Young men are being totally raked over the coals in this culture by the high powered engines of radical feminism. The feminist extremists, which includes some men, and their “men-are-despicable” philosophy occupy the high ground in every institution – largely because they have played the victim card to perfection.
They control the education establishment, the media, the entertainment world, the courts and even the various religious bodies – and they have done this by taking aim squarely at
authentic masculinity.
So today, older boys and younger men dance to the music of feminist rage – not to mention quite a few older males as well, who still knew better back in the bra-burning days of the 1960s.
The masculine has become so belittled and denigrated that boys do the easiest, laziest, most gratifying thing available and simply retreat into video games and pornography, and are drugged up by the feminzai-controlled education system which diagnoses 1 in 7 American boys as having ADHD -- and then writes a prescription for them for Ritalin – a powerful mood stabilizer – merely for being boys.
The scourge of society in the past 50 years has been the lack of the authentic masculine, because an effective authentic masculinity would have never allowed this highly charged destructive radical feminism to emerge and kill the men.
Last week at Georgetown Hilary Clinton gave a speech. She strode up to the podium in her pantsuit and strongly suggested that women are better at foreign policy and governing than men are. They are better at building coalitions and reaching consensus than men, she said – apparently, she’s never heard of Queen Elizabeth I or Moa Tse Tung’s wife.
During the University of Virginia frat rape story – which has turned out to be much more fantasy than reality – the feministas were tripping all over themselves on various TV outlets breathlessly denouncing men in high drama – again pushing the victim angle saying women were objects of hate.
So, where are all the men? We see idiot men in TV commercials and sitcoms. We see serial killer men in movies. We see sex-crazed men in music videos and we see effeminate men in religious realms.
But where are the real men? There are still many who exist - I personally know many - but by and large, they’ve been sidelined because strong authentic men are an obstacle to the weak, effeminate, emotion saturated high dungeon of radical feminism.
And it is precisely this that must be fought against – shrill radical feminism must be confronted by confident authentic masculinity.*
Now the question is, how do we bring back the real men from the shadows into the light?
*From Michael Vorhis/ChurchMilitantTV.com
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Assisted suicide: Relief at the expense of life itself
Brittany Maynard, the 29-year-old diagnosed with terminal brain cancer, invited
public debate on assisted suicide when she announced through the Compassion and Choices organization
her decision to move to Oregon to take advantage of its “right to die” law,
where she died by lethal prescription on Nov. 1. It is a tragic
case. But was Brittany’s decision courageous and a victory for freedom, as
advocates of assisted-suicide claim, or does it undermine the sanctity of life?
Brittany chose death, she said, to spare her loved ones from seeing her
suffer and because she also, very understandably, feared the physical suffering
her doctors promised she would endure. I don’t know what Brittany’s thoughts on
God were, but the issue evokes the often asked question, “If God is all powerful and good, then why does He allow
bad things to happen to people?”
The question is rooted in atheism, which directs us to
observe the evil around us as proof that there is no God. But although
suffering does exist, God does not will that we suffer, just as He did not will
that Adam and Eve sin. And while nobody, save masochists, wants to
suffer, some believe it can
actually be redemptive.
Catholicism, for instance, teaches that suffering, when accepted and offered up in union with the Passion of Jesus,
can aid in the physical or spiritual needs of oneself or another. And
when Christ tells us to
"take up your cross and follow me” (Mt.16:24), we are invited to that
union with Him in our own suffering.
Of course not
everyone holds this biblical view and I don’t assume to know what Brittany
believed or experienced. I only know my personal experience in watching my own
mother’s battle with terminal brain cancer and how her lifelong witness of
faith, especially during that difficult time, brought me to a more full
understanding that her suffering was not from God, but the grace to endure it
was.
This is what
saddens me about Brittany’s suicide and all those who do the same. Do they seek
to escape their suffering because of a lonely fear not rooted in unity with
God? I don’t claim to know their reasons, but when we do remove God from life’s
challenges, we’re left only with our human fears and the decisions we make
based on those fears. And where will such decisions ultimately take us as a
society?
In a world that prizes free
choice above all else, Brittany’s highly publicized “death by choice” is
applauded by some as a victory for freedom, which plays right into the culture
of death that has taken such ghoulish hold of our world. Just as abortion is
packaged as “liberating” to women, we are now seeing the disturbingly misguided
concept that all choice is good choice – “as long as it’s my choice” – being applied
toward achieving our own deaths. How terribly sad.
But if we use freedom as the basis for ending life, then at what point
can we put a limit on that freedom? The simple answer is, we can’t. If it is
seen as cruel to suggest someone should endure suffering, then why shouldn’t
society advocate lethal prescriptions for everyone the instant a diagnosis of
terminal brain cancer is made?
And why stop there? Under the premise of freedom, we shouldn’t expect a
diabetic to endure the challenges that come with that condition. Nor should we
expect someone heartbroken by unrequited love to withstand that sort of
suffering. In fact, why not advocate death for
anyone whose quality of life is not what they expect? A visit to any pro assisted-suicide
chat room will show you this is precisely what is being encouraged now.
Maybe this explains why so many
young people today choose suicide when bullied. They’ve grown up witnessing that
personal comfort is valued over human life itself. What lessons are youngsters
being taught that suffering is a part of life and that their own lives are
sacred, even if not perfect?
Interestingly though, when we
hear of someone’s suicide, such as recently with Robin Williams, there is an
outcry over the tragedy of it because by nature we see suicide as a heartbreaking
choice. How, then, is it any less tragic just because someone publicly plans
her suicide with a physician’s assistance?
In a way, it’s even worse,
because by normalizing death as a solution to life’s problems, more people will
opt for it, and eventually it may no longer be the suffering individual’s
despair – but our own despair over someone else’s suffering -- that becomes
justification to end a life.
Case in point, there are end-of-life
counseling directives in Obamacare, and the first expense slashed under the
health law was billions of dollars to treat the elderly. How many “suffering”
people are encouraged to die to save money altogether or because a
“compassionate” society desensitized to death – but not to suffering -- decides
on someone’s behalf that suffering should be rejected? And just who decides how
much suffering is too much?
This is what happens, though,
when we blur the boundaries of life’s value: We subject ourselves to others’
notions of what life should be, while providing protective cover to those who
would seek to have us die.
I pray for Brittany’s soul and
for her grieving loved ones. I also pray that life, not death, is what our
culture exalts, despite the challenges that life brings. And while we should
always seek new and better ways to reduce suffering, assisted suicide offers
relief only at the expense of human life itself; human life that has God-given dignity
and unseen purpose, from conception to natural death.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
13 facts media won't tell you about Ferguson case
According to protesters who erupted in violence after a grand jury declined to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., this was the case of a white policeman shooting an unarmed black teenager with his hands in the air in a community plagued by racial tension.
That's the account promoted by many in the mainstream media and race hustlers Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as well. But here are several facts about the case that are harder to find:
1. Surveillance video showed that shortly before the confrontation, 18-year-old Brown stole cigarillos from a convenience store and shoved a clerk who tried to stop him.
2. The autopsy report showed that Brown had marijuana in his system when he died.
3. Officer Wilson, driving to the call of a medical emergency, first encountered Brown walking in the middle of a street and told Brown and his friend to walk on the sidewalk. Brown responded with an expletive.
4. Wilson chose to confront Brown only after he saw the cigarillos in his hand and recalled the radio report of a robbery at the convenience store.
5. Wilson said when he tried to open his car door, Brown slammed it back shut, then punched Wilson in the face.
6. Fearing another punch could knock him out, Wilson drew his gun, he told the grand jury, and Brown grabbed the gun, saying "you are too much of a p****y to shoot me."
7. An African-American witness confirmed that Brown and Wilson appeared to be "arm-wrestling" by the car.
8. Another witness saw Brown leaning through the car's window and said "some sort of confrontation was taking place."
9. After Wilson fired a shot that struck Brown's hand, Brown fled and Wilson gave chase. Brown suddenly stopped. An unidentified witness told the grand jury that 6-foot-4, 292-pound Brown charged at Wilson with his head down. Wilson said Brown put his hand under the waistband of his pants as he continued toward Wilson. That's when Wilson fired.
10. A witness testified that Brown never raised his hands.
11. Gunpowder found on the wound on Brown's hand indicated his hand was close to the gun when it fired. According to a report, the hand wound showed foreign matter "consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a firearm."
12. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist who reviewed the autopsy for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, said the gunpowder "supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has particulate matter in the wound."
13. Wilson said Brown was physically uncontrollable and "for lack of a better word, crazy." He said that during the confrontation, he was thinking: "He's gonna kill me. How do I survive?" Legal experts say police officers typically have wide latitude to use deadly force when they feel their safety is threatened.*
*13 facts courtesy of Newsmax
Why can't people understand that law enforcement officers are allowed to defend themselves? If an officer feels like his life is in danger he can shoot. They shoot white people charging at them, armed or unarmed, too. The media and professional race hustlers jumped all over this issue, ignoring facts in favor of fanning racial flames and now look at the mess it has caused.
In his response to the Grand Jury's decision not to indict Officer Willis, President Barack Obama said he understood how difficult this decision is for the black community to take. He called for peace, and said we are a nation of law, but he never mentioned the need to obey the law. He never told the thugs burning down Ferguson that they would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Then again, when he flew to Ferguson the day after the elections, Obama told key "anti-Wilson" stakeholders there to "stay the course". Stay what course? To burn their town to the ground if the decision didn't go their way, despite the evidence revealed in testimony that points to Wilson's lack of intentional guilt?
Now the "victims of racism" in Ferguson are robbing, looting, burning, pillaging, all in the name of justice. Justice for whom? Since when does criminal action render justice to anyone?
That's the account promoted by many in the mainstream media and race hustlers Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as well. But here are several facts about the case that are harder to find:
1. Surveillance video showed that shortly before the confrontation, 18-year-old Brown stole cigarillos from a convenience store and shoved a clerk who tried to stop him.
2. The autopsy report showed that Brown had marijuana in his system when he died.
3. Officer Wilson, driving to the call of a medical emergency, first encountered Brown walking in the middle of a street and told Brown and his friend to walk on the sidewalk. Brown responded with an expletive.
4. Wilson chose to confront Brown only after he saw the cigarillos in his hand and recalled the radio report of a robbery at the convenience store.
5. Wilson said when he tried to open his car door, Brown slammed it back shut, then punched Wilson in the face.
6. Fearing another punch could knock him out, Wilson drew his gun, he told the grand jury, and Brown grabbed the gun, saying "you are too much of a p****y to shoot me."
7. An African-American witness confirmed that Brown and Wilson appeared to be "arm-wrestling" by the car.
8. Another witness saw Brown leaning through the car's window and said "some sort of confrontation was taking place."
9. After Wilson fired a shot that struck Brown's hand, Brown fled and Wilson gave chase. Brown suddenly stopped. An unidentified witness told the grand jury that 6-foot-4, 292-pound Brown charged at Wilson with his head down. Wilson said Brown put his hand under the waistband of his pants as he continued toward Wilson. That's when Wilson fired.
10. A witness testified that Brown never raised his hands.
11. Gunpowder found on the wound on Brown's hand indicated his hand was close to the gun when it fired. According to a report, the hand wound showed foreign matter "consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a firearm."
12. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist who reviewed the autopsy for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, said the gunpowder "supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has particulate matter in the wound."
13. Wilson said Brown was physically uncontrollable and "for lack of a better word, crazy." He said that during the confrontation, he was thinking: "He's gonna kill me. How do I survive?" Legal experts say police officers typically have wide latitude to use deadly force when they feel their safety is threatened.*
*13 facts courtesy of Newsmax
Why can't people understand that law enforcement officers are allowed to defend themselves? If an officer feels like his life is in danger he can shoot. They shoot white people charging at them, armed or unarmed, too. The media and professional race hustlers jumped all over this issue, ignoring facts in favor of fanning racial flames and now look at the mess it has caused.
In his response to the Grand Jury's decision not to indict Officer Willis, President Barack Obama said he understood how difficult this decision is for the black community to take. He called for peace, and said we are a nation of law, but he never mentioned the need to obey the law. He never told the thugs burning down Ferguson that they would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Then again, when he flew to Ferguson the day after the elections, Obama told key "anti-Wilson" stakeholders there to "stay the course". Stay what course? To burn their town to the ground if the decision didn't go their way, despite the evidence revealed in testimony that points to Wilson's lack of intentional guilt?
Now the "victims of racism" in Ferguson are robbing, looting, burning, pillaging, all in the name of justice. Justice for whom? Since when does criminal action render justice to anyone?
What do you think? Click on the comments link in the bar
below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.
Saturday, November 22, 2014
Obama cites Bible when it suits his liberal agenda, ignores it for the rest of us
In his address to the nation earlier this week, President Barack Obama cited Scripture to defend his illegal executive action on immigration without congressional approval. Essentially granting amnesty to at least 5 million illegal aliens by some estimates, Obama included a brief citation from Exodus by saying, "Scripture tells us we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger — we were strangers once, too.”
First, the president's deference to biblical scripture is suspicious. If Obama felt such a strong biblical need to shred our Constitution, why did he wait until after the elections to do this? After all, if it is the right thing to do, Obama wouldn't have had to worry about hurting Democrats' election campaigns by doing this before Nov. 4.
And as as Charles Krauthammer pointed out, “If he feels so strongly … and Scripture dictates this ought to be done, why did he do nothing about this in 2009 and 2010 when he had control of the Congress … when he could have done this constitutionally?”
Second, it is not a form of oppression to ask somebody to obey the law. If someone breaks the law and experiences legal consequences, that's not oppression. That's justice. Compassion, in fact, is helping someone to obey the law, not break it.
Third, the command to be kind toward immigrants is directed to us as individuals, not to government. The government's job is justice; kindness and generosity is our job.
Obama's reliance on Scripture also reeks of hypocrisy. Notice how he will use the Bible when it suits his extremely liberal agenda on issues like illegal immigration and same-sex "marriage." But when it comes to those who are living their lives based on biblical principles - such as those who cite Scripture on the sin of homosexuality or murder - Obama thumbs his nose at them. He conveniently ignores the Bible's teachings to justify his forcing religious people to pay for abortifacients or to participate in same-sex events, despite their deeply held biblical beliefs that say such things are a sin.
Obama sycophants will try to tell us that Reagan and Bush also used executive orders on immigration. Yes, to clarify existing laws - not to disregard laws and make new ones on a whim. And no matter what Reagan and Bush did, their actions were nowhere near the magnificent scope of what Obama has done.
With all the legal Americans searching in vain for work under our Obama nation, what do you think 5 million new unskilled workers will do to Americans' job search efforts? Now that they don't have to remain hidden, do you really think they will continue to settle for jobs in the fields? No, they will go after the same jobs Americans are currently struggling to find. The only difference is that the illegals will be granted all sorts of tax-funded assistance in the form of education, healthcare and food stamps, while Americans are on their own.
There is no more basic duty of a government than that of protecting its borders. And the promised Executive Order, universally assumed to entail amnesty and residency status for millions of people who entered our country illegally, intentionally undermines this most basic duty. It also sets up the president as a grand legislator, able to make law for the nation in defiance of the national legislature.
When the effects of Obama's incessant attacks on America are felt by the average American, maybe everyone's eyes will be open to what this man is doing to our country and our rule of law. At that point, about the closest thing to a scriptural-sounding passage we could assign to this president would be, "And Obama loved the poor so much that he created millions more."
First, the president's deference to biblical scripture is suspicious. If Obama felt such a strong biblical need to shred our Constitution, why did he wait until after the elections to do this? After all, if it is the right thing to do, Obama wouldn't have had to worry about hurting Democrats' election campaigns by doing this before Nov. 4.
And as as Charles Krauthammer pointed out, “If he feels so strongly … and Scripture dictates this ought to be done, why did he do nothing about this in 2009 and 2010 when he had control of the Congress … when he could have done this constitutionally?”
Second, it is not a form of oppression to ask somebody to obey the law. If someone breaks the law and experiences legal consequences, that's not oppression. That's justice. Compassion, in fact, is helping someone to obey the law, not break it.
Third, the command to be kind toward immigrants is directed to us as individuals, not to government. The government's job is justice; kindness and generosity is our job.
Obama's reliance on Scripture also reeks of hypocrisy. Notice how he will use the Bible when it suits his extremely liberal agenda on issues like illegal immigration and same-sex "marriage." But when it comes to those who are living their lives based on biblical principles - such as those who cite Scripture on the sin of homosexuality or murder - Obama thumbs his nose at them. He conveniently ignores the Bible's teachings to justify his forcing religious people to pay for abortifacients or to participate in same-sex events, despite their deeply held biblical beliefs that say such things are a sin.
Obama sycophants will try to tell us that Reagan and Bush also used executive orders on immigration. Yes, to clarify existing laws - not to disregard laws and make new ones on a whim. And no matter what Reagan and Bush did, their actions were nowhere near the magnificent scope of what Obama has done.
With all the legal Americans searching in vain for work under our Obama nation, what do you think 5 million new unskilled workers will do to Americans' job search efforts? Now that they don't have to remain hidden, do you really think they will continue to settle for jobs in the fields? No, they will go after the same jobs Americans are currently struggling to find. The only difference is that the illegals will be granted all sorts of tax-funded assistance in the form of education, healthcare and food stamps, while Americans are on their own.
There is no more basic duty of a government than that of protecting its borders. And the promised Executive Order, universally assumed to entail amnesty and residency status for millions of people who entered our country illegally, intentionally undermines this most basic duty. It also sets up the president as a grand legislator, able to make law for the nation in defiance of the national legislature.
When the effects of Obama's incessant attacks on America are felt by the average American, maybe everyone's eyes will be open to what this man is doing to our country and our rule of law. At that point, about the closest thing to a scriptural-sounding passage we could assign to this president would be, "And Obama loved the poor so much that he created millions more."
What do you think? Click on the comments link in the bar
below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Pro-life Women Will Make History in 114th Congress*
The pro-life movement can be comforted to know that come this January there will be a record number of women representing them in Congress.
An historic 21 women who define themselves as pro-life will be serving in the 114th Congress, beating the previous high of 18. Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, said that in 1992, when she started the SBA List, there were only two pro-life women in Congress. What a difference a few elections make.
The four new pro-life women joining the House of Representatives include Elise Stefanik (R-NY), Mia Love (R-UT), Barbara Comstock (R-VA) and Mimi Walters (R-CA). As for the Senate, it will gain pro-life fighter Joni Ernst (R-Iowa).
This new pro-life representation bodes well for legislation like the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, a bill which would ban abortions after the fifth month of pregnancy. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has committed to introduce it for a vote once he becomes majority leader.
The influx of pro-lifers in Congress parallels the country’s shift on abortion. In May 2012, a record low of Americans (47 percent) defined themselves as “pro-choice” and millennials have been referred to as the pro-life generation, especially considering their passion at this year's March for Life in Washington, DC. One reason for this may be advances in technology, such as ultrasound machines, which allows us to peek into the womb and witness an unborn baby’s growth.
Watch Dannenfelser explain how voters rejected the idea that abortion is the "great liberator of women."
It’s that simple: The more pro-life leaders we elect, the more babies we save. And hopefully this will end the 'war on women' line of bull from the Democrats forever. I'm sick and tired of hearing it.
*Courtesy of Cortney O'Brien
An historic 21 women who define themselves as pro-life will be serving in the 114th Congress, beating the previous high of 18. Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, said that in 1992, when she started the SBA List, there were only two pro-life women in Congress. What a difference a few elections make.
The four new pro-life women joining the House of Representatives include Elise Stefanik (R-NY), Mia Love (R-UT), Barbara Comstock (R-VA) and Mimi Walters (R-CA). As for the Senate, it will gain pro-life fighter Joni Ernst (R-Iowa).
This new pro-life representation bodes well for legislation like the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, a bill which would ban abortions after the fifth month of pregnancy. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has committed to introduce it for a vote once he becomes majority leader.
The influx of pro-lifers in Congress parallels the country’s shift on abortion. In May 2012, a record low of Americans (47 percent) defined themselves as “pro-choice” and millennials have been referred to as the pro-life generation, especially considering their passion at this year's March for Life in Washington, DC. One reason for this may be advances in technology, such as ultrasound machines, which allows us to peek into the womb and witness an unborn baby’s growth.
Watch Dannenfelser explain how voters rejected the idea that abortion is the "great liberator of women."
It’s that simple: The more pro-life leaders we elect, the more babies we save. And hopefully this will end the 'war on women' line of bull from the Democrats forever. I'm sick and tired of hearing it.
What do you think? Click on the comments link in the bar
below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.
*Courtesy of Cortney O'Brien
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Liberals claim Tuesday's election results a sign of racism
Despite Tuesday’s election results -- a clear rejection of
the socialist direction our country has been taking -- liberals are still
claiming their way is the best way, and, oddly, in what can only be seen as
desperate, some are claiming the results were because of conservative racism. I
guess they don't realize that conservatives elected the first black Republican woman to the US House of Representatives, Mia
Love of Utah, and the first black Senator from the South elected since
reconstruction, Tim Scott of South Carolina.
It’s not a huge number, but
it’s a big message that I hope black Americans currently under the thumb of
race-baiting tactics will eventually embrace – that there is an alternative to
the Democrat-controlled method of staying in power by convincing black people
that Democrats are their only hope.
As far as racism in
America, there are two camps that black people are currently viewed by: those
with "victim" mentality, championed by the likes of uber racists like
Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, who have made their fame and fortune by
hustling “the racist white man” for millions of dollars, and by fomenting strife
between the races, such as they’re currently doing in Ferguson, MO.
The other camp consists of
men like Allan West and Dr. Ben Carson, men at the top of the field, truly
'self made men' starting in the depths of urban poverty and ending at the
pinnacle of personal and professional success.
But Al, Jessie and their
minions deride men like Ben and Alan as 'sellouts' and 'puppets' of the
conservatives. They’re simply “Uncle Toms” because they don't need Al and
Jessie, don't make excuses for their lives and, worst of all, keep themselves
far away from the Democrat plantation.
As we all know, if anyone
criticizes President Obama, it’s not because they don’t like his policies, it’s
because they don’t like the color of his skin. But as Congresswoman-elect Mia
Love said of her victory, “This has nothing to do with race. I wasn’t elected
because of the color of my skin…I was elected because of the solutions I put on
the table.”
How nice it would be if the
mainstream media broadcast Ms. Love’s message as widely as it fans the flames
of supposed racism, such as it’s doing in Ferguson, MO.
What do you think? Click on the comments link in the bar
below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Should bad laws be questioned? This group says no....
A pair of Christian ministers in Idaho may face up
to $1,000 in fines and six months in prison for refusing to perform same-sex
weddings at their for-profit wedding chapel.
The owners, Donald and Evelyn Knapp, say for the past several months, the city in which they reside has privately and publicly threatened to apply its nondiscrimination ordinance to them if same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho and the Knapps declined to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony at The Hitching Post Wedding Chapel.
"Each day the Knapps decline to perform a requested same-sex wedding ceremony, they commit a separate and distinct misdemeanor, subject to the same penalties. Thus, if the Knapps decline a same-sex wedding ceremony for just one week, they risk going to jail for over 3 years and being fined $7,000."
"Right now they are at risk of being prosecuted," the Knapps' attorney Jeremy Tedesco, told reporters, adding, "The threat of enforcement is more than just credible. The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple's freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected, just as the First Amendment intended."
Like this scenario shows, increasingly often, Americans are witnesses to the reality that redefining marriage is less about the marriage altar and more about fundamentally altering the freedoms of about 98 percent of Americans.
This is the brave new world of government-sanctioned same-sex unions -- where Americans are forced to celebrate these unions regardless of their religious beliefs, and where government officials are making it clear they will use their power to punish those who try to stand up for their convictions.
Activists will say that because a business operates publicly, the owners must obey all laws, specifically broadly written anti-discrimination laws. That is just plain dangerous. Under this premise, we are all at risk because now any government body can pass any law it chooses, and according to this premise, we are not to question it because it is the law. With this thinking, slavery should have remained legal. After all, even the Supreme Court said it was constitutional and, according to LGBT activists, we should not question such things, right?
The bottom line is, if a law strips an individual of his or her right to live their faith publicly, then it is a bad law, pure and simple, and must be changed. This is not about hatred of homosexuals. If the LGBT activists would think honestly about it, they would see that a person's love for God and the desire to adhere to His word trumps anything else, and they should try to genuinely understand the position this puts the believer in.
In trying to exercise such understanding, LGBT activists would likely also come to know that out of love for God, Christians have love for our fellow human beings - period. Though I may not agree with someone, or even know them, I know that I feel actual love for my fellow human beings and I would do anything in my power to help someone in need of something. But I draw the line at violating God's Law to do so, and if I am forced to violate God's Law to "help" someone, then it is not genuine help in the first place.
But regarding God's Law, LGBT activists are trying to convince us that the Bible is either false or that it does not state that homosexuality is a sin in the first place, which in fact it does in several passages, including Genesis 19, Roman 1:27, 1 Corinthian 6:9, and a couple in Leviathan that describe homosexuality as an abomination. And for the record, there is no sin in same-sex attraction, only in acting upon that temptation.
Now stating this does not mean that I am personally judging those who engage in homosexual acts – it is not my place to do so, and I simply don’t. Again, this is the Bible’s teaching, it is not my personal judgment of anyone. I am more concerned with how God judges me for my own sins, though I am concerned for the eternal well-being of other sinners as well. That is out of love, not hatred.
On the other hand, in Ezekiel 33:7-9, the Bible warns that we are complicit in one’s sin if we do not try to dissuade someone from it, and in several passages, including in 1 Corinthian, we are warned about being complicit in one’s sin by certain acts of association with those committing the sin. But nowhere does the Bible tell us to hate sinners, or we would all have to loathe ourselves. What the Bible asks us to do is hate the sin because of the damage it does to our soul. Anyone who has love for a fellow human being ought not only try to avoid committing his own sins, but help those struggling with sin to turn away from it.
This leads to another part of the issue. If a homosexual person honestly does not believe his sexual actions are sinful, then he might not be held accountable to God for them - and I pray that is the case because I don't want anything bad to befall any human being. But a believer who knows something is a sin, yet takes part in actions that go against God's teachings, either by committing the sin or being complicit in another's sin, is held accountable.
And this is the position LGBT people are putting Christians in. We are taught about sin, and therefore we are accountable for actions that go against God's teachings. But just because an LGBT person may reject the Bible, is it not right that he or she demand that a believer reject it as well.
Moreover, LGBT activists are telling us that certain things aren't sinful, and therefore say we have no right to avoid what we know to be sinful. In other words, they are asking us to choose their word over God's Word, even though they don't seem to understand or accept that we believe doing so will put our souls in jeopardy. And thanks to bad laws that activists say should not be questioned, there is an attempt to force us to go against what we believe to be true based on literally thousands of years of Biblical teaching. Saying one is tolerant of religion but then denying people's right to live their actual religious beliefs is not supportive of religion at all - nor is it loving.
There are better ways to find common ground. Respecting people's individuality, showing understanding, and being tolerant of their beliefs - not forcing them to violate them - is a good place to start.
The owners, Donald and Evelyn Knapp, say for the past several months, the city in which they reside has privately and publicly threatened to apply its nondiscrimination ordinance to them if same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho and the Knapps declined to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony at The Hitching Post Wedding Chapel.
"Each day the Knapps decline to perform a requested same-sex wedding ceremony, they commit a separate and distinct misdemeanor, subject to the same penalties. Thus, if the Knapps decline a same-sex wedding ceremony for just one week, they risk going to jail for over 3 years and being fined $7,000."
"Right now they are at risk of being prosecuted," the Knapps' attorney Jeremy Tedesco, told reporters, adding, "The threat of enforcement is more than just credible. The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple's freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected, just as the First Amendment intended."
Like this scenario shows, increasingly often, Americans are witnesses to the reality that redefining marriage is less about the marriage altar and more about fundamentally altering the freedoms of about 98 percent of Americans.
This is the brave new world of government-sanctioned same-sex unions -- where Americans are forced to celebrate these unions regardless of their religious beliefs, and where government officials are making it clear they will use their power to punish those who try to stand up for their convictions.
Activists will say that because a business operates publicly, the owners must obey all laws, specifically broadly written anti-discrimination laws. That is just plain dangerous. Under this premise, we are all at risk because now any government body can pass any law it chooses, and according to this premise, we are not to question it because it is the law. With this thinking, slavery should have remained legal. After all, even the Supreme Court said it was constitutional and, according to LGBT activists, we should not question such things, right?
The bottom line is, if a law strips an individual of his or her right to live their faith publicly, then it is a bad law, pure and simple, and must be changed. This is not about hatred of homosexuals. If the LGBT activists would think honestly about it, they would see that a person's love for God and the desire to adhere to His word trumps anything else, and they should try to genuinely understand the position this puts the believer in.
In trying to exercise such understanding, LGBT activists would likely also come to know that out of love for God, Christians have love for our fellow human beings - period. Though I may not agree with someone, or even know them, I know that I feel actual love for my fellow human beings and I would do anything in my power to help someone in need of something. But I draw the line at violating God's Law to do so, and if I am forced to violate God's Law to "help" someone, then it is not genuine help in the first place.
But regarding God's Law, LGBT activists are trying to convince us that the Bible is either false or that it does not state that homosexuality is a sin in the first place, which in fact it does in several passages, including Genesis 19, Roman 1:27, 1 Corinthian 6:9, and a couple in Leviathan that describe homosexuality as an abomination. And for the record, there is no sin in same-sex attraction, only in acting upon that temptation.
Now stating this does not mean that I am personally judging those who engage in homosexual acts – it is not my place to do so, and I simply don’t. Again, this is the Bible’s teaching, it is not my personal judgment of anyone. I am more concerned with how God judges me for my own sins, though I am concerned for the eternal well-being of other sinners as well. That is out of love, not hatred.
On the other hand, in Ezekiel 33:7-9, the Bible warns that we are complicit in one’s sin if we do not try to dissuade someone from it, and in several passages, including in 1 Corinthian, we are warned about being complicit in one’s sin by certain acts of association with those committing the sin. But nowhere does the Bible tell us to hate sinners, or we would all have to loathe ourselves. What the Bible asks us to do is hate the sin because of the damage it does to our soul. Anyone who has love for a fellow human being ought not only try to avoid committing his own sins, but help those struggling with sin to turn away from it.
This leads to another part of the issue. If a homosexual person honestly does not believe his sexual actions are sinful, then he might not be held accountable to God for them - and I pray that is the case because I don't want anything bad to befall any human being. But a believer who knows something is a sin, yet takes part in actions that go against God's teachings, either by committing the sin or being complicit in another's sin, is held accountable.
And this is the position LGBT people are putting Christians in. We are taught about sin, and therefore we are accountable for actions that go against God's teachings. But just because an LGBT person may reject the Bible, is it not right that he or she demand that a believer reject it as well.
Moreover, LGBT activists are telling us that certain things aren't sinful, and therefore say we have no right to avoid what we know to be sinful. In other words, they are asking us to choose their word over God's Word, even though they don't seem to understand or accept that we believe doing so will put our souls in jeopardy. And thanks to bad laws that activists say should not be questioned, there is an attempt to force us to go against what we believe to be true based on literally thousands of years of Biblical teaching. Saying one is tolerant of religion but then denying people's right to live their actual religious beliefs is not supportive of religion at all - nor is it loving.
There are better ways to find common ground. Respecting people's individuality, showing understanding, and being tolerant of their beliefs - not forcing them to violate them - is a good place to start.
What do you think? Click on the comments link in the bar
below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)