It became evident that votes no longer matter to liberals in America. The movement unmasked itself by abandoning any pretense that acceptance was in any way democratic. Instead, the matter was put in the hands of all powerful courts to get the “right” decisions. Federal court rulings prepared the ground by trampling upon state constitutional amendments and nullifying the votes of tens of millions of Americans. After railroading same-sex “marriage” upon states that had successfully apposed it, the Supreme Court finished the job with its ruling.
Failed to Frame as Civil Rights Issue
The failure was particularly evident in the African-American community which largely opposed any efforts to equate the homosexual movement with the civil rights movement of the sixties. Moreover, the African-American community, especially its religious leaders, opposed same-sex “marriage” on a grand scale on moral grounds.
Forced From The Top
There was evident use of enormous pressure to force through the same-sex marriage agenda. Every stop was pulled out to belittle those who oppose same-sex marriage. Far from being a movement of the “people,” this was a top-down campaign that counted on the full weight of big government, big media and big business to push its agenda forward.
[….]
Strenghtening The Opposition
Perhaps the movement’s biggest failure was its inability to discourage its opposition by the overwhelming magnitude of its massive propaganda machine. Ironically, it has only strengthened the resolve of pro-family activists who now see they cannot depend on human solutions but need now confide only in God. Indeed, two weeks before the Supreme Court decision, for example, Americans nationwide gathered for3,265 prayer rallies in the public square calling upon God’s aid in defense of traditional marriage.
The bottom line is that the pro-homosexual movement has managed to win an important battle with the Supreme Court decision, but it has failed to win the hearts and souls of all Americans. To the contrary, the brutal ram rodding of same-sex marriage upon the nation has only alienated many who feel completely disregarded by the political process and has put them in the hands of a powerful and almighty God. Like Roe v. Wade before it, Obergefell v. Hodges is an unsettling law.
In the above video just past the 2:38 mark, the below point is made, the strongest point of the video:
Culture has a right to redefine marriage.
Spousal rights and marital traditions have changed. However, marriage has always been between males and females because of the unique function they perform in society.
Marriage can’t be a social construction because cultures emerge when humans reproduce.
This means that cultures cannot be the constructors of the marriages that make culture possible in the first place. Bricks make the building, not the building the bricks. Culture does not construct marriage. Marriage and family construct culture.
The above is a favored video of mine. The point about police work and other jobs in society and later how the government doesn’t discriminate against other professions when it promotes police work. Great, useable point.
Employers who reimburse their workers for health care costs will face massive tax penalties beginning Wednesday.
Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, with its mandate that all Americans purchase insurance and requirement for businesses to offer employees insurance plans, many small companies provided coverage by directly reimbursing medical costs or for the cost of private insurance plans. Businesses do it because that’s a less complicated process than dealing with an official health insurance plan, but continuing to do so after July 1 could cost them hundreds of dollars in fines each day.
Business groups are calling attention to what they say is an obscure part of Obamacare that could crush small businesses who are unaware of it.
“It’s the biggest penalty that no one is talking about,” said Kevin Kuhlman, policy director for the National Federation of Independent Businesses, on Tuesday.
The penalties will only affect businesses with less than 50 employees. Those with more than 50 employees are already required to offer a health insurance plan.
The new rule is the result of an Internal Revenue Service interpretation of part of the ACA. It seems intended to force employers to offer a group health insurance plan (or leave their employees to fend for themselves on the health insurance exchanges).
The IRS says those reimbursements — technically known as “employer payment plans” — are “considered to be group health plans subject to the market reforms, including the prohibition on annual limits for essential health benefits and the requirement to provide certain preventive care without cost sharing.”
Business groups say the punishment doesn’t fit the crime.
Even though the total fine is capped at $500,000 per year, that’s still miles ahead of the $2,000 fine that could be waiting for larger companies (those with more than 50 employees) that fail to comply with the individual mandate part of the ACA.
The NFIB says 14 percent of their members do not provide health insurance plans, but instead offer reimbursement.
The owner of a Minnesota-based company with 17 employees told NFIB the new rules would require health benefits to go through the payroll process. That means it is subject to taxes, which reduces employees’ benefits and increases the business’ costs.
“Reimbursing employees for the cost of insurance or medical services is a way for small businesses to help their workers without the administrative headache of setting up a costly group plan,” said Kuhlman. “Most small employers don’t have HR departments or benefits specialists, so this is a simpler, easier way to help their employees.”…
The real question is… will Obamacare cover related illnesses to “whiteness”?
(Via The Daily Caller and Campus Reform) Robinson has belatedly made her Twitter feed private, but Thursday Campus Reform published screenshots of several older tweets on her account that show a persistent pattern of hating whites, Christians, and even other blacks.
In one particularly strange pair of tweets made in March, Robinson admitted to having severe premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), a condition characterized by emotional and mood problems. Due to her difficulty treating it, Robinson theorized her menstrual mood swings may simply have been caused by white people rather than any internal hormonal fluctuations…
[….]
In addition to making the statement that the American flag is a symbol of “race, class, gender, & sexuality oppression,” Robinson made the claim that that the ultimate expression of love from “conservative whites” is to threaten someone else with “death and rape.”
Robinson has made numerous other tweets that fall along the same subject lines:
Zo tells you why the Democrats are rewriting the Constitution. He reminds viewers that the Democrats rewrote the constitution once before, when they seceded from the Union and formed the Confederacy.
For God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse. For though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or show gratitude. Instead, their thinking became nonsense, and their senseless minds were darkened.
Here is the intro from a chapter in my book explaining a bit the above:
Like all of Scripture, Romans references eternal truths based solely in God’s nature and His created order. These truths brought the once pagan scholar, Augustine, to the Christian faith transforming him into an exemplary apologist.[1] Similar truths found in the Book of Roman’s electrified Luther’s life.[2] These two person’s mentioned have had a huge impact on the direction of Western Culture.[3] The truths in the letter Paul penned were evident enough from the natural created order that even the common ancient man could understand his own nature and the nature of others.[4] [5] For instance, while Aristotle did not codify the Laws of Thought[6] for another 150-years — the Law of Contradiction and Excluded Middle was clearly used in a legal setting referenced in the Old Testament. This law of nature/thought was referenced to make a stand against the pagan God of the day, Baal:
“So Ahab sent unto all the children of Israel, and gathered the prophets together unto Mount Carmel. And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, ‘How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him’.”[7] [8] [9]
These laws were not invented by Aristotle just like gravity was not invented by Newton. Newton – like Aristotle – merely codified these already existing phenomena. Similarly, while natural law[10] [11] was not officially codified until more modern times[12] – natural law always existed and was referenced and used by thinkers all throughout history. This includes biblical authors importing Grecian constructs in the writing of Romans 2:15 in regards to natural law expressing God’s eternal truths to the audience of his day.[13] Paul had a theistic-Christian understanding of “human nature”[14] much like Moses had a grasp on the nature of God’s triuness[15] before the word “Holy Trinity” was ever used. When Paul wrote that person’s “worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator,”[16] he was categorically defining human nature. Not only that. Paul was referencing the early chapters of Genesis when he spoke about a Creator. The early chapters of Genesis “are the very foundation on which all knowledge rests,”[17] Paul knew the importance of a coherent worldview based in the Judeo-Christian worldview as do pro-choice lesbians confirming its positive impact on culture:
Even if one does not necessarily accept the institutional structure of “organized religion,” the “Judeo-Christian ethic and the personal standards it encourages do not impinge on the quality of life, but enhance it. They also give one a basic moral template that is not relative,” which is why the legal positivists of the Left are so threatened by the Natural Law aspect of the Judeo-Christian ethic.[18]
FootNotes
[1] Walter A. Elwell and Robert W. Yarbrough, Encountering the New Testament: A Historical and Theological Survey, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 274.
[2] Ibid., 275.
[3] For example:
a) Augustine’s impact implicitly on George Washington, see: Michael Novak and Jana Novak, Washington’s God: Religion, Liberty, and the Father of Our Country (New York: Basic Books, 2006), 202-203;
b) Luther on work ethic leading to the Protestant ethic therein, see: Paul Marshall, God and the Constitution: Christianity and American Politics (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Pub. Inc., 2002), 31;
c) generally the Reformation’s impact on nationalism and economic freedom, see: Alvin J. Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2004), 199-213;
d) Calvinism and the influence on the Founders understanding of mankind’s place in the universe, see: John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1987), 17-26.
[4] John R.W. Stott, The Message of Romans (Downers Grove: IVP, 1994), 78.
[5]This polemic, by-the-by, is not an argument for the superiority of natural revelation verses special, the latter is what guides all Christians. Even to interpret “Romans 1 and 2 in deistic terms of natural religion is unjustifiable” (Carl F. H. Henry, “Natural Law and a Nihilistic Culture,” First Things 49 [1995]: 55-60), this is realized.
[6] Chris Rohmann, A World of Ideas: A Dictionary of Important Theories, Concepts, Beliefs, and Thinkers (New York: Ballantine Books, 1999), cf. “Aristotle,” 26.
[7]The Holy Bible: King James Version (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version; Bellingham: Logos Research Systems, 1995), cf. 1 Ki 18:20-21.
[8]This came to me during one of Dr. Wayne Houses lectures at Faith Evangelical Seminary.
[9]These verses also hint at the Law of Excluded Middle as well as the Law of Identity.
[10] Defined generally as “[r]ules of conduct determined by reflection upon human nature…” Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan, eds., Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics (New York: Oxford, 2003), cf. “natural law”, 365.
[11]Dr. Elwell defines it as “[a] moral order divinely implanted in humankind and accessible to all persons through human reason.” Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 814.
[12]Evolving from Aristotle, to Augustus, Aquinas, Locke and most recently, John Finnis. See Finnis’s Natural Law and Natural Rights (Clarendon Law Series; ed. H. L. A. Hart; New York: Oxford University Press, 1980).
[13]Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 122.
[14]Ibid.
[15]Cf., Genesis 18:1-3, 9, 13, 22, 26-27, 30; 19:1-2, 18, 24. Actually this was a revelation directly to Abraham [revelation of God’s attributes], but Moses edited these earlier testimonies and was himself aware of these explicit implications.
[16]NASB, Romans 1:25.
[17]C. Everett Koop and Francis A. Schaeffer, Whatever Happened To The Human Race? (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1983) 112.
[18]Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values (Roseville: Prima, 2003), 35.
…the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them.
Founding.com explains succinctly what is meant by “laws of nature” penned in one of our many founding documents:
“The laws of nature and of nature’s God” are the beginning point of the political theory of the American founding. They explain the Founders’ decision to declare America’s independence from England. But what does this phrase mean–“the laws of nature and of nature’s God”?
First, it means that nature encompasses laws: certain obligations are prescribed for all human beings by nature–or more specifically, by the fact that all humans share a common nature. Today, some scientists claim that “nature knows no morals.” For the Founders, that is what one might expect to hear from a tyrant like Hitler or Stalin, but not anyone who understands that human nature itself, rightly understood, provides objective standards of how human life should be lived.
Second, “laws of nature” are laws that can be grasped by human reason. The Founders did not believe-as one often hears today-that there is a right to liberty because “who’s to say what’s right or wrong?” The Founders were not moral relativists. To the contrary, they boldly proclaim that they grasp certain fundamental principles or moral and political conduct.
Third and finally, the “laws of nature,” accessible in principle to any person anywhere in the world who thinks clearly about the nature of human beings, mean that the American founding is not based on ideas specifically tied to one people, such as “the rights of Englishmen,” but on ideas that are true for all people everywhere….
Obviously God’s laws are not arbitrary. But according to the Founders, nature is not either. And it is this non-subjective portion of nature that every culture tapped into, based in God’s character/attributes.
For instance, people have a distorted view of Greek culture (B.C.). One is that homosexual acts with boys was accepted in-situ as equal to male/female relations. This is not the case.
NOR were the moral giants from that time that so influenced our Republic silent on the matter. Here for instance is Plato in dialogue with a detractor who ends up agreeing with him on the morality of the two relations compared:
Now, what lives are they, and how many in which, having searched out and beheld the objects of will and desire and their opposites, and making of them a law, choosing, I say, the dear and the pleasant and the best and noblest, a man may live in the happiest way possible…
[….]
Speaking generally, our glory is to follow the better and improve the inferior, which is susceptible of improvement, as far as this is possible. And of all human possessions, the soul is by nature most inclined to avoid the evil, and track out and find the chief good; which when a man has found, he should take up his abode with it during the remainder of his life…. every one will perceive, comes the honour of the body in natural order. Having determined this, we have next to consider that there is a natural honour of the body, and that of honours some are true and some are counterfeit…. but the mean states of all these habits are by far the safest and most moderate;
[….]
…but they will not wholly extirpate [root out] the unnatural loves which have been the destruction of states; and against this evil what remedy can be devised?…
[….]
Either men may learn to abstain wholly from any loves, natural or unnatural, except of their wedded wives; or, at least, they may give up unnatural loves; or, if detected, they shall be punished with loss of citizenship, as aliens from the state in their morals.
‘I entirely agree with you,’ said Megillus,…
This is excerpted from The Dialogues of Plato, in 5 vols (Jowett ed.) [387 BC]
Another “big-wig” in the roots of philosophy our Founder knew so well is that of Aeschines:
Aeschines (390-314? BC), in his work Against Timarchus, acknowledged that there were laws on the books that prohibited sexual harassment or assault of young boys.
1. He further records that Greek law prohibited male prostitutes from holding office in civic affairs, or participating in religious observances.
2. He recognized that laws that regulate moral conduct are the best means of establishing and maintaining an orderly society.
3. This work indicates that there were laws prohibiting these things, and that the punishment was fine or death, depending on the severity of the offense.
Even the Greeks had a reference to nature that exuded a universal moral application. An ideal.
As an aside, no founder of any of the worlds great religions supported the measure of same-sex relations as equal to those of the hetero lifestyle. For instance, the Buddha was alerted to the problem and he issued a rule for the community not to give any ordination to a homosexual, and those ordained gays are to be expelled (Vin.I, 86).
What Christianity did is apply both the Book of Revelation in God revealing His plan to us. So, in Genesis 2:24 God sets up the parameters of the laws of nature and what the Greeks were really tapping into when we read:
This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh.
Remember, in Genesis 1:26 you have a clear reference to the Plurality of the Godhead. This is continued through chapter two with the reference to Lord God. Elohim is a plural hint at the Godhead.
Who is part of this Godhead Paul references in Romans? In classical understanding God is: God the Father, Jesus the Messiah/Son, and the Holy Spirit. So Jesus is in the mix, fully God. Theology 101. So what did Jesus [God] have to say on the matter?
…If you want to limit yourself to the words of Jesus Himself (as distinct from NT testimony as a whole) you have I think only two specific texts to argue from:
1)Matt 19:4 ‘And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ (repeated in Mark 10:6 “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’) In Matt. 19 it is important to notice the words that follow; “and SAID ‘For this reason …”, quoting Genesis 2:24. But this latter text doesn’t say ‘God said’ … which means that Jesus attributes the simple statement of Gen. 2:24 to God, thus testifying to the divine authorship of this verse and by implication the whole book of Genesis.
2) The other useful text is Mt 24:38 “For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, etc”. Here Jesus testifies to the historical reality of the flood, Noah and the ark. Most theistic evolutionists believe that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are mythology and not to be taken literally or as historically true. (But this may not apply to everyone who accepts macro evolution).
Um… in case you are confused… Jesus was one of the “Hombres” present when He made essentially the first contractual obligation for mankind to follow. The perpetuation of mankind.
This law from nature or God’s law (or both!) have inherent benefits, or an ideal situation for offspring to be raised and benefit society ~ as a whole.
In our sometimes misguided efforts to expand our freedom, selfish adults have systematically dismantled that which is most precious to children as they grow and develop. That’s why I am now speaking out against same-sex marriage.
By the way, I am gay.
A few days ago I testified against pending same-sex marriage legislation in Minnesota’s Senate Judiciary and House Civil Law Committees.
The atmosphere at these events (I’ve also testified elsewhere) seems tinged with unreality—almost a carnival-like surrealism. Natural law, tradition, religion, intellectual curiosity, and free inquiry no longer play a role in deliberations. Same-sex marriage legislation is defended solely on grounds of moral relativism and emotions.
Pure sophistry is pitted against reason. Reason is losing.
[….]
Same-sex marriage will do the same, depriving children of their right to either a mom or a dad. This is not a small deal. Children are being reduced to chattel-like sources of fulfillment. On one side, their family tree consists not of ancestors, but of a small army of anonymous surrogates, donors, and attorneys who pinch-hit for the absent gender in genderless marriages. Gays and lesbians demand that they have a “right” to have children to complete their sense of personal fulfillment, and in so doing, are trumping the right that children have to both a mother and a father—a right that same-sex marriage tramples over.
Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither “progressive” nor “conservative” legislation. It is “regressive” legislation.
Which is why one of the most respected Canadian sociologist and homosexual, Paul Nathanson, writes that there are at least five functions that marriage serves–things that every culture must do in order to survive and thrive. They are:
Foster the bonding between men and women
Foster the birth and rearing of children
Foster the bonding between men and children
Foster some form of healthy masculine identity
Foster the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults
Note that Nathanson considers these points critical to the continued survival of any culture. He continues “Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, … every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively . … Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm” that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people “are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it.” Going further he stated that “same sex marriage is a bad idea” …[he] only opposed “gay marriage, not gay relationships.”
Here is the crux of the matter in regards to “nature’s order:
“…take gold as an example, it has inherent in its nature intrinsic qualities that make it expensive: good conductor of electricity, rare, never tarnishes, and the like. The male and female have the potential to become a single biological organism, or single organic unit, or principle. Two essentially becoming one. The male and female, then, have inherent to their nature intrinsic qualities that two mated males or two mated females never actualize in their courtship… nor can they ever. The potential stays just that, potential, never being realized…..
“….Think of a being that reproduces, not by mating, but by some act performed by individuals. Imagine that for these same beings, movement and digestion is performed not by individuals, but only by the complementary pairs that unite for this purpose. Would anyone acquainted with such beings have difficulty understanding that in respect to movement and digestion, the organism is a united pair, or an organic unity?”
So you see, the two heterosexual organisms that join in a sexual union cease being two separate organisms for a short time and become one organism capable of reproduction. This is what the state and the church are sealing in a marriage, this intrinsic union. The homosexual couple can never achieve this union, so “natures order” has endowed the heterosexual union with an intrinsic quality that other relationships do not have or could never attain. Both the atheist and theist [gay and straight] can argue from this point, because either we were created this way or we evolved this way.
Whichever it is, nature has imposed on us certain realities that a healthy society should adhere to.
Continuing.
Keep in mind all societies have supported the superiority of the male-female relation over and above other forms. When Christianity cam on the scene, it not only supported that reality (and in fact explained it’s Origins), but had from Genesis to the Epistles supported marriage as being bewteen only two people.
This had a net benefit for society as well. By supplanting polygamy women and children are better protected from exploitation. Often times women are treated as chattel in these relations. And young boys are shunned as the older patriarchs are after the “younger-better-models” that in a healthy society would pair up typically with their opposites of similar age.
The reality of polygamy, like slavery, was dealt with in the early church. For instance, we see Paul dealing with the reality of polygamy by calling people to a higher standard, a Godley standard:
“But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:2-3)
Granted, there are exceptions to the rule — I will give an example I learned in seminary about missionary work in countries that practice polygamy.
In discussing this matter with my professor, he noted that when a family comes to a saving knowledge of God, and the man has multiple wives. You do not go in and then break up that family. These women are better off than being single in that society, not is it right to break up families and release the kids “into the wild” so-to-speak.
Through guidance and teaching God’s principles, the children from these relationships typically throw off their paganism and marry in a way that is honoring to God.
One must also keep in mind as well that in the Western tradition, laws are not written on outliers:
…Proponents of gay marriage fail utterly to comprehend the idea that laws are made with society, not the individual, in mind. That is why they also fail to grasp the idea that law is predicated upon averages, not outliers. Interestingly, both libertarians and progressives suffer from this lack of under-standing…
…But more often they try to undermine the link between marriage and childrearing by pointing to outliers—marriages in which couples choose not to have children or cannot have them because at least one partner happens to be infertile. But this argument only reveals the weakness of the progressive understanding of the law. Put simply, rules that are justified by the average case cannot be undermined by the exceptional case, otherwise known as the outlier. Thus the old maxim, “Hard cases make bad law.”…
Mike S. Adams, Letters To A Young Progressive (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2013), 81, 82.
And the one-man-one-women is the most natural way to curb man’s nature to go from one woman to the next propagating offspring and then leaving the child to have no contact with a father.
We can see as our society becomes more accepting of this behavior, and, in facts rewards it, you will see more incarcerations, violence, drug use, suicides, poverty, and the like.
This being said, the most recent cases on same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court have paved the way for polygamy, as well as incest. People may be happy with the “freedom” they think lies in these rulings, but only when this younger generation is older will they realize what they have done to a once proudly Christian nation.
The bottom line is this. Those wanting male-male relations are not arguing against God, but against nature. Mind you, they are rejecting God’s Ideal as well — in their rebellion. However, you could argue from nature alone for the primacy of the male/female relation in the least.
HOWEVER, if one were to argue that the number in a marriage should be only two-people ~ they are specifically arguing from a Judeo-Christian platform. In arguing for the number two in some objective manner, they are inserting Biblical standards on to the law. Something I do not have a problem with, but point of fact, these people do have an issue with it.
When I say Christianity is true I mean it is true to total reality—the total of what is, beginning with the central reality, the objective existence of the personal-infinite God. Christianity is not just a series of truths but Truth—Truth about all of reality. And the holding to that Truth intellectually—and then in some poor way living upon that Truth, the Truth of what is—brings forth not only certain personal results, but also governmental and legal results.
Francis Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, Volume Five (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1982), 425.
Raising one’s self-consciousness [awareness] about worldviews is an essential part of intellectual maturity…. The right eyeglasses can put the world into clearer focus, and the correct worldview can function in much the same way. When someone looks at the world from the perspective of the wrong worldview, the world won’t make much sense to him. Or what he thinks makes sense will, in fact, be wrong in important respects. Putting on the right conceptual scheme, that is, viewing the world through the correct worldview, can have important repercussions for the rest of the person’s understanding of events and ideas…. Instead of thinking of Christianity as a collection of theological bits and pieces to be believed or debated, we should approach our faith as a conceptual system, as a total world-and-life view.
Ronald H. Nash, Worldviews in Conflict: Choosing Christianity in a World of Ideas (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 9, 17-18, 19.
Nor, do I agree that religion should be excluded from the law. To do so would mean a LOT of reversing of freedoms gained here in the West as well as in other corners of the world:
…Such “exclude religion” arguments are wrong because marriage is not a religion! When voters define marriage, they are not establishing a religion. In the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the word “religion” refers to the church that people attend and support. “Religion” means being a Baptist or Catholic or Presbyterian or Jew. It does not mean being married. These arguments try to make the word “religion” in the Constitution mean something different from what it has always meant.
These arguments also make the logical mistake of failing to distinguish the reasons for a law from the content of the law. There were religious reasons behind many of our laws, but these laws do not “establish” a religion. All major religions have teachings against stealing, but laws against stealing do not “establish a religion.” All religions have laws against murder, but laws against murder do not “establish a religion.” The campaign to abolish slavery in the United States and England was led by many Christians, based on their religious convictions, but laws abolishing slavery do not “establish a religion.” The campaign to end racial discrimination and segregation was led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist pastor, who preached against racial injustice from the Bible. But laws against discrimination and segregation do not “establish a religion.”
If these “exclude religion” arguments succeed in court, they could soon be applied against evangelicals and Catholics who make “religious” arguments against abortion. Majority votes to protect unborn children could then be invalidated by saying these voters are “establishing a religion.” And, by such reasoning, all the votes of religious citizens for almost any issue could be found invalid by court decree! This would be the direct opposite of the kind of country the Founding Fathers established, and the direct opposite of what they meant by “free exercise” of religion in the First Amendment.
[….]
Historian Alvin Schmidt points out how the spread of Christianity and Christian influence on government was primarily responsible for outlawing infanticide, child abandonment, and abortion in the Roman Empire (in AD 374); outlawing the brutal battles-to-the-death in which thousands of gladiators had died (in 404); outlawing the cruel punishment of branding the faces of criminals (in 315); instituting prison reforms such as the segregating of male and female prisoners (by 361); stopping the practice of human sacrifice among the Irish, the Prussians, and the Lithuanians as well as among other nations; outlawing pedophilia; granting of property rights and other protections to women; banning polygamy (which is still practiced in some Muslim nations today); prohibiting the burning alive of widows in India (in 1829); outlawing the painful and crippling practice of binding young women’s feet in China (in 1912); persuading government officials to begin a system of public schools in Germany (in the sixteenth century); and advancing the idea of compulsory education of all children in a number of European countries.
During the history of the church, Christians have had a decisive influence in opposing and often abolishing slavery in the Roman Empire, in Ireland, and in most of Europe (though Schmidt frankly notes that a minority of “erring” Christian teachers have supported slavery in various centuries). In England, William Wilberforce, a devout Christian, led the successful effort to abolish the slave trade and then slavery itself throughout the British Empire by 1840.
In the United States, though there were vocal defenders of slavery among Christians in the South, they were vastly outnumbered by the many Christians who were ardent abolitionists, speaking, writing, and agitating constantly for the abolition of slavery in the United States. Schmidt notes that two-thirds of the American abolitionists in the mid-1830s were Christian clergymen, and he gives numerous examples of the strong Christian commitment of several of the most influential of the antislavery crusaders, including Elijah Lovejoy (the first abolitionist martyr), Lyman Beecher, Edward Beecher, Harriet Beecher Stowe (author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin), Charles Finney, Charles T. Torrey, Theodore Weld, William Lloyd Garrison, “and others too numerous to mention.” The American civil rights movement that resulted in the outlawing of racial segregation and discrimination was led by Martin Luther King Jr., a Christian pastor, and supported by many Christian churches and groups.
There was also strong influence from Christian ideas and influential Christians in the formulation of the Magna Carta in England (1215) and of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution (1787) in the United States. These are three of the most significant documents in the history of governments on the earth, and all three show the marks of significant Christian influence in the foundational ideas of how governments should function.
Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010], 31, 49-50.
And it is this First Amendment that is under stress as of late. I will end with an excerpt from Francis Schaeffer’s “Christian Manifesto,” something I think every Christian should reacquaint themselves with if they have read it many years ago… or not at all.
When the First Amendment was passed it only had two purposes. The first purpose was that there would be no established, national church for the united thirteen states. To say it another way: there would be no “Church of the United States.” James Madison (1751-1836) clearly articulated this concept of separation when explaining the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty. He said that the First Amendment to the Constitution was prompted because “the people feared one sect might obtain a preeminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.”
Nevertheless, a number of the individual states had state churches, and even that was not considered in conflict with the First Amendment. “At the outbreak of the American Revolution, nine of the thirteen colonies had conferred special benefits upon one church to the exclusion of others.” “In all but one of the thirteen states, the states taxed the people to support the preaching of the gospel and to build churches.” “It was not until 1798,that the Virginia legislature repealed all its laws supporting churches.” “In Massachusetts the Massachusetts Constitution was not amended until 1853 to eliminate the tax-supported church provosions.”
The second purpose of the First Amendment was the very opposite from what is being made of it today. It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion.
Those were the two purposes of the First Amendment as it was written.
As Justice Douglas wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court in the United States v. Ballard case in 1944:
The First Amendment has a dual aspect. It not only “forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship” but also “safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion.”
Today the separation of church and state in America is used to silence the church. When Christians speak out on issues, the hue and cry from the humanist state and media is that Christians, and all religions, are prohibited from speaking since there is a separation of church and state. The way the concept is used today is totally reversed from the original intent. It is not rooted in history. The modern concept of separation is an argument for a total separation of religion from the state. The consequence of the acceptance of this doctrine leads to the removal of religion as an influence in civil government. This fact is well illustrated by John W. Whitehead in his book The Second American Revolution.’ It is used today as a false political dictum in order to restrict the influence of Christian ideas. As Franky Schaeffer V says in the Plan for Action:
It has been convenient and expedient for the secular humanist, the materialist, the so-called liberal, the feminist, the genetic engineer, the bureaucrat, the Supreme Court Justice, to use this arbitrary division between church and state as a ready excuse. It is used, as an easily identifiable rallying point, to subdue the opinions of that vast body of citizens who represent those with religious convictions.
To have suggested the state separated from religion and religious influence would have amazed the Founding Fathers. The French Revolution that took place shortly afterwards, with its continuing excesses and final failure leading quickly to Napoleon and an authoritative rule, only emphasized the difference between the base upon which the United States was founded and the base upon which the French Revolution was founded. History is clear and the men of that day understood it. Terry Eastland said in Commentary magazine:
As a matter of historical fact, the Founding Fathers believed that the public interest was served by the promotion of religion. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which set aside federal property in the territory for schools and which was passed again by Congress in 1789, is instructive. “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary tc good government and the happiness of mankind,” read the act. “schools and the means of learning shall forever be encouraged.”
In 1811 the New York state court upheld an indictment for blasphemous utterances against Christ, and in its ruling, given by Chief Justice Kent, the court said, “We are Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity.” Fifty years later this same court said that “Christianity may be conceded to be the established religion.”
The Pennsylvania state court also affirmed the conviction of a man on charges of blasphemy, here against the Holy Scriptures. The Court said: “Christianity, general Christianity is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania . . . not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; nor Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts; but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.” . . .
The establishment of Protestant Christianity was one not only of law but also, and far more importantly, of culture. Protestant Christianity supplied the nation with its “system of values”—to use the modern phrase—and would do so until the 1920s when the cake of Protestant custom seemed most noticeably to begin crumbling.
As we continue to examine the question of law in relation to the founding of the country, we next encounter Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780). William Blackstone was an English jurist who in the 1760s wrote a very famous work called Commentaries on the Law of England. By the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, there were probably more copies of his Commentaries in American than in Britain. His Commentaries shaped the perspective of American law at that time, and when you read them it is very clear exactly upon what that law was based.
To William Blackstone there were only two foundations for law, nature and revelation, and he stated clearly that he was speaking of the “holy Scripture.” That was William Blackstone. And up to the recent past not to have been a master of William Black-stone’s Commentaries would have meant that you would not have graduated from law school.
There were other well-known lawyers who spelled these things out with total clarity. Joseph Story in his 1829 inaugural address as Dane Professor of Law at Harvard University said, “There never has been a period in which Common Law did not recognize Christianity as laying at its foundation.”
Concerning John Adams (1735-1826) Terry Eastland says:
…most people agreed that our law was rooted, as John Adams had said, in a common moral and religious tradition, one that stretched back to the time Moses went up on Mount Sinai. Similarly almost everyone agreed that our liberties were God-given and should be exercised responsibly. There was a distinction between liberty and license.
What we find then as we look back is that the men who founded the United States of America really understood that upon which they were building their concepts of law and the concepts of government. And until the takeover of our government and law by this other entity, the materialistic, humanistic, chance world view, these things remained the base of government and law.
Francis Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, Volume Five (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1982), 433-436.
My wife loves to make these for baby-showers she is invited to.
Breitbarthas some info on the case for the unfamiliar:
A baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs or face fines, a judge said Friday.
The order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple “because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage.”
The order says the cake-maker must “cease and desist from discriminating” against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against shop owner Jack Phillips with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission last year on behalf of Charlie Craig, 33, and David Mullins, 29. The couple was married in Massachusetts and wanted a wedding cake to celebrate in Colorado.
A Christian baker was found guilty of refusing service to a same-sex wedding and could face a year in jail… it is now becoming legislatively against the law to hold to Judeo-Christian ethics and conscious in America. It will cause some to move to more traditional states (“Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead” ~ G.K. Chesterton), and the solidification of very liberal states. So we will have — truly — a divided America, alla the legislative PC left.
I enjoy, and I truly do, the company (once in a while when GayPatriot does a dinner and I can make it) and the intellectual discussions that happen on his blog. These are men and women who do not put politics above tradition.
And if they challenge tradition… they pause… think… discuss… ask how this might hurt them down the road and hurt the larger society. I may not agree 100% with all their positions, but AT LEAST they realize going headlong into such a big societal change has RADICAL implications (like jail time for not agreeing with a political position versus allowing the free-market to deal with and absorb the choice made).
They also realize that the radical position is not the traditional one, but the radical position is the one who wants to change such a long, natural, religious, historical understanding of the ideal relationship to raise a family in. They take it seriously, and respect the differing views involved. Very unlike the left.
Here is a Christian, conservative, apologist — Frank Turek — making a point:
“….Imagine a homosexual videographer being forced to video a speech that a conservative makes against homosexual behavior and same sex marriage. Should that homosexual videographer be forced to do so? Of course not! Then why Elane Photography?….”
Now, here is the libertarian, conservative, guy[s] I know who blogs — GayPatriot:
“…it’s a bad law, a law that violates natural human rights to freedom of association and to freely-chosen work. It is not good for gays; picture a gay photographer being required by law to serve the wedding of some social conservative whom he or she despises.”
Which leads me to the latest commentary on the cake issue from Gay Patriotfollowed by some of the comments:
Another gay couple got miffed that a baker declined to make them a wedding cake. So, instead of seeking out another baker, they whined to the Government because their precious little feelings got hurt. And the Government — recognizing that in a free Constitutional Republic, the delicate feelings of hypersensitive gays are much more important than freedom, free speech, religious liberty, property rights, and free enterprise — has found the baker guilty of hurting gay people’s feelings and is now threatening to jail him.
No one is saying it’s okay to discriminate against gay people, but in this case the cure… heavy-handed jack-booted Fascism … is far worse than the problem.
And to those people are okay with forcing businesses to serve people they don’t care to serve, would it be equally okay for Government to force consumers to use businesses they don’t want to use? The precedent is set with Obamacare. If social justice is more important than freedom, then does it not follow that Government could legitimately force people to spend, say, 50% of their consumer dollars with businesses owned by the Government’s favored minority and victim groups?
As a Lesbian activist said recently, and I quote loosely, “it never was about equal rights to marry, it was pushing an agenda”.
Comment #10:
So nice to see everybody figure this out. The tyrants in the GLBT community will not rest until every voice is lifted in praise of their lifestyle- at the end of a gun, if necessary.
Is their any indication that these people have psychological problems. I’ve noticed that gay people, like myself, who are not politically and culturally aggressive seem to be more put-together. It’s the activist types who seem to have the neuroses and disorders. A pathological need for validation and acceptance, which always boils down to a pat on the head to placate the persistent voice in their head calling them on their crap. And it doesn’t matter how they get the “good boy,” or how sincere it is, they’re just happy that they’re getting it. If the baker gives in, this couple will pretend he had a genuine change of heart, and wasn’t coerced into it.
Sometimes I really hate my own kind.
Comment #16:
This makes my blood absolutely boil! Look at all the special accommodations made for Muslims: Muslim Target cashiers don’t have to handle pork products, Muslim female cashier at Wegman’s had a sign at her cash register telling customers if they had alcohol, cigarettes or pork products to go to another line, Muslims getting special breaks so they can pray at work, The airport in Minneapolis getting foot washing stations in the men’s room. The list goes on and on how companies have bent over backwards to accommodate Sharia Law for a minority religion here in the U.S. Yet it’s perfectly legal and necessary to force Christian bakers, photographers and owners of B&B’s to do things that violate their faith. It would be interesting if gay couples who wished to wed, started “asking” Muslim bakers, photographers, B&B owners and mosques to “help” with their pending nuptials. Or how about suing the store because you had to wait in a longer line because the Muslim cashier refused (and with the store’s backing) to check your bacon, smokes and box o’ wine? How about the Muslim man who refused to let you go through his line unless you got rid of the box of tampons and bag of maxi pads? Unbelievable hypocrisy of the left. They ignore “the religion of peace” that actually maims and kills women and gays violently attacks Christians who are just minding their own.
Comment #17:
It would be interesting if gay couples who wished to wed, started “asking” Muslim bakers, photographers, B&B owners and mosques to “help” with their pending nuptials.
Bingo! We have a winner! Hold all calls.
The Muslim Organization for Personal Validation of Kafirs, Dhimmis and مادر جنده could not be reached for comment.
Comment #18:
It would be interesting if gay couples who wished to wed, started “asking” Muslim bakers, photographers, B&B owners and mosques to “help” with their pending nuptials.
Boy, would this ever stir up a hornet’s nest. The blowback would be gigantic. Heads would roll. Literally.
Comment #22:
Less than 48 hours ago, I was refused by three (THREE) Muslim cab drivers in downtown Los Angeles because I was carrying a 12-pack of Sam Adams beer.
No, I wasn’t intoxicated. In point of fact, I haven’t had a drink in over five years.
The three men each told me their religion forbade them from transporting alcohol.
Was I miffed? Hell yes.
Did I sue? Hell no. Rather, I racially profiled and found an infidel willing to accept my fare to Studio City.
Take note that I do not know if this procedure has been done yet to a sixth-grader, however, this is not the point. Them being able to do so without parental consent — IS the issue. And we can thank the philosophy or the progressive left [the base of the Democrat Party] for this exciting new frontier sexualizing everything, by law. Which doesn’t surprise me in that one of the most left-leaning Justices on the Supreme Court argued while working at the ACLU to lower the age of consent from 16-to-12… what a “brave new world.”
Earlier this month, LifeNews.com reported on a high school in Seattle, Washington that is now implanting intrauterine devices (IUD), as well as other forms of birth control and doing so without parental knowledge or permission.
The IUD is known as a long acting reversible contraception, and may even act as an abortifacient. So, a young teen in Seattle can’t get a coke at her high school, but she can have a device implanted into her uterus, which can unknowingly kill her unborn child immediately after conception. Or, if she uses another method, she can increase her chances of health risks for herself, especially if using a new method.
The high school, Chief Sealth International, a public school, began offering the devices in 2010, made possible by a Medicaid program known asTake Charge and a non-profit, Neighborcare. Students can receive the device or other method free of cost and without their parent’s insurance. And while it’s lauded that the contraception is confidential, how can it be beneficial for a parent-child relationship when the parents don’t even know the devices or medication their daughter is using?
Middle and high school students can’t get a Coca-Cola or a candy bar at 13 Seattle public schools, but they can get a taxpayer-funded intrauterine device (IUD) implanted without their parents’ consent.
School-based health clinics in at least 13 Seattle-area public high schools and middle schools offer long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), including IUDs and hormonal implants, to students in sixth-grade and above at no cost, according to Washington State officials….
Here is another story on the same issue:
Public schools in Seattle are offering more than just an education; they are offering teen girls of any age the opportunity to get free IUDs implanted into their uterus and other long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) without parental consent at clinics right in the school setting. According to New York Magazine, the ability to get an IUD inserted in school, for free, removes barriers for teens who do not want to discuss the option with their parents or risk involving their parents’ health insurance policies.
Washington law states that minors of any age are permitted to obtain birth control services without a parent’s consent. Meanwhile, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends LARCs, like IUDs, as the most effective way to prevent teen pregnancy.
If a girl in a Seattle public school would like to have an IUD inserted into her uterus without talking to her parents about it and without her parents ever knowing, she can simply consult with an in-school clinic and apply for the Washington state Medicaid program called “Take Charge” to pay for the service instead.
“Contrasting sharply with the attitudes toward sex and sexuality promoted at countless public schools across the country, Chief Sealth International School is taking a different approach, offering students the option to receive the contraceptive of their choice at no cost and without having to use their parents’ health insurance. Thanks to a Washington state Medicaid program called Take Charge and the nonprofit Neighborcare, teens can access confidential counseling on different birth control methods — and LARC insertion — more easily than they can buy a soda.”…
A 22-year-old worker was grabbed by the robot and crushed against a metal plate
A robot has killed a man at a Volkswagen car factory in Germany.
The 22-year-old worker died from injuries he sustained when he was trapped by a robotic arm and crushed against a metal plate.
The man, who has not been named, was part of a team that was setting up the automated machinery at the factory in Kassel, north of Frankfurt, according to Volkswagen.
The robot in question is a mechanical arm that moves car parts into place, said Heiko Hillwig, a spokesman for the company….
Campus Reform Correspondent Cabot Phillips played “Candidate’s Cribs” with young people in front of the White House. After trying to guess which Presidential candidate has lived in a series of mansions, many of them were shocked to find out that Hillary Clinton had lived in all four of them.
Is America really that great? Or is the United States just like any other nation? Outsiders tend to be the best judge of character, and Nick Adams, a best-selling Australian author and political commentator, gives an outsider’s view of the USA.
