Avoiding Evil

The HPV vaccine is a new vaccine approved by the FDA that is said to be 100% effective in preventing diseases that are caused by the Human papilloma virus (HPV). Don’t let this become too misleading. This vaccine only protects against four different types of HPV and therefore does not protect against all types of the virus. There are currently more than 40 types of HPV that can infect men and women. HPV is the cause of cervical cancer in women and other (less common) types of cancers. Certain types of HPV also cause genital warts in both men and women. This means that even with the HPV vaccine there is still a significant risk of cervical cancer and genital warts, diseases that will not be prevented by the HPV vaccine. This vaccine only reduces the risk, it isn’t really 100% effective. It is also less effective if you do not get all three doses (3 shots) at the right times or if you have already been exposed to HPV.

The HPV vaccine has been recommended for 11-12 year old girls, but it can be given to girls as young as 9 or as old as 26. The main goal is to get the vaccine to females before they become sexually active. The vaccine is mainly effective for girls or women who have not yet been exposed to the four different types of HPV covered by this particular vaccine. Anyone who has already been infected will not get the full benefits of the vaccine. It may still be effective for some females who have already been exposed to HPV if they have only been exposed to one or two of the four different types covered by the vaccine.

The HPV virus can cause cancer when it causes the cells in the cervix to change. While in many cases the HPV goes away, there are some cases that it doesn’t go away and instead it continues to change the cells on a woman’s cervix. This can lead to cancer. The percentage of people who will be infected with HPV is staggering. At least 50% of all sexually active people in the United States will get HPV. That comes out to be around 6 million people. Other than the vaccine to “help” prevent it there are no current treatments for HPV.

Should your daughter get the HPV vaccine? As a youth pastor should I recommend that the parents of the teenage girls in my youth group take their daughters to get this vaccine? Where should we stand on this issue as Christians and as responsible adults?

Let me first make this very clear. The only SURE way to prevent HPV is to abstain from all sexual activity. This works 100% of the time, it protects you from all 40 different types of HPV, and it almost completely eliminates the need for an expensive vaccine that may or may not prevent diseases related to HPV. Any parent who is concerned with their teenager’s health enough to make their daughter get an expensive vaccine should equally spend as much money and time making sure their daughter remains abstinent. The HPV vaccine is not a quick fix to deal with the sexual activity of teenagers. If parents are truly concerned with the health and wellbeing of their teen and desire what is best for their teenagers spiritual life then parents need to show the same amount of concern and effort for teaching their teens to be sexually pure as they show for keeping their teens healthy. The $360 it costs for the three doses of vaccine may even be better spent on $360 worth of abstinence protection and training.

Protecting your teenager from disease is not as simple as going to get them a few shots. Parents need to be actively involved in the lives of their teens. Not only do they need to talk to their teenagers about sex and sexual purity, but also they need to establish guidelines that promote purity. Parents who allow their teenage girls or boys to be in the bedroom or basement alone with their boyfriends or girlfriends with the door closed and the light off are asking for trouble. This type of freedom promotes sexual exploration, not purity. The best way for teenagers to prevent these HPV related diseases is to remain sexually abstinent and parents they need your help! They need you to set boundaries for them. The HPV vaccine is not a boundary. It is a vaccine that helps take away the consequences of having multiple sexual partners and therefore promotes teenage sexual activity rather than prevents it. Here is the rub. The HPV vaccine does not prevent pregnancy, HIV, 36 other types of HPV, or many other STD’s. All the risks of being sexually active (including cervical cancers) are still there and yet the vaccine is offering teen girls a false sense of security. If teenagers become even more sexually active after receiving the vaccine, they are at a greater risk than they were before the vaccine was administered.

In my opinion there are only a couple reasons that the HPV vaccine should even be considered. If you are a parent who, against better judgment, doesn’t really care if your teenager is sexually active, or if you are a parent who promotes it or gives your teen the freedom necessary to be sexually active then by all means get your daughter the vaccine. If you are a parent who is certain that your teenager is sexual active despite all that you’ve done to prevent it, then you may also want to get the vaccine (however, never give up promoting abstinence and remind them of all the other risks involved.) The most legitimate reason to get the vaccine is for any future risk that could be out of the control of your teen. While abstaining from sex is the best way to prevent it, you can’t always prevent the person you are going to marry down the road from making mistakes. Even if you’ve only had one sexual partner, if the person you are with has had previous sexual partners then you are still at risk. In the case that your daughter remains sexually abstinent but then desires to marry someone who may have made a mistake early in life then it would be good for her to receive the vaccine. Remember, however, that the vaccine does not have to be administered right away. Your daughter doesn’t need the vaccine right now if she is waiting until she gets married to be sexually active. When it comes to the point of marriage then she can consider getting the vaccine. Another responsible way of dealing with the issue is promoting abstinence with your daughter and waiting until she is old enough to make the decision on her own as to whether or not she wants to get the vaccine. This could prevent the early, false sense of security that teens with the vaccine could develop which may prevent them from making a choice to be sexually active.

This remains to be a sensitive subject with a lot of different points of view. From a Christian perspective, however, the right thing to do is for parents to promote sexual purity regardless of whether or not they feel the HPV vaccine is necessary. Any parent who has a real concern for their son or daughters health and future WILL do what it takes to help their teens live sexually pure. That doesn’t mean just paying for a few shots and calling it good.

Originally Posted On October 25, 2004

In my search to discover more about the history of Halloween I was taken to the History Channel’s website. On October 31st, 2004 they are airing a show on the history of Halloween, but if you can’t wait until then there is plenty of information on their website. Here is a quick overview of the history of Halloween from the History Channel’s website:

Halloween’s origins date back to the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain (pronounced sow-in). The Celts, who lived 2,000 years ago in the area that is now Ireland, the United Kingdom, and northern France, celebrated their new year on November 1. This day marked the end of summer and the harvest and the beginning of the dark, cold winter, a time of year that was often associated with human death. Celts believed that on the night before the new year, the boundary between the worlds of the living and the dead became blurred. On the night of October 31, they celebrated Samhain, when it was believed that the ghosts of the dead returned to earth. In addition to causing trouble and damaging crops, Celts thought that the presence of the otherworldly spirits made it easier for the Druids, or Celtic priests, to make predictions about the future.

To commemorate the event, Druids built huge sacred bonfires, where the people gathered to burn crops and animals as sacrifices to the Celtic deities. During the celebration, the Celts wore costumes, typically consisting of animal heads and skins, and attempted to tell each other’s fortunes. When the celebration was over, they re-lit their hearth fires, which they had extinguished earlier that evening, from the sacred bonfire to help protect them during the coming winter.

By the 800s, the influence of Christianity had spread into Celtic lands. In the seventh century, Pope Boniface IV designated November 1 All Saints’ Day, a time to honor saints and martyrs. It is widely believed today that the pope was attempting to replace the Celtic festival of the dead with a related, but church-sanctioned holiday. The celebration was also called All-hallows or All-hallowmas (from Middle English Alholowmesse meaning All Saints’ Day) and the night before it, the night of Samhain, began to be called All-hallows Eve and, eventually, Halloween. Even later, in A.D. 1000, the church would make November 2 All Souls’ Day, a day to honor the dead. It was celebrated similarly to Samhain, with big bonfires, parades, and dressing up in costumes as saints, angels, and devils. Together, the three celebrations, the eve of All Saints’, All Saints’, and All Souls’, were called Hallowmas.

Our celebration of Halloween is wholly different than what October 31st meant to the Celts. To them it was their religion, their belief, their life, and they were serious about it. They depended on the natural world and to see the predictions of the future. To do things to help them through the winter was important to them. In America Halloween maybe somewhat similar to the practices of a false religion or cultic practice, in reality, it is not the same. Is what we do at Halloween wrong? Is it the practice itself or the meaning behind it? For instance, they dressed up to attempt to tell each others fortunes during a festival in which they were sacrificing animals to a false god. We dress up and go door to door collecting candy and having fun. It seems to be there is a big difference in those two things. To Americans it is a fun holiday. Things like pumpkins, ghosts, ghouls, monsters actually entertain us. So how did this buisness of “trick or treat” become a tradition in the United States?

The American tradition of “trick-or-treating” probably dates back to the early All Souls’ Day parades in England. During the festivities, poor citizens would beg for food and families would give them pastries called “soul cakes” in return for their promise to pray for the family’s dead relatives. The distribution of soul cakes was encouraged by the church as a way to replace the ancient practice of leaving food and wine for roaming spirits. The practice, which was referred to as “going a-souling” was eventually taken up by children who would visit the houses in their neighborhood and be given ale, food, and money.

The tradition of dressing in costume for Halloween has both European and Celtic roots. Hundreds of years ago, winter was an uncertain and frightening time. Food supplies often ran low and, for the many people afraid of the dark, the short days of winter were full of constant worry. On Halloween, when it was believed that ghosts came back to the earthly world, people thought that they would encounter ghosts if they left their homes. To avoid being recognized by these ghosts, people would wear masks when they left their homes after dark so that the ghosts would mistake them for fellow spirits. On Halloween, to keep ghosts away from their houses, people would place bowls of food outside their homes to appease the ghosts and prevent them from attempting to enter.

I have found tons of information on the subject of Halloween and the history behind it. For Christians, the biggest fear of celebrating Halloween is the fear of practicing or participating in some type of cultic practice or demon worship. (I won’t get into, but these same poeple should not own Christmas trees if that is the case.)

To me, Halloween is nothing more than good fun, enticing some of the basic human emotions, fear and fun. We like to be scared, thats why we like scary movies. It’s not something that is associated with the devil. These kids don’t dress up and sacrifice people or animals to false gods. The devil doesn’t come in the form of a big monster or an ugly demonic creature that bites our heads off. The things we potray as evil are not what evil looks like at all. Satan and his demons were angels of light and were made as beautiful creatures. However, I am teachable in this area… I don’t have the answers and in fact this could be a disputable matter.

What do you think about Halloween? Demonic holiday or just good fun? Let me know in the comments below.

As I have read more about the debate on Alcohol in the Southern Baptist Convention. Those opposed to the alcohol resolution are saying things like this: “Alcohol is a gift from God that should be enjoyed”, “This resolution is legalism”, “This is not a Baptist issue, its a Bible issue”, “This isn’t about Christian liberty, its about the Sufficiency of Scripture”, “The SBC needs to repent from total abstinence from alcohol”, “Abstinence from alcohol is rejecting the Biblical example of Jesus”, “Drinking alcohol is not a sin”, “Enjoying the things created by God, such as alcohol, help us to enjoy God better”, “This issue is much bigger than alcohol”, “This is the SBC leaderships fault”, “Alcohol can be used in such a way that cheers the heart and honors God”, “teaching abstinence needlessly draws a line in the sand on doctrines and traditions not essential for unity and for proclaiming the faith”.

Alcohol is a gift from God: Where in the world do they get this? Well 1 Timothy 4:4 says “For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer” This was in reference to foods when false teachers like some Gnostics required strict abstinence from certain things including marriage and food. While this verse does not refer to alcohol at all and while it does not call alcohol a gift from God, it does make it clear that everything created by God is good. Of course, it could be argued that alcohol or “strong drink” may not necessarily be one of those created things that are considered good. What do I mean by that? Well, humans have a way of not only abusing things, but we tend to take many of God’s “good” creations and mix them together to turn them into bad things. For example, you are not going to find many people who think that aluminum foil, charcoal lighter fluid, epson salts, gasoline, mineral spirits, batteries, table salt, coffee filters, towels, napkins, pots, pans, bowls, jars, sports drinking bottles, pressure cooker, stove top range, oven, microwave, grill, ice tea jars, drink dispensers, and gasoline cans with tubing are from the devil. In fact many of these are good, useful products that we use every single day. And yet these are all key ingredients and products used in the making of methamphetamine one of the most dangerous and addicting drugs on the street. Is methamphetamine a good gift created by God for his people? I think the answer is a definitive no! Trees are good. Man comes up with a way to take trees, make paper, print pictures and the next thing you know we have a porn magazine. Are porn magazines good gifts created by God for his people? Again the answer is no. We are good at screwing a lot of things up and so to say that modern day alcohol is simply a good gift from God is a stretch and a half if you ask me.

This resolution is legalism Ok, here is a shocker… I’m not going to disagree with this argument quite as strongly as some would suspect, cause I myself feel that this resolution could tip toe on the edges of legalism if it is used in the wrong way. Here is what I mean. I see this as a resolution from the convention, not a law. This is the convention saying that it urges its members to oppose alcohol, but there is no forcing of the issue. Many of those that oppose this resolution are looking at this as a pharisaical action of the convention that is forcing un-biblical issues upon its people. I disagree completely with this. After reading the resolution I don’t believe that the Bible has much to do with the reasoning behind creation of the resolution in the first place. The Pharisees were guilty of creating their own laws and calling them biblical and enforcing these laws as if God himself was the author and creator of them, such as washing your hands before eating. If the Southern Baptist convention were to adopt an amendment that declared drinking alcohol in any moderation a sin and began to enforce it as law upon the people, I believe that would be legalism. But for the messengers of the convention to say that we oppose alcohol and urge the convention to support legislation that curbs the use of it in our nation and to urge churches to educate people on the dangers of the use of alcohol because of the well known and proven facts of its destruction of both people and families is not at all legalism.

This is not a Baptist issue, its a Bible issue Of course its a Baptist issue. It’s been a Baptist issue for years and years and continues to be one. Yes it is that dreaded word, tradition. It’s not as if the SBC has never voted on a resolutions concerning alcohol. We’ve adopted plenty of resolutions concerning this issue, however few have been opposed until now. Why are those opposed trying to make this a Biblical issue? Because they believe that the Bible condones drinking alcohol and they believe that it is un-biblical and sinful for a group of people to oppose something that the Bible says is ok. I think they are also a little dismayed at the fact that this conservative led convention didn’t make it a Biblical issue. Time and again I’ve seen blogs that say that this is “basically” saying drinking is a sin and that this is completely a biblical issue. Funny thing is, the resolution itself doesn’t really make it a Biblical issue at all. There is no where that it even comes close to saying that drinking is a sin. It simply states the facts of the dangers of alcohol and declares that the messengers of the 2006 SBC have decided to oppose it because of those facts. Plain and simple. Is it wrong to oppose something simply because it is destructive? I don’t think it is.

The SBC needs to repent from total abstinence from alcohol Is abstaining from something a sin? Is declaring that as a group, we as Southern Baptists oppose alcohol a sin? I’m not buying this one. I believe that it is a worthy goal to abstain from something that is destructive. Now some might say, “why don’t we have resolutions against eating and things of that nature?” Well, maybe because you haven’t brought one up yet. Honestly, do I think the SBC should have a resolution on gluttony? Yeah, I would vote for that. Should we talk about the dangers of certain foods and urge churches to battle obesity? Yes. Same principle, its to help curb the destructive forces of things that are hurting the people around us.

Abstinence from alcohol is rejecting the Biblical example of Jesus If we decided to abstain from alcohol then we are rejecting Christ’s example and not following in his footsteps by drinking wine. That is kind of like saying since I don’t like to eat fish or unleavened bread then I am rejecting Christ’s Biblical examples of eating fish and unleavened bread. Since I didn’t attempt to raise aunt Bertha from the dead then I am rejecting Christ’s Biblical example of raising people from the dead. When Christ drank wine, was he really doing so to give us an example and to tell us that we should go and do likewise or was he just thirsty? Maybe the disciples ran out of quarters or the coke got stuck in the soda machine so they just had to settle for wine. Or maybe that is all they had to drink. Was the wine mixed with water? Was it a pure hard drink? Is it even possible to know the answer to this question? No. If it is impossible to know exactly what this drink was then how can we truly say that our wine today is similar? The other question I have is what does this say about other alcohol that isn’t wine? The Bible doesn’t speak to all of the other types of alcohol and yet I’ve read several arguments that believe believers are Biblically sanctioned to drink any kind of alcohol. I’ve not seen the passage that says drink Bud Light in moderation.

Drinking alcohol is not a sin Agreed. Well, for the most part. I believe that drinking wine in moderation without other influences is not condemned in the Bible. However, drinking other alcoholic beverages is really an argument from silence. The other thing is, many times people drink for the wrong reasonsw, which I believe can also be sinful.

This issue is much bigger than alcohol I think this issue has become much bigger than its original intent. Now it seems to be something to fuss over, something to argue about, something else to use to bash the conservative leadership, and the people in the middle of it arguing are the same people who are saying that we are spending too much time arguing about it rather than reaching people for Jesus. Doesn’t make much sense to me.

“Alcohol is on TV, in Magazines, at Wal-Mart, at the ball park, and SBCer’s will have to abstain from all of these things if they are choosing to totally oppose alcohol.” Yet again, I don’t see how the fact that we can’t avoid alcohol because its in everything we do in America makes it ok then to support it instead. The limited ability of people to not buy, look at, touch, or even get near something that is influenced by alcohol is not a valid reason for the support of it. Besides, the resolution itself doesn’t say anything about abstaining. I believe the word is opposing. But I don’t guess that matters. I think if giving up my personal free choice to drink wine will help curb the abuse then there is no question about what I will do. Will abuse go away all together? No. But it could help.

Unfortunately the alcohol abusers in our churches today are not hearing anything other than this continued support for the drinking of alcohol. Sure, they may hear someone say now and then that the Bible says abuse of alcohol is a sin, but the thing they keep coming back to over and over again is “drinking is not a sin, drinking is not a sin”. People who are caught up in this stuff do not need to hear that it is ok for them to drink, they need people who are willing to stand with them in helping them abstain from the very thing destroying their lives. It’s kinda hard to help out your buddy who is an alcoholic when your chugging a beer.

I think in this case we should look back at a few things Paul had to say. He reminds us that we are free, but we shouldn’t use that freedom to indulge ourselves. And of course there is all that stuff he says about disputable matters too…

Originally posted on Dec. 8th, 2004 (I remembered writing this story and decided to look it up and re-post it.)

I think the chicken came first. Once the chicken came into existence, the egg became the primary means to form other chickens from then on. The chicken was created in a specific way with specific purposes, but the chicken’s offspring didn’t often agree with the destiny of chickens and therefore the chicks decided to stray. They still considered themselves chickens of course, but they decided that they didn’t want to cluck or lay eggs. They decided that they would rather moo and produce milk. The original chickens were repulsed at such an idea knowing that chickens were created to lay eggs, but the renegade chickens didn’t care. They decided that it was in their genes, and they proclaimed that they were designed to moo and produce milk. The original chickens were called bigots, fundamentals and thought to be closed minded, when all they really wanted to do was set the minds of the poor confused chickens straight. What did it mean to be a chicken? To cluck and lay eggs of course.

The confused renegade chickens just wouldn’t hear it! They cried out for their own rights, formed their own support groups, and moved to the stables with the cows where they mooed and attempted to produce milk (even though they couldn’t, because they are chickens not cows.) Many confused chickens adopted jugs of milk from cows in order to simulate the destiny they so desperately wanted, to be able to produce milk. Imagine the poor farmers surprise when he went to milk the cows and found a group of chickens mooing and standing next to the borrowed milk that they didn’t really produce. What could the farmer conclude? These chickens were very strange indeed and obviously confused about their place in life. Thus, the farmer is left with a decision to make… does he simply allow the confused chickens to hang out with the cows and moo, setting the stage for chickens across the country to do the same, or does he force the chickens to move back in with the others, denying them their rights to moo?

The farmer does what any level headed farmer would do. He takes the chickens and forces them to go back to where they came from. He decided not to allow the confused chickens to act like cows and live in the barn. Now the confused, renegade chickens were angry. They went on strike, refused to lay eggs, and angrily pecked at the farmer�s legs when he was around. They thought they had every right to be cows and that every other animal and the farmer should just accept it. The farmer, however, knew the true place of the chicken and would not allow this foolishness to take place on his farm! Among the chickens, cows, and other animals on the farm there was much rejoicing. The poor renegade chickens continued to moo, and peck at the farmer�s legs to no avail. They lived out the rest of their days with the other chickens, forced to live by rules that they didn’t choose, and they remained angry and bitter chickens all the days of their lives.

I was inspired to write this after reading a post today entitled the chicken, the egg, and the homo. I actually liked the post made at Obliquity. I considered it to be thought provoking and creative, however, it inspired me to write a silly little story about chickens from the viewpoint of the conservative, Christian chicken. I didn’t come up with this to be mean or to make fun of anyone. Thinking about the chicken and the egg theory in comparison to the current battle between Christians and homosexuals got my creative juices flowing and this weird little story came out of all that.

The relationship between Christianity and Homosexuals right now is a current hot spot in our society and from personal experience I am well aware of both sides of this argument. The religious right stands up and declares homosexuality to be wrong, while the homosexuals and the left believe otherwise and it is a constant battle back and forth. I have been there, done that, and really have little interest in continuing such a battle, other than just reaffirming the position I have come to on the issue. I don’t hate homosexuals and I don’t spend my time finding new exciting ways to bash them. I don’t intently try to harm them, but I will stand strong in my belief in what the Bible declares as truth. If saying that God’s word says Homosexuality is a sin makes me a hatemonger, then I guess I am a hatemonger. I don’t believe that I am, because really I am not a gay hating individual. If you want to be gay, then be gay. Just don’t try to force me to accept it as ok, don’t try to force me to believe it is the right thing to do, and don’t try to force me to believe that God says it’s ok. “What if a homosexual came to your church for a worship service?” I would welcome them, shake their hand, and treat them like everyone else. And yet, I am considered a hatemonger, and a hypocritical Christian because I believe homosexuality to be a sin. Would I be considered a hater if I declared murder to be a sin? Adultery? Pedophilia? Lying? Stealing? Cheating? Am I a hater because the Bible speaks against such things? According to the left I hate adulterers, liars, thieves, cheaters, and child molesters because I call them sinners. When I correct children, telling them they are doing something wrong, I must hate them too. In fact, if someone sins and another person points it out, it must be hate! Of course, since they are pointing out that I’m doing things wrong too then they hate me as well and in this little nasty circle everyone hates everybody. Even God takes an opportunity to point out the faults of humans, would that be hate as well? Folk’s, that isn’t what hate is. That is not being a biggot or close minded.

I think Christians are simply mis-understood. People don’t understand why we have to be haters… It’s not about hate. We don’t hate homosexual people, at least I don’t. I believe the Bible speaks against it, and I think it is a sin, but how does that make me hate homosexuals? It doesn’t. I alwasy thought everyone was allowed to have their own opinions and thoughts on things, and yet if a Christian believes homosexuality is wrong they are immediatly branded as haters, and evil hypocrites for expressing that opinion. However, if I were to get on here and say you were a hypocrite for expression your opinion, well it would be another story all together. Just like with everyone else, Christians have the same right to express their opinion or understanding of what they believe the Bible says. It doesn’t make them haters, evil, hypicrites, or anything else. I don’t hate homosexuals, I just disagree with them. Have we come to the point in life where disagreement is equal to hatred?

I was reading the paper a while back and saw an article on a group of roadside billboards that were vandalized. This of course immediately caught my eye, and even more so when I saw what the billboards were about. The billboard was bearing a photograph of an African-Amercian ex-gay man and it quoted him saying “I Questioned Homosexuality: Change is Possible”. This is only one of many of the billboards that were vandalized in attacks against the Love Won Out conferences that were offered in St. Louis on February 25th.

Exodus International placed these billboards in the St. Louis area in conjunction with the upcoming conference presented by Focus on the Family which is designed to offer help for people who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions.

Gay activists are protesting this event, they have bombarded the church hosting the even with eggs, and now they are resorting to vandalizing billboards. All of this coming from a large group of people who are crying out for tolerance. It seems the people who desire tolerance are not willing to give it themselves.

I honestly don’t see why it is so offensive to help people who honestly want to get out of homosexuality. Believe it or not, there are people in the world who are struggling with these things and their desire in life is to get rid of these feelings. Do people not have a right to get out of homosexuality once they are in it? It seems like people who are ex-homosexuals are abused and tolerated even less than those who were never a part of it in the first place.

It is a sad day when the homosexual community resorts to breaking the law and vandalism to protest someone’s free choice, especially when they claim to be fighting for free choice themselves. I think this is a good example of the real face of gay activism. Many of them are not the hurt, scared, innocent minority of social outcasts that they make themselves out to be. If this was all about personal choice and sexual diversity then these Love Won Out conferences wouldn’t be a problem, but the issue is not about personal choice, it goes far deeper than that. The attempt to make their personal choice socially acceptable is quickly becoming a violation of others personal choice, and the tolerance they seek is clouded by the intolerance they give.

Lets face it. There are men and women out there in the world who are unsatisfied with their lives and no longer want to be a part of homosexuality. They have a right to change and that isn’t an offensive thing, that is life. It isn’t wise to resort to childish behavior and vandalism to try and prove a point, when the only message you are sending to the world is your own intolerance. The gay rights activists have just earned some more socially negative points in my book.