What is unbelievable to me is how some people have managed to connect the shooting this last week with the issue of the Boy Scouts not allowing homosexuals as leaders. That is what I want to speak to today.

I'll tell you quite honestly, ladies and gentlemen, things are getting a little frightening. I don't want to say that I am frightened, like I'm panicking, but I am sober-minded about this and I want you to be as well. I'm not the kind of person that is a "Chicken Little" person. "The sky is falling!" I am not an alarmist. I'm not a "lions, and tigers, and bears, oh, my" Christian, seeing the devil around every corner in the form of homosexuals, and humanism, and pro-abortionists. Oh, my what do we do?

No, that is not my view. I am an optimist. I've read the end. I know that the odds are going to be against us much of the time, from a human perspective, and it is appropriate for us to be wise. There are many warnings to us in the Scriptures that amount to being wise as serpents but gentle as doves.

"Be aware of the spiritual attacks that are against you. The devil prowls about like a roaring lion seeking for someone to devour. But resist him firm in your faith knowing that the same kinds of persecution and sufferings that you are experiencing are being experienced and accomplished by the brethren who are in the world. Wait till you have persevered for a little while, then you will receive what has been promised."

That's in 1 Peter 5. We have this recommendation teaching encouragement from the scriptures.

There is no reason for Christians to be alarmist and negative in that sense. But I think we are obliged to be wise, and careful, and properly ascertain the spirit of the age and the signs of the times so that we may not get caught by surprise, and that we may give an appropriate answer.

With that in mind, let me tell you my concern.

I'm not sure exactly how to say "they." "Those guys." It is easy to impersonalize the enemy as it were: the press, the liberals, the bad guys. I don't know exactly how to say that because I don't want to just arbitrarily impersonalize people who are against us, but let's just say there are a lot of people who don't share our point of view. And to a great degree, those are the people with the microphones. Apart from divine intervention, it is almost always the case that the man with the microphone wins. We're usually not behind it, though I'm behind it today. So those who are opposed to the Christian view of the world and Christian morality have been very effective at depicting us as evil. That's my concern.

The irony is, we are people by and large who are deeply committed to a virtuous life. Now I say by and large because there are a lot in Christendom who are not deeply committed to following Christ. But if one is deeply committed to following Christ and following that which Jesus taught and his disciples passed onto us, well, then one who is that kind of Christian is also deeply committed to living a virtuous life. Therefore, we are opposed to hate, and opposed to inappropriate treatment of people made in the image of God. Opposed to the kinds of things we saw happen last week and apparently just this morning as I heard on the radio coming over here. A Swastika and a statement something like "death to Jews" spray painted on one of the oldest synagogues in our city. I think it has people of virtue staggering, what next? Every time you turn around it is something else.

There have been a lot of culprits that have been identified. One is guns. Though I am not really fond of slogans, I think the slogan "Guns don't kill people, people do" is really to the point.

All of this unmerited concern about guns came to a head a couple of months ago on the Rosie O'Donnell show. Tom Selleck was there, a member of the National Rifle Association. He got a little bit blind-sided by this vicious attack by Rosie O'Donnell who is very happy with disposing of the Second Amendment. In fact, she said that.

I think that it would have been helpful for Tom to ask two questions of Rosie, in the Columbo tradition. Two questions.

Would you say it is a fair assessment of the circumstances to say that gun violence has escalated in the last ten years? That's the first question. A no-brainer, right? That's what Rosie's been saying. That's why she's so upset. That's why she wants to dispatch with the Second Amendment. Yes, it has escalated in the last ten years. Okay. Second question Mr. Selleck should have asked: In the last ten years, same amount of time, have restrictions on gun use, anti-gun legislation, decreased, stayed the same, or increased?

Now, there I suspect, Rosie would pause because she knows the answer, but she sees the handwriting on the wall. The answer is very simple. Gun restrictions have increased massively in the last ten years. All right. Tom could say, Let me just get this straight. Gun violence has increased radically in the last ten years. At the same time, gun restrictions have increased radically. So as gun restrictions increase, violence increases, and you're suggesting that we restrict guns more.

This is not rocket science. I think that simple pair of questions would have pointed out the silliness of what turns out to be a characteristic liberal response. Pardon me for phrasing it that way, but that seems to be the case. In fact, Thomas Sowell has written about this in his column. His observation is that liberal solutions, when employed, have not fixed the problems, whether it's sex education, or gun control, or any of a number of other things. But the problem just increases. Instead of waking up and smelling the decade, the response has not been to find a different solution since the current one doesn't work but increases the problem; it's to pour on more funding for their solution. It's not working, so we have to do more of that which is not working and may be actually exacerbating the problem, instead of finding another solution.

Increasing gun violence. All right, let's increase gun restrictions. More increase in gun violence. All right, let's increase gun restrictions some more. More and more. Why doesn't somebody wake up and understand that this is not helping the problem?

Rosie might say, Just think how bad it would have been if we didn't have those gun restrictions. And that would be a fair rejoinder as far as it goes. The problem is, you can't just say that and pretend that it is true. It is possible that may be the answer, but I don't see any evidence that is the case. It seems to me that it is counterintuitive. It seems to me that there is another answer that is better.

Gun control has not stopped gun violence. It may be the case that gun control first of all doesn't stop the criminal. That is certainly possible. Not only possible, it's intuitive and it is statistically supported. Secondly, gun control prevents law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. That might be another factor there, too.

My question is, which seems more reasonable? What makes more sense? It strikes me that the second makes more sense than the first. It isn't that we haven't done enough. We've done lots. Somebody quoted a statistic last week: 20,000 laws locally and nationally against gun use. Which one of any of those laws would have stopped what happened, not just as Columbine, but since then in a number of different cases culminating this last week here in Los Angeles. None of those laws would have stopped that. So, it's not the gun problem. That is misdirected. In fact, gun control may be exacerbating the problem. That would be my take on it.

Maybe there is another explanation. That explanation is given visual expression in today's L.A. Times in a commentary with a simple cartoon by Paul Conrad. I don't know who this guy is, but I never like his cartoons. Here is a drawing, I assume, of Buford O. Furrow, Jr., the alleged gunman in both incidents on Tuesday and it is next to an article written by Sally Saytelle, "Prospective on Hate: Badness or Madness?" She makes a pretty good point here that has been brought up by one or two people, but most have ignored it. Her observation is, you guys are talking about hate and racism; this guy is certifiable--he's a nut. This may have nothing to do with hate and racism and intolerance. This guy is just crazy. That is possible and she gives all the reasons why.

Apparently he tried to check himself into a clinic at one point and whatever. He's done a lot of other crazy things. So maybe this guy's a nut case and you can't really draw any conclusions about intolerance, hate, violence, and racism from this guy.

But apparently Paul Conrad has. Here is this sketch of Buford O. Furrow, Jr., standing in handcuffs with a caption that reads, "A faith-based compassionate conservative." Where the heck did he get that? Somehow he thinks that Buford O. Furrow is a good example of a faith-based compassionate conservative. As far as I know, he hasn't made any statements about faith or religion. I haven't seen any of that in the news. Why couldn't Mr. Conrad have simply given a picture of this man and written beneath it "This is your basic, average American liberal"? Well, that would be stupid. That's my point. This is just a broad-based, aggressive, mean-spirited, belligerent, and, might I add, hateful ad hominem against a group that Paul Conrad does not like. It is virtually unconscionable to put this here. There is no connection except the imagined connection in Paul Conrad's mind between the murders last week and faith-based compassionate conservatives. That would be you and I, by the way. But it is not just Paul Conrad that has made that connection.

Robert Sheerer has also written today in the L.A. Times making a similar kind of connection. This bodes very dangerously for people of moral religious conviction in this country.

There is an acceleration of violence, personal violence, in this country and people are asking why. It is bizarre, unbelievable the magnitude and the speed at which this is happening. Aren't you dizzy, just a bit, with all of these things happening? I am.

Every time something new happens it creates a double groan inside of me. The first groan is this is another tragic event. The second groan is now this is another opportunity for people to go after us. How could that be? How is it that Christians could be the targets of concern when whackos go out and shoot up preschools?

There is one word that has linked us with that. The word is hate. It is a word that is being used very effectively. It is used to describe those that commit these crimes and it is used to describe those of us who hold to traditional moral viewpoints that affect our public stance on things like abortion and especially on things like homosexuality. If one takes a moral stand against homosexuality, out of moral conviction, not animated by hostility or hate, but animated by moral impulse, and a fidelity to the Scripture, and a fidelity to classical Christian values--in fact, classical western values--that person is labeled as one who is not simply intolerant in the new sense of the word, but as somebody who is hateful.

What happens when you act in a hateful way and you promote hateful points of view? You create an atmosphere of hate and intolerance, and that influences other people to be more comfortable with their hate and intolerance, and then if they are a little bit unbalanced they act on it.

So when Buford O. Furrow, Jr., guns down preschoolers at a Jewish community center and a Filipino postman, that could be and apparently has been construed to be the result of an atmosphere created by people who say they are really religious but are truly motivated by hate. That's the point of view that can justify Paul Conrad cartoon that he ran in the commentary section of the L.A. Times this morning. It is a statement that is completely divorced from reality, but makes all kinds of sense in the imagination of Paul Conrad and apparently in the imagination of Robert Sheerer.

As a policy I have stopped reading Robert Sheerer in the L.A. Times because not only are his ideas hostile to ours, but they are so abysmally poorly argued. It just makes me mad. It ruins my day. I've talked about his articles in the past and I don't want to waste time on them anymore. But this piece makes a point.

He writes under "Scouts Honor Should Extend to All of Us." "True, the Boy Scouts are an essentially wonderful organization light years away in purpose and philosophy from the Aryan Nation that fueled the rage of Buford O. Furrow, but how many lessons do we need concerning the ease with which disdain for others degenerates into full-blown hate and rage?" In other words, do you see the pattern here, he is saying. We've got to look at the root of it, not the flower. Not the ultimate consequence, let's go back to the cause. And in his mind, the Boy Scouts are part of the problem.

He continues, "Nor should we forget that gays are increasingly the victims of hate crimes these days and also on Furrow's hate list. But the Scouts restated their position that being gay is inconsistent with the oath that Scouts all take to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. What a horrid word of intolerance to send to young people. How dare anyone in our community where gays are in the top ranks of our cultural, political, and economic life, suggest that gays are inherently unclean in thought, word, and deed? Thus stigmatized merely for being different. Not for any wrong they have done others, at a time when the young need to be taught the virtue of inclusion and tolerance."

Do you see what is going on here? Obviously Robert Sheerer has a point of view and he is entitled to it. But what he has done is lay the violence that has been committed at the doorstep of the Boy Scouts. He is laying it at the doorstep of those who have moral concerns about homosexuality, like the Boy Scouts.

Didn't we hear the same kind of thing last fall when poor Matthew Sheppard was brutalized and murdered? An egregious crime against humanity. And that crime was once again laid at the feet of people like you and I. Why? To use Sheerer's words, "How dare anyone in our community where gays are in the top ranks of our cultural, political, and economic life suggest that gays are inherently unclean in thought, word and deed." We have the audacity to say that.

I want to give you a simple formula here. This first point is that those kinds of people, Conrad and Sheerer, are getting very effective at depicting people like you and I as evil, as dangerous threats to society. Christians are committed deeply to virtue, they hold a view that western society has held consistently for almost 2000 years, and they hold a view with regards to homosexuality that most people hold. Yet, those who oppose us have been very effective in getting the word hate to stick to us and that they have been effective is instructive about the nature of the times.

People believe this. Read the letters to the editor. Listen to people calling in to talk shows. They have bought this analysis.

Let me give you a simple formula when dealing with this kind of thing. It does not follow that merely because someone makes a moral judgment, that such a judgment is an example of hate. That's self-refuting first off because the objection itself is a moral objection. When Mr. Sheerer and Mr. Conrad are objecting to our view as hateful because we take a moral position, they are in fact taking a moral position against us. And if morality is hate, then their morality against us is also hateful. They are guilty of the very thing they say we shouldn't be doing. If saying somebody is immoral is an act of hate, then they are saying we're immoral, and they are just as hateful as we are.

Secondly, I think you've got to show the moral judgment is unreasonable. You can't just call it hate, you've got to show the moral judgment is unreasonable. Of course, Mr. Sheerer believes it is unreasonable, that's why he is offended at the audacity of anyone implying that merely being different (what he calls homosexuality) is immoral. But you have to do more than just say it. You have to give some reasons why that's the case.

Frankly, there are some good reasons to hold that homosexuality is immoral. Now, it may be that those who hold that view are wrong, but you can't just assert they are wrong, you have to demonstrate it. That is an uphill battle for those who are in favor of homosexuality. There are all kinds of religious, moral, and natural law arguments against it. And, as I mentioned, if you just want to argue based on cultural consensus you lose if you are homosexual because most people think homosexuality is actually odd, perverse, and immoral. Not the people with the microphone, of course, but everybody else.

So it is not only self-refuting to make this claim, you also have to show the moral judgment is unreasonable, which I don't think has been done.

The third thing is you've got to show that the unreasonable moral judgment was motivated by hate and not just a well-intentioned mistake. Maybe homosexuality isn't immoral, but that doesn't mean that those who think it is are motivated by hate. This just turns out to be a sophisticated ad hominem that is meant to pigeon-hole people who disagree with you and you make them look bad. It is just like calling a homosexual a queer or some other name. Same thing, except for the Christians are the subjects now for that kind of attack. So, take notice.

Another question is worthy of comment. There is another alternative explanation. It is not guns. It is not hate spread by Christians who think that homosexuality is immoral. Dennis Prager raised it on his own KABC radio show last week. He asks, Is the increase in violence in our society today due to a decreasing influence of the Judeo-Christian ethic? Not increasing, but decreasing. As a matter of fact, our concerns about tolerance, our emphasis on human rights, our emphasis on respect for human beings is a result of the influence of the Judeo-Christian ethic in our culture and in our law. That came from Christians and Jews and the Bible.

Now, of course, that source is being ignored. The question is, if we deny the source and make fun of the source, is it possible this could mean that humans are more de-humanized and treated with more hate? My response to that is simply, it is axiomatic. It is obviously true. Because if you depart from the established Judeo-Christian ethic, which demands that we treat all human beings regardless of sexual orientation or religious point of view with human dignity and respect, if we abandon that view, what replaces it? It is not replaced with the Buddhist ethic, or the Hindu ethic, or the Muslim ethic. That's not what happens. It is replaced with no ethic. It is replaced with relativism. It is replaced with people doing whatever they please.

Do you know what people doing whatever they please leads to? Read the book of Judges. "Every man did what was right in his own eyes." You know what you call a person who does whatever he pleases, someone who doesn't have any concern for others' ideas of right and wrong, but marches most consistently to the beat of his own moral drum? You call that person a sociopath. It's a homicide detective's worst nightmare. So when you abandon the Judeo-Christian ethic, what replaces it? Sociopathy.

Should we be surprised then by things like what happened last week? No, we shouldn't be surprised. But we should be concerned when Mr. Conrad and Mr. Sheerer and others like them continue to make fun and demoralize those who are in the best position to make a difference for good in this society, by reinstating the Judeo-Christian world view that acknowledged the dignity of human beings in the first place and was the rationale for all of our civil rights.

Take away the foundation, the building crumbles. The building is crumbling and people are pointing the finger at us. Take heed. Be wise.