It's quote mining, Chiefest. Plain and simple. I don't care to shoot down your worldview. I'd rather you keep it. It's your claims I'm addressing here.

I don't disagree that the founders laid out the backbone of our country. But they didn't create it out of thin air. Their views were part of a process at a certain point in time. They were products of varying influcnes such as the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, and yes even the Protestant Reformation. But just because they were Christian doesn't mean you can use their views to support anti-gay measures or any measure that denies minorities their basic rights. That is contrary the general principles of freedom and the free society. Even the founders knew that, despite what some of their personal views may have espoused.

jack if you're not going to recognize the obvious, and if your going to dismiss the obvious as unimportant, then there is no point.

Carry on with your secular relativism, but know this: it won't work. Never has, never will. There is no example out there you can point too with a pedigree similar to ours that has went secular and survived, freedom intact. But when you figure that out, it will be too late, much too late.

Chiefest, I understand you're trying to make a point, but it is a point full of fallacies and shortcomings. I do not debate your views about homosexuality and the founding fathers in the name of secular relativism. I do it because your claims have no merit. I don't care what you believe and I don't wish to oppose your biblical worldview. It's your claims I contest, nothing more. If you make fallacious claims then I will point them out. There are plenty of examples of countries that are largely agnostic that do well. Half of Japan's population are non-believers and over two thirds of Sweden are non-believers, and they do quite well in terms of development. It doesn't take god or religion for a society to become successful. It takes law, order, and a strong defense of human freedoms and that includes giving equal rights to those you may not agree with.

Interesting title to your last post. Misjudging.

It is you who misjudge, for what is your standard? What is your basis? Truth is relative to you. You judge that there is nothing eternal.

Truth to me is eternal. I judge by what is eternal, not what is undergoing change constantly based on the newest hypothesis. Your foundation of law is not anchored in the unchangeable, as our founders intended, but in the temporal. Your liberties are whatever the government says they are, for you have given up the Constitutional basis, that they are a gift from the Creator. Therefore they are subject to the whims of man, and are evaporating before your very eyes.

No Chiefest, truth is not relative to me. Just because I don't believe in your god doesn't mean you can assume I'm some overarching relativist. I'm not. Truth to me is truth, end of story. Truth is something that is verifiable, falsifiable, logical, reasonable, and well-substantiated. That's how I come to the conclusion that the anti-gay fervor spewed by social ideologues is wrong. It is neither logical nor reasonable to deny gays their equal rights when the constitution so clearly states that they deserve equal representation. It is also not logical to try and support your position by quote mining historical figures or passages from the bible. This proves nothing.

You say the law has to be based in something eternal. You're right. That's what a republic is, a fixed body of laws that limits the power of government. No god is needed. A god is what Plato would call a 'noble lie' that is purely a product of human and group cognition, not something to be associated with law and order. The constitution didn't come from a god. It came from men, wise men who understood that government should not be granted the powers of tyranny.

Wise men indeed, who understood that our rights derived from a "Creator" who they recognized and worshipped as God. They understood the foundation for our "rights", and lately this nation has forsaken it.

They wisely said this nation, as they founded it, would not survive when and if that happened.

What they believed is irrelvant in this particular context, Chiefest. What they understood is more important. They were enlightened enough to understand that power in the hands of the government could only lead to tyranny. That is why they favored a constitutional republic, a concept that is definitely not Christian. In fact, the idea of a republic pre-dates Christianity by a good deal. So their belief in a god (some of which wasn't even the Christian god) is besides the point. They were all white too. That doesn't make their understanding a triumph of white male supremacy.

It wasn't an abandoning of god that led America to this current state. America still has a majority of Christians. America underwent the same processes societies have undergone for centuries in that fear and irrational discontent spurs people to surrender their freedoms to government for safety while the government is constantly seeking to expand their power. It has nothing to do with god. It's basically politics as usual.

"What they understood is more important."-jack from your last post

"Wise men indeed, who understood that our rights derived from a "Creator" who they recognized and worshipped as God. They understood the foundation for our "rights", and lately this nation has forsaken it."-me from my last post.

Again, we can agree.

Glad we could find some common ground, Chiefest. But again, you're emphasizing their belief in a god was key. You're also ignoring that some of the founders like Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin didn't believe in the Christian god. They believed in a deist god. But that is belief and not understanding. The understanding aspect of my point relates to the scope of government. They knew the flaws of the system they had come from. They understood that a constitutional republic with rule of law would best protect individual freedoms. This rule would be founded in law, not given by a god as many kings of the times decreed. The problem is that with or without god, government has a tendency to grow and expand to gross and unsightly proportions. What is being done today is not just a threat to believers like you, but a threat to everyone of all beliefs.

Have you talked to Jefferson, Madison, or Franklin? If you are only reading the same texts I have, then you know they assented to the language that spelled out, very clearly, their belief that our liberties were a gift of God, so natural man had no right to abridge them.

What they understood is that the creature is corrupt by nature, and only within the self denial found by worshipping God, can the system they instituted be maintained.

That is why our culture is in decline now. Americans have been taught there is no Creator, so it becomes acceptable to worship and adore the corrupt creature.

It question remains, Chiefest. Which God? You can't state the claim that they favored your god or your narrow interpretation of your god. Even if they did, it wouldn't give your god or your beliefs any extra credibility. I understand the founders referenced god many times, but that doesn't mean they were referencing the Christian god. This was a time when nobody had any deeper understanding of our origins. A creator god was all they had to work with. That didn't mean it was the Christian god.

You're extrapolating too much from the political aspect of the founding. There was no theological undertones to what they established with the republic. It wasn't out of a belief that man was corrupt and sinful. It was out of experience from intrusive government forces like that of the king of England. It wasn't man that was the problem, but the politics of man that led to such corruption. You cannot make the bold claim that it was all brought forth by man's sinful nature because you're not taking into account the context of the situation.

Now you say the lack of a creator has corrupted the culture? Where's the evidence for this? Our culture today is still strong. Crime is down compared to the last 100 years and so is overall deviance. Look up the department of justice statistics for proof. Nobody is being taught there is no god. Society is just moving away from old folklore and mythology because there are more educated people in the modern age. Just as the founders were educated, the people of today understand there are more forces at work than those described in the bible.