Newsweak

The following is a letter I sent to Newsweek:

Dear Editor of Newsweek,

You may accept this letter as the cancellation of my subscription. I'd like to tell you why I'm canceling, though I doubt it will have any bearing on how you continue to run your magazine.

I first subscribed to "Newsweek" because I wanted the "News" in a format that would go more indepth than my local paper or the cable news networks. I didn't realize I was subscribing to "Newsweak" or more appropriately: "Opinionweek" - and certainly not a balance of opinions. Truth be told, it turns out I was subscribing to "FarLeftweek." Of all of the coverage of the election that I consumed before I made my decision on who to vote for, none were more in the tank for Obama than your periodical. I found nothing but article upon article promoted the cultural messiah-like greatness of Obama while deriding McCain as simply a clone of George W Bush. This was most obviously portrayed in an article that ran the week before the election entitled "Why McCain Won" which was an apologetic on how McCain would have won the election, had he won, which basically ends with the sentiment that voting for Obama is exerting "common sense and decency" and a vote for anyone else is not.

Your Leftism is so extreme that it seems almost to be to the level of outright fear of the right. Even in this most recent edition in "conventional" wisdom (which never quite seemed "conventional") you managed to find a reason to slam Sarah Palin yet again even though her bid for Vice President has been soundly defeated.

While I prefer to read the opinions of both sides to get a fair understanding of the arguments, I could overlook your painfully obvious political bias.

However, when that became coupled with a complete misrepresentation of the Bible and its stance on homosexual marriage, I could not continue to support your publication.

Had your piece on "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage" been written by someone with a Biblical education, rather than two people with a concordance and a search engine, it might have held more credence with your more educated readers. The assertions of Ms Ball and Ms Underwood that the multiple wives of the patriarchs was condoned, that lesbian activity is never mentioned in the Bible, and that the New Testament doesn't speak to what a marriage should look like are completely and categorically false. I can forgive them for not understanding the difference between cultural, ceremonial, and moral laws as they are laid out in the Old Testament. However, the sinfulness of homosexuality is repeated many times in the New Testament, confirming the law as a moral one when written about in Leviticus, not a cultural or ceremonial law. Romans 1:26 states "...Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones." While some might argue this refers to beastiality, verse 27 says "In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another." Verse 26 must be a Biblical mention of lesbianism as this was "in the same way" as the homosexual men. And if the Bible doesn't speak against homosexual marriage, why does it call these relationships "unnatural?" Why is it that when the Bible gives instruction on a successful marriage does it always refer to the husband and wife? To be a leader in the church, one must be the "husband of but one wife. (1 Timothy)" A husband is to love his wife "as he loves himself (Ephesians 5)." If homosexual marriage is Biblically acceptable, why is there such gender specific language, and familial roles?

Ms Ball and Ms Underwood did, however, get one thing correct: Without a doubt Jesus would have reached out with love to those with homosexual desires. In face, He loved them enough to die for them, just has he did for all sinners; myself included. No sin is any worse than another in the eyes of God and my sin is no better or worse than those who lust for members of the same sex. Jesus would have loved them the same way he would love a person engaged in extra-marital sex: He'd welcome them with open arms and love them as a person without condoning the relationship they were engaged in. Jesus loves me. Jesus loves you. And Jesus loves homosexuals.

Truly, the final straw and the ultimate cause of my cancellation was a small plug for your website "xtra.Newsweek.com." I could not have been more disappointed in the choice of verbiage. The piece reads, "Also, a look at the charges that African-Americans are responsible for Prop 8's passage." "Charges?" Murders face "charges." Rapists face "charges." Voters do not! Regardless of how one feels about the outcome of the vote, such sentiments should never be expressed in this fashion. Do we levy the same "charges" against African-Americans for putting Obama in the White House? I didn't think so.