Sick of it all. Fallout from Chick-Fil-A day.
I just read a blog post that I was made aware of on Twitter. Shaun Dakin posted an article called "In 1966 I Would Have Been A Criminal: My Thoughts on Chick Fil A and How Religion Is Used For Hate". In it he makes the point that his marriage to an Indian-American woman would have been illegal in the State of Virginia, and that he doesn't understand how so many people could use a religion to promote hate. In a way that is a very naive point, since the second largest (maybe even the largest) organized religion in the world bases much of its raison d'être to hating and killing large swaths of the human population, but I digress.
First and foremost, Christians who firmly believe the Bible's teachings (that is really who these self-righteous people are attacking) are not promoting HATE. In fact, if these Christians are true believers, the Bible teaches to hate the sin but love the sinner.
At some point in any person's life, they must decide what they feel is right and what they feel is wrong. Many, many people use the Ten Commandments as a starting point for their personal beliefs. Like the first ten amendments to the US Constitution, they are all co-equal in validity. If a person has a set of beliefs and 'religiously' adheres to these beliefs, most of the time that is cause for respect. In fact, just about every religion holds the same basic beliefs about societal interaction. Nations adopt a similar code. Can someone name a country where theft, murder and lying under oath are condoned?
When a Buddhist spends his life in a monastery living a life of stark poverty, that is cool. When a Muslim devotes his life to the study of Wahhabist Islam, liberals say "Who are we to tell them what to think?". When a native tribe in the jungles of Brazil offer up live sacrifices or Eskimos hunt endangered species, they are looked at with an "Isn't that a quaint way of life" attitude.
When a Christian says that they adhere to the word of God, or adhere to the letter of the law as dictated in the Constitution, they are called "flat-earthers", naive and backwards. How does that square with liberal's supposed belief in co-existence and toleration?
I am going to slide down the slippery slope here for a minute, so hang on.
In 1966, white people couldn't marry "someone of color" in VA. Catholics couldn't marry Protestants or Jews (church law, not state law) and gay marriage??? forget about it. So now in 2012, the races can mix. There are no taboos on religious cross-marriages (outside of the bigoted religious communities) and homosexuals can legally marry in a growing number of states (and they have been able to adopt children for an even longer time.)
Here is where the slope gets really slippery. What is stopping us from making marriage legal between cousins, siblings or even between parents and children? Having multiple spouses? What about marrying children? What is to stop us from condoning this? Is it a religious block or a social block? Sex between consenting, unmarried adults is pretty much decriminalized in all states. What about sex between any person and any other being?
Limits? Should there be any? Before people accuse me of suggesting that there is a moral equivalence between two loving men marrying and a man marrying a sheep or his daughter, stop and think about the argument. If the guy in this video knew that his new neighbor was in love with, and wanted to marry his 13 year old daughter, would he treat it all the same? Yeah, I bet he would...
As I have said before, what angers me most about the left is their self-righteous pontifications against the Neanderthals on the right because those people know what is best for all of us. But, let someone piss in their Wheaties, and disagree with one of their dogmatic beliefs and it is a completely different story.
But remember, I make these comments from a position of principled love, not hate. After all, can't we all just get along?
First and foremost, Christians who firmly believe the Bible's teachings (that is really who these self-righteous people are attacking) are not promoting HATE. In fact, if these Christians are true believers, the Bible teaches to hate the sin but love the sinner.
At some point in any person's life, they must decide what they feel is right and what they feel is wrong. Many, many people use the Ten Commandments as a starting point for their personal beliefs. Like the first ten amendments to the US Constitution, they are all co-equal in validity. If a person has a set of beliefs and 'religiously' adheres to these beliefs, most of the time that is cause for respect. In fact, just about every religion holds the same basic beliefs about societal interaction. Nations adopt a similar code. Can someone name a country where theft, murder and lying under oath are condoned?
When a Buddhist spends his life in a monastery living a life of stark poverty, that is cool. When a Muslim devotes his life to the study of Wahhabist Islam, liberals say "Who are we to tell them what to think?". When a native tribe in the jungles of Brazil offer up live sacrifices or Eskimos hunt endangered species, they are looked at with an "Isn't that a quaint way of life" attitude.
When a Christian says that they adhere to the word of God, or adhere to the letter of the law as dictated in the Constitution, they are called "flat-earthers", naive and backwards. How does that square with liberal's supposed belief in co-existence and toleration?
I am going to slide down the slippery slope here for a minute, so hang on.
In 1966, white people couldn't marry "someone of color" in VA. Catholics couldn't marry Protestants or Jews (church law, not state law) and gay marriage??? forget about it. So now in 2012, the races can mix. There are no taboos on religious cross-marriages (outside of the bigoted religious communities) and homosexuals can legally marry in a growing number of states (and they have been able to adopt children for an even longer time.)
Here is where the slope gets really slippery. What is stopping us from making marriage legal between cousins, siblings or even between parents and children? Having multiple spouses? What about marrying children? What is to stop us from condoning this? Is it a religious block or a social block? Sex between consenting, unmarried adults is pretty much decriminalized in all states. What about sex between any person and any other being?
Limits? Should there be any? Before people accuse me of suggesting that there is a moral equivalence between two loving men marrying and a man marrying a sheep or his daughter, stop and think about the argument. If the guy in this video knew that his new neighbor was in love with, and wanted to marry his 13 year old daughter, would he treat it all the same? Yeah, I bet he would...
As I have said before, what angers me most about the left is their self-righteous pontifications against the Neanderthals on the right because those people know what is best for all of us. But, let someone piss in their Wheaties, and disagree with one of their dogmatic beliefs and it is a completely different story.
But remember, I make these comments from a position of principled love, not hate. After all, can't we all just get along?
Comments