There's been an ongoing debate about homosexuality in this paper's letter to the editor column. Allow me to have what should be the last word on the subject.

To start with, let's demystify the notion of Scriptural authority and look at things from a real-world perspective. It's helpful to understand the Scriptures as a human product, rather than as an oracle handed down from On High. To take the latter perspective reduces all moral precepts to a childish matter of "Big Daddy in the Sky Says So". If that's all there is to it, then it would be morally valid to throw acid in a child's face, if "the Bible tells me so". And lest this be seen as an absurd hypothetical, the Bible does prescribe the Death Penalty (usually by stoning) for numerous infractions other than murder; so we need to be very careful when it comes to crediting what "the Bible says".

In the case of homosexuality, here's the real-world reason why the Old Testament authors (plural) condemned it: the ancient Israelites were a small population surrounded by enemies. This put a big emphasis on procreation. Homosexuals, from this standpoint, wasted their seed, which let their fellow Israelites down. (I call your attention to the story of Onan who was killed for the same reason.)

Note that nowhere does the Old Testament condemn female homosexuality. That's because at the time, a woman's survival depended upon an alliance with a man, so they'd still be a part of the breeding population even if they had a female lover on the side. (Of course, the Apostle Paul condemned female homosexuality as well as male, but he gives his personal opinion occasionally, and sometimes even admits it! Yet Christians accept his opinions as "the word of God".)

That's all. Just the demand for procreation, not some arbitrary decree by God. In fact, the OT has greater concern for ritual homosexuality in pagan cults, which contrary to popular conception had a strong presence among the ancient Israelites, and were not extirpated among them until the Babylonian Exile.

What's more, the prohibition on male homosexuality did not always exist among the ancient Israelites. The fabled "bromance" of David and Jonathan is believed by some scholars to have been sexual. I'd call your attention to II Samuel 1:26, where David tells Jonathan that "your love to me is wonderful, surpassing the love of women"-- something a completely straight man would hardly say. Even more suspicious is where it says "they kissed ... until David exceeded" (I Samuel 20:41 KHV). I'll leave it up to the reader to discern the meaning of that last word.

Sincerely,

Stephen Van Eck

Rushville, PA

The framers of the Constitution knew that a central or federal government was a necessary evil. It could be a powerful servant or a tyrannical master. They sought to chain this creature by enumerating and thus restricting its powers in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. But the shackles that bound this servant were shattered by President Lyndon B. Johnson.

The '60s were a time of arrogance, of hubris. We were going to use the might of the federal government to right the wrongs tolerated by an elitist and racist society and President Johnson decided that he was the man to do it.

Johnson enacted a series of domestic programs that came to be known as the Great Society. A major thrust of this legislation was to eliminate racial injustice, particularly in housing. Authority for this goal, however lofty, is not to be found in the 10th Amendment; it is unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, Washington do-rights went ahead to correct a racial gap in home ownership. Of course there were racial gaps in everything: income, cars, clothes, food, entertainment, education---everything. But ignoring that, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 would fix this inequity.

Granting loans is a business. It works by peforming a service and making a profit. Bankers could approve loans at low interest rates to clients with the ability to repay the loan, or assent to risky loans at higher rates, or refuse loans altogether.

This business model was deemed to be racist. So government bulldozed its way into the housing market. The fed instructed lenders to ignore the traditional measures of creditworthiness when it dealt with “minority and low-income consumers.” Compliance was assured by the threat of lawsuits and fines.

Four decades of this created a boon in the housing market that busted in 2006. This caused a deep recession, a loss of 9 million jobs, and a 50 percent haircut in the stock market. Housing still has not completely recovered and neither has the economy.

President Johnson saw other wrongs to be righted. He saw a need for equal opportunity in education for low and middle income families and to help small and less developed colleges. The unconstitutional Higher Education Act of 1965 was signed into law to address these needs.

But the talents that one is born with and the family that one is born into conspire to make equal opportunity in education an impossibility.

Dismissing that, taxpayer money flowed into the pockets of the disadvantaged and into colleges with substandard facilities. It was a Kelly green light for these institutions to raise the price of tuition, a price that has continued to increase at double the inflation rate of 3 percent.

Soon a majority of college students needed financial assistance to pay for the skyward cost of education. Trumpets blaring, the unconstitutional Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program rode to the rescue of the unconstitutional Higher Education Act.

FFEL guaranteed student loans provided by banks. The banks couldn't lose. If a student defaulted, the government would pick up the tab.

Then the 2007 recession blindsided the economy and students began defaulting on loans in droves.

Today the average student loan at graduation is about $30,000. If he went on to law school, it was $150,000; med school, $200,000.

And these loans are unlike others. They must be repaid or the government will garnish a person's wages, confiscate his bank account, or levy his social security checks. Even bankruptcy does not release one from the obligation to repay the government. It is the closest approximation we have today of a debtors' prison. Twenty million college students are in this prison.

We now have an overabundance of college grads who can't find a job and the interest rate on their loans is set to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent July 1.

In toto, student indebtedness is $1.1 trillion. The run up exceeds the national credit card debt by $300 billion. It is a millstone tied around the necks of the borrowers and a looming economic crisis for the nation.

And now we have a 20,000-page bale of unconstitutional legislation called Obamacare poised to correct the unconstitutional health care mess created by Johnson's Great Society intrusion into health care.

The comedy continues.

Sincerely,

Bob Scroggins

New Milford, PA