"A republic, Madame, if you can keep it."
I'll never forget my fourth grade teacher asking us if the United States was a democracy or a republic. Most of us didn't know what either term meant, but the majority of us answered "A democracy."
Our teacher then asked us to stand and face the American flag, place our hands over our hearts, and cite the Pledge of Allegiance.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands..."Our teacher stopped us..., "Listen to what you just said - 'and to the republic.' Boys and girls, never forget the United States of America is a republic, not a democracy."
After we sat down, a boy raised his hand and asked the question, "How is a republic different from a democracy?"
Our teacher rightly responded - "A republic is a rule of law, established by representative leadership. The ancient Roman republic was the model our American forefathers used in establishing America's republic form of government. Democracy was feared by our forefathers, not favored."
That little exchange when I was ten years old began a lifelong love for republicanism. I began to learn what our forefathers believed. For example, during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph reflected on the multiple discussions the delegates had during the four months of debate regarding the "evil" in governments and the "evil" in political systems. He reflected
"...that in tracing these evils to their origin every man (at the Constitutional Convention) had found the origin of evil in the turbulence and follies of democracy."John Adams said,
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."John Marshall, who later became Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court observed,
"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."The reason Benjamin Franklin responded, "A republic, Madame, if you can keep it" is because he--along with the other Founding Fathers--believed that a republic would eventually descend into a democracy, a democracy would quickly dissolve into anarchy, and anarchy would ultimately lead to totalitarianism.
As of last week, the rule of law in America (i.e. "the Constitution") has been abandoned. We are no longer a country governed by law (i.e. "a republic"), but rather, a government ruled by the wishes of people (i.e. "a democracy"). The trifecta verdicts by the Supreme Court last week are important because the "rule of law" was set aside by Supreme Court activists who decided it was important that people have equal outcomes.
This is cause for celebration by many Americans. It's not my desire to damper anyone's party, but it is my responsibility to remind those who love our country of what our Founding Fathers believed about the descent from a republic to a democracy.
What comes for America next is anarchy.
Then what follows is totalitarianism.
The good news is for believers in Jesus Christ is that we belong to "holy nation" (I Peter 2:9), are citizens of a "city not built with human hands" (Hebrews 11:10), and are "pilgrims on a journey through this world" (I Peter 2:11).
Remember to whom you really belong, because the republic you once knew and loved has fallen.
71 comments:
So in other words, the sky is falling?
Wow, great word again.
Anon,
I'm thinking what is being said is, if history has any meaningful lesson to be learned, the sky WILL fall. But our hope is not in America or any other man-made system. For us the Sky will open presenting His Eternal Kingdom.
Paul,
Well said.
The sky falling in the United States is inevitable. It happened to Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, Russia, and every other great world power of the past - and it will happen to the United States as well.
The true Sky never falls.
Modern Americans would do well to learn history so as not to ever trust in government, politics or any leader for a secure future.
It's always the same old song and dance ~ When SCOTUS rules in favor of the Republican Party's cause, it's, "Ah yes, God is good and the sun is shining and mother and apple pie etc.".
When SCOTUS rules in favor of the Democratic Party causes, it's, "We are no longer a nation under God and the world will end tomorrow and let's all make a mountain out of a molehill."
At some point, we as Christians will focus our attentions on what Christ has commanded us to do, and not the political right wing.
I won't hold my breath on that. What social sin are we to focus our attention on next to the exclusion of all else? Apparently we have the poor and unsaved covered...
Anonymous,
"At some point, we as Christians will focus our attentions on what Christ has commanded us to do, and not the political right wing."
That's my point.
Thanks for making it clearly for me.
The United States is destined to fall, like every other country, so nobody better put their faith in government or politics.
I'm just pointing out that it is happening to those who may be blind to it.
Two (out of three) of the real indicators of a nation about to fall from within are A) the decline of law & order, which is really the enforcement of laws, and B) the public acceptance of immorality. I forget the 3rd indicator, but we've probably got that one, too.
As I've said before, this is a relly good time to be old.
This post is very funny. I remember the democrats saying the same thing in 2000 election when the supreme Court sided with George W. Bush than Al Gore. Yup. "Republic is collapsing". " Rule of law" is no more.
Wade Burleson said...
"At some point, we as Christians will focus our attentions on what Christ has commanded us to do, and not the political right wing."
That's my point.
Thanks for making it clearly for me.
I'm pretty sure your point is ~
'As of last week, the rule of law in America (i.e. "the Constitution") has been abandoned. We are no longer a country governed by law (i.e. "a republic"), but rather, a government ruled by the wishes of people (i.e. "a democracy"). The trifecta verdicts by the Supreme Court last week are important because the "rule of law" was set aside by Supreme Court activists who decided it was important that people have equal outcomes.'
My point stands, and yours is the same old 'sky is falling' nonsense.
5% of the population gained the exact same rights the rest of us have always enjoyed and now the country is toast.
If that's all it takes, it wasn't much to begin with.
Get over it and get on with it. The world needs to see the love of God, and you republican drama queens are giving the rest of us Christians a bad name.
You're right. Our republic is gone. Our government is no longer representative of "we the people". But, Benjamin Franklin left out a form of government - oligarchy. That's very close to what we have, now. We have an elite group of people, who ignore the millions of people that they represent, and make decisions based on their own opinions and desires. We are eerily close to what Rome was when Jesus walked among men.
You make a good point, Thy Peace, about people's perspectives.
The law to which I refer, however, is "The Constitution."
When justices wrongly believe they can "establish law" because of the "will of the people," and thereby thwart the Constitution of the United States, then you've moved from a republic that cherishes Constitutional law to a democracy that cherishes the desires of the people.
This is the very thing our forefathers feared - that the federal government would forsake the Constitution (a republic) and become a powerful democracy. Here's an illustration of the practical effect.
On her television show, Megyn Kelly interviewed Michelle Bachmann and both ladies expressed disapproval of the intrusiveness of questions on the 2010 census, and of ACORN’s involvement in gathering the information. Megyn brought up that a spokesperson for the Census Bureau said that “the US code says anyone over eighteen who refuses to answer any of the questions on the census can be fined up to $5000 dollars”. So Megyn asked Rep. Bachmann:
…so how do you respond to those who say, “…The law is what the law is and you as a lawmaker should know better than to break it.”
Rep. Bachmann answered:
“…I’m saying for myself and for my family, our comfort level is we will comply with the Constitution. Article one section two: we will give the number of the people in our home. And that’s where we’re going to draw the line.”
Ms. Kelly then said:
“But Congresswoman, and let me just press you on this because that’s what the Constitution says, OK, you’ve got to give the number of people in your home. But as you know in this country we don’t live just by the Constitution; we have laws that people like you passed – and the US code – and I have it – says and the Census Bureau has got a point – it says that anybody whoever over 18 years of age who refuses or willfully neglects to answer any of the questions on the schedule submitted to him in connection with the census shall be fined not more than $5000 dollars. So that’s a law on the books. So why don’t you try to change the law as opposed to defying the one that already out there?”
So, Thy Peace, here's my point. The federal government is now demanding answers to questions which the Constitution does not permit them to ask, in order to administer programs which the Constitution does not authorize them to administer; and then they threaten you with a $5,000. fine if you don’t submit to their unconstitutional acts. This is the example of moving from the rule of Law to the rule of men.
Under the Rule of Law – The Constitution – they may ask no more than the number of persons who reside in your home. That is all WE THE PEOPLE authorized them to ask at Art. I, Sec. 2, clause 3; hence, that is all that they may lawfully ask. When they exceed the powers granted to them in The Constitution, they usurp powers and act lawlessly.
Alexander Hamilton understood that the People [that’s us] are the “natural guardians of the Constitution”, and he expected us to be “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority” (The Federalist No. 16, 10th para).
Hamilton also said that acts of the federal government which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers are “merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.” (The Federalist No. 33, 7th para). This is what it means to stand up for the Rule of Law.
Plutocracy. This is what US has. Ruled by business class that has two parties, Democrats and Republicans with minor differences as in abortion, gay rights and so on. Just to energize both evangelicals and liberals. Which do not effect the 0.001%
BTW what this country did since before 9/11 till now into the future with TOTAL surveillance of all people around the world incl. US what with Snowden revelations. That was and is a travesty and a crime. But both the parties were for the ginormous surveillance.
You are all being played. Both liberals and evangelicals.
I don't think it really takes a legal expert to see whether the SCOTUS followed the Constitution or not. If one can read then one can see for themselves. The point Wade is making is that the SCOTUS abandoned the Constitution in their ruling. But more importantly, they altered the Traditional family unit, and that is where the real "sky is falling" problem lies.
Two very excellent works; Home Economics: The Consequences of Changing Family Structure and From Family Collapse to America's Decline both point to ominous times ahead. Building on the work of Sen. Daniel Moynihan's study of the collapse of the Black Family, they show what happens when the family dynamic is changed. in Short, biological Mother's and Father's are necessary to healthy families and thus a healthy Republic. Historically speaking, every Nation that has altered the Traditional family structure by sanctioning unnatural unions, has not been long for this world. Even though such unions only make up a small percentage of the population.
Wade thank you for your comment. I did not intend to make a levity of this post just to annoy everyone. I know you write what you believe and perceive.
I wanted to add one aspect. I know since 60's the unions in this country were decimated systematically. The purpose is atomization.
" The beauty of our system is that it isolates everybody. Each person is sitting alone in front of the tube, you know. It's very hard to have ideas or thoughts under those circumstances. You can't fight the world alone.”
― Noam Chomsky
Only Churches are left for people to gather and share ideas.
The Churches are next. It will happen.
I sometimes feel the Borg collective is much preferable to atomization. Sarcasm alert.
BTW, Thy Peace,
Believe it or not, my major objections to the rulings last week on Obama care, Gay Marriage and the other decisions are not based on "morals." My objections are based on Constitutional concerns - i.e. "the rule of law" - and the problem with states' laws being overturned by a judiciary -- in violation of the national Constitution - with very few Americans seeing the real danger of what is happening. In other words, I'm not shouting about gay marriage, subsidies for health insurance, etc... I am arguing that when the Law of the land is set aside (i.e. "The Constitution") in order to create equal outcomes for all people, you've killed a Republic and created a Democracy - the very thing our Founding Father's feared.
America is falling because of immorality in people. Lies, cheating, irresponsibility, sexual mis-conduct, inferior parenting, lust of material things, greed, but mostly because of leaving God out our lives.
This post is utterly ridiculous. Not even a hint of true Christianity within it. By the same logic, the United States apparently began its "dangerous" descent into a democracy from a republic when Brown v. Board of Education was handed down in the 1950s. Shame on those who preach hatred from the pulpit under the auspices of Christ Jesus. And, no, your doctrine of love the sinner but hate the sin is sheer nonsense. Hatred masquerading as "love" because it conveniently allows one to express hate under false pretenses.
I follow Jonathan Turkey's blog posts. He had this to say on same sex marriage ruling:
I tried to point out on the air that those opposing this decision have some valid arguments about the Court’s role in our society and should not be dismissed as bigots or intolerant. While I disagree with the dissenters, there are valid concerns when the Court steps into an issue with such great political and social and religious divisions.
I am still waiting for his analysis of the ACA ruling.
That should be Jonathan Turley. Auto spelling screwups.
A very intelligent man who I work with made pretty much the same points about the Supreme Court going beyond the law when I was talking to him on Saturday, Wade. And they are very good points indeed.
And I really like what you said at the end. We are not hopeless. And we should never put our faith in our country and government. They WILL fall. I was just thinking that most of the hatred and fear I've seen on the part of Christians in response to Friday's ruling was because of faith misplaced in America and the American political system.
I keep forgetting that Turley was involved in the supreme Court arguments for the ACA. I enjoy his blog posts on law. I find him quite level headed and even. Also his series of posts on Obama usurpation of unilateral power and wrecking of civil liberties.
Anonymous 10:29
I would like to politely point out that you seem to have misunderstood the entire post. I've taken no moral position on the issues at hand.
My complaint is that the Supreme Court has overstepped its boundaries and created "Federal Law." The Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court this power.
That's a matter of Constitutional fact, not opinion.
Or, anonymous, to put the problem another way:
The issue is not about the morality of gay marriage, or the practice of giving federal subsidies for health care, or any other "moral" question. The issue is about whether or not, as Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the infamous 1803 Marbury vs. Marshall, that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That's what a republic is - a government that holds itself to "supreme law" i.e. "the Constitution."
The Constitution calls for elected officials of states to make laws, not nine justices.
The Kingdom of God is filled with people of GOOD will. This country also harbors many people of good will. These people do NOT harbor ill will towards those who are different from themselves.
As long as there is even one person in our country who bears good will towards others, then I will have hope for the country to survive. These people are known to have patience, and to be long-suffering, and to show kindness, and above all to live in that charity which is ordered within us by God Himself.
They bear the Good News that has a power to change everything and everyone.
The Lord Christ has overcome the world. We may be at peace in Him and with one another.
It is said in the Church that 'all is grace'. God brings good out of circumstances where we cannot see ahead that far down the road. Embrace the humility wrought by disappointment in the ways of the world. Within that humility is the hope of grace.
I was upset thinking my comment had been deleted, but discovered I had put it on the wrong Post. This is it:
WOW!
I’ve never thought about the word “republic” in the Pledge of Allegiance. I’ve always thought that ‘democracy’ was king.
But now I see ‘democracy’ can be like a mob lynching a guilty or innocence person WITHOUT the rule of law.
I agree the White House turning into a rainbow has CONDEMNED itself.
Thy Peace,
Wade’s post is “funny”???
You remind me of my Dad telling me that I was always right but when I was wrong, I was DEAD WRONG.
Wade is right in saying: “My complaint is that the Supreme Court has overstepped its boundaries and created "Federal Law." The Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court this power.”
Only congress can pass laws. The Court ruling permits marriage by anyone based on ‘love’. What prohibits a man from marrying his daughter or son?
Another outstanding well-developed thought Wade.
Inarguable from my chair.
Also liked Jesus and bottom feeders from previous.
Thanks friend.
Since the subject of "constitutionalism" in on the table, why do so many today, "Christians" especially,seem to naturally gravitate away from constitutionalism in their clamoring for "social justice", "the environment" etc.?
The Southern Baptist Convention claims to have moved away from "The Social Gospel" as a reaction to "liberal theology" which according the Fundamentalist rhetoric of the CR resulted in a more "doctrinally orthodox" and biblically "inerrant" posture.
The new SBC with its current rhetoric and agendas looks more and more like a revival of the old liberal "Social Gospel" than a trajectory away from it.
Perhaps the only differences between old school fundamentalists and new-school fundamentalists are the ones you find when comparing U.S. Constitutionalism and pure Marxism.
Thank you, Scott.
Rex,
I never delete your comments. :)
Truth be known, I rarely, if ever, delete anyone's comments - only vulgarity.
Wade, you keep referring to the "rule of law" and the " Constitution" but you make no serious challenge to the basis of a 14th amendment violation that occurs when governments recognize one type of marriage over another.
One of the very good things about a republic is that it protects the minority from being dictated to by the majority, as is often the case in democracy. That is the very spirit of the 14th amendment.
Two links from Turley's blog:
Obamacare spared through "Jiggery Pokery"
Sisters Wives Case Cited in Supreme Courts Historic Same Sex Marriage Ruling
These are the posts from Turley's blog that one should mostly worry about:
10 Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free | JONATHAN TURLEY
Obama and the Decline of the American Civil Liberties Movement | JONATHAN TURLEY
My Interview With John Cusack on Civil Liberties and Obama | JONATHAN TURLEY
Glenn Greenwald had a good take through LGBT prism though I am sure most of the conservative readers of this blog will disagree.
Anonymous 5:11,
Listen to Scalia's dissent. This is what I'm trying to say:
"This (decision) is a naked judicial claim to legislative — indeed, super-legislative — power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government,” Scalia wrote. “A system of government that makes the people subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy."
The issue for me is NOT whether or not gays can be considered "married" - the issue for me is the Supreme Court legislated a decision by FIAT when the Constitution - the highest law of our land - states that ability is the legislatures ALONE, not the courts.
Scalia didn't have a problem with this, Wade, when he declared;
"Corporations are people."
He lost this one, so of course he stomped his little feet and held his breath. The little toad is well versed in selective outrage.
And when the legislature is wrong, as it often is (slavery, women voting, segregation, etc.), it is the duty of the nine to lead us back to justice. I marvel that no person dares to call Brown v Board of Education or Loving v Virginia judicial fiat--they were moves toward justice--but conservatives are too comfortable asserting that giving LGBT persons equal rights is judicial tyranny. It's the establishment and assertion of equality, which is to say it's upholding the Constitution. If the representatives among us voted to legalize slavery, they would be wrong. When legislatures deny gay people equal rights, they are also wrong. Stop defending tyranny.
I say what has been happening to us is chilling. Here are two simple posts written 20 years ago that briefly show how we are being worked on:
Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare) and
The Voice of Dissidence, by Christian Tyler
@ Thy Peace,
You choose that for a User Name, then work overtime trying to get people riled up.
"And here's even more examples of why you should be perceptually ticked off..."
Pfft.
The founding generation never envisioned unelected judges issuing ex cathedra pronouncements regarding the definition of social institutions like marriage and the Constitution delegates the federal judiciary no authority to meddle in the issue. Marriage is a realm clearly left to the state and the people.
Gay people have always had equal rights when it comes to marriage.
Nothing prevented them from marrying. What they were prevented from was marrying some specific individual, in this case a person of the same sex.
We prevent straight people from marrying some specific individual, such as an underage person, a close relative, or someone unable mentally to give valid consent.
This truly was not a matter of civil rights. It is judicial fiat. Which is why some of my pro gay friends are saying this ruling should be overturned. Of course, they want gay marriage, but want it done legislatively.
Linda
Anon Linda said ~
"Gay people have always had equal rights when it comes to marriage.
Nothing prevented them from marrying. What they were prevented from was marrying some specific individual, in this case a person of the same sex."
Okay Linda, try this on for size...
You men a man and fell in love. The desire of your heart is to spend your entire life with this man. You found The One.
Well forget it. You must marry a woman. This is what society expects, Linda, and society's expectations trump anything you want for your life.
You'll get used to it, Linda, suffering through life, living a lie, but hey ~ this is has been decided for you, because no one can plan your life better than an uncaring society.
Marry a woman or die alone, Linda. Pick one.
You would refuse that? So do they, and rightly so.
Put that in your judgemental pipe and smoke it.
The Good News is that THE Church thrives in times of persecution. Persecution fans the fires of the Kingdom expansion. I sensed an air of desperation at church last Sunday. Reminded me of the "9/11" syndrome. More people attended church than we had seen in a spell. EVERYTHING seemed more intense; the Bible Study, the worship music, the preaching, the prayer and the desperation for true Christian fellowship and hunger for the proclamation of THE WORD.
I believe that we will never see a return to the "days of old" but perhaps there is a blessing in that. We had become complacent, milk-toast, bumps on a log. The days of unchallenged "Christian Nation Principles" have "gone with the wind". We enter a time when true CHURCH people are in the minority. The chaff is burned away as demonstrated by the millions of professing "Christians" celebrating sin.
Perhaps WE will experience the days of "underground church" in the not-so-far future and gather together in small groups in homes with the curtains pulled and cars of attendees parked down the road to avoid attention. We'll baptize people in the bathroom but study The Word hungrily together for hours well into the night not wanting to stop.
I have heard followers in some persecuted nations say, "Pray for us to be bold, but don't pray for the persecution to end. It is our fuel." I'm glad I was born in this era. It is cutting edge, intensive spiritual warfare where the power of Satan are indeed manifested but the power of our God will reign supreme! I am full of anticipation. I believe we true believers will be sought out not only by our enemies but by those desperate to be saved as mentioned in Zechariah 8:23. (WE are "Jews".) GO GOD!
There were consequences for gay marriages not being recognized officially in US as this one example shows.
Juan Cole has a counter argument to the GOP definition of marriage. There are obvious factual errors in there but an interesting counter argument nevertheless.
Presumably all the justices are voting in a manner to best represent and uphold the Constitution, the law of the land. However they often disagree on what that best manner is. Obviously neither side is seeking to change the rule of law in principle, just the application of it. However when things don't go our way, we want the other side to be wrong in principle, not just in application. We want their "sin" to be even deeper. It can't be that we disagree with their legal logic. It must be that they are rejecting law all together. This isn't helpful rhetoric.
However I am much more interested in moral arguments than legal arguments. Laws should be changed as our morals become more mature - else slaves would still be 3/5 of a person and women would not be able to vote.
On a separate note, Wade, do you know the podcast Hardcore History? Dan Carlin presents a nice synthesis of different historical analyses. His series on the fall of the Roman republic is particularly good.
Wade,
A much as I have appreciated so much of what you have to say on
this blog - because it is typically both Biblically - theologically
serious and reasonable, this response is both unreasonable, hysterical,
and a political-philosophical "jumping of the shark."
Said: "Laws should be changed as our morals become more mature - else slaves would still be 3/5 of a person and women would not be able to vote"
Following that logic, these immature religions should also change to be in harmony with the will of the people: President Obama proposes that religions change so as to avoid confrontation with society. Ms. Hillary Clinton proposes that religions change so as to avoid confrontation with women's rights to have abortion pill.
Guess we'll just have to join JWs and Mormons and get busy editing Scripture.
As God used Nations to punish his people; will He use ISIS to punish America?
ISIS kill homosexuals while our Supreme Court shakes their hands.
Authorities are warning for us to expect an attack (even nuclear) on July 4. (My wedding day)
“He turned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into heaps of ashes and blotted them off the face of the earth, making them an EXAMPLE for the ungodly in the FUTURE to look back upon and FEAR.” (2 Peter 2:6 The Living Bible)
Unknown said...
"Guess we'll just have to join JWs and Mormons and get busy editing Scripture."
You mean like the Word of Faith cult has done and the church does nothing about? Sow a seed anyone?
If God were going to rain condemnation down upon our heads, it would have been for allowing heretics Joyce Meyer, Creflo Dollar, Ron Parsley and that hee-haw Kenneth Copeland free reign to pollute the entire world with heretical nonsense.
And don't even get me started on TBN.
More selective outrage, you bunch of phonies.
Rather than God punishing US via ISIS a good possibility is via Institutional Stupidity. But reality indicates it is possible for a domestic incident might take place. Of course all this will NOT be due to the recent Supreme Court rulings :)
Sorry for the former use of "unknown" as my name. Computer issues.
This is a great blog post and responses. Such diversity in opinions.
I can't argue with some comments like "Anonymous", whoever that is, references to some of the popular TV "Christian" folks. Hard to find sound preaching and teaching on TV these days. It doesn't surprise me there are quacks but how do they get such support?
Although, I dare say that "Anonymous" and "Thy" would place me in that category of being a "quack" too for suggesting that legitimate Scripture is timeless and societies come and go with the winds.
Rex;
I think America is already being punished for its rejection of God through the suffering, suicides, dysfunctional families, brokenness, hopelessness, addictions, violence we're experiencing. More to come I'm sure.
Hey! Wonder if my "sign" will show up now instead of the boring "unknown"?
Oh yeah! Much better now.
Hi RRR.
This is '"Anonymous", whoever that is', although I'm known on some Christian blogs as Faithful, and others as 'Aw heck, not you again'.
I wanted to say I also believe the Scriptures are timeless, and the only truth to be found in this rotten world. I guess that makes us both quacks then.
I stand firmly upon the Word of God.
Oh, by the way, Wade; We in Minnesota have been trying to unseat old 'Crazy Eyes Bachmann' and her wife Marcus for years. Did you know she's gerrymandered in? Did you know she helps herself to millions in farm subsidies and doesn't own a farm? Did you know some 'Christians' aren't what they $eem?
Well enough of this, but if you post another cockeyed article like this one, I'll be back. When you right wingers give the rest of us Christians a bad name, we will call you on it.
I leave you with this, and do donate 20 minutes of your life watching it because your eternity depends on it. Not kidding, it really does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnNKw8Q6K7A
Take care. :)
~ '"Anonymous", whoever that is' :D
"Only congress can pass laws. The Court ruling permits marriage by anyone based on ‘love’. What prohibits a man from marrying his daughter or son?"
Good one, Rex...or his pet monkey, dog, mule, pumpkin, squash...etc. etc. etc.
Wayne
Pastor Wade, what is wrong with giving gays and lesbians the right to marry?
ver the last week or so all hell seems to have broken out in America. The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent narrow decision in Obergefell vs. Hodges making same-sex marriage legal nationwide has caused a lot of anger in the world of social conservatism.
In particular, many Evangelicals have expressed militant opposition to the ruling, some of whom are taking to the streets, literally with bullhorns in hand, shouting and arguing that this action by the Supreme Court is a clear sign of the end of days and the demise of America as a “Christian nation.”
Apocalypticism notwithstanding, as a person who was educated in some of American Evangelicalism’s most prominent colleges and seminaries and who spent decades of my life in the very Evangelical circles expressing the most vehemence against gay marriage, I know somewhat how to articulate what many Evangelicals are feeling right now.
First of all, many conservative Evangelical believe that gay marriage is an “abomination” and a sinful affront to God. There is no way to get around this. There is also a hazy and impermeable notion in many Evangelical minds that America was once a robust Christian nation where almost everyone was “born again” and following laws that were explicitly predicated upon Biblical teaching.
Many present day Evangelicals long for the restoration of a Christian Zion where infidelity and deviation from explicit Christian teaching and morality is strictly prohibited. Last Friday’s Supreme Court ruling is seen by many an Evangelical, as a cataclysmic event, long foretold by the Biblical prophets and evangelists as part the apostasy mentioned in the Book of Revelation and other selections of apocalyptic literature.
In reality what many Evangelicals are really arguing for is a form of Christianized government and society where America is governed by devout Christian leaders and where our laws, education system and all civil discourse and interaction is governed explicitly by Christian theology and morality. Ultimately many Evangelicals are unwittingly arguing for a Christian theocracy where gays and infidels are not allowed. I find it ironic that while many American Evangelicals want to rid the world of Islamic militancy, they are in effect arguing for an Evangelical caliphate themselves.
Case in point, nowhere in the current outrage against gay marriage is there any discussion of what rights Evangelicals believe gays and lesbians should have. This is because most Evangelicals do not believe gay and lesbians should have any rights whatsoever. Because homosexuality is perceived as such a grave abomination to many Evangelicals, to concede that gay people deserve some rights would be a grievous compromise of Judas like proportions.
I think gays and lesbians should have the same basic Constitutional rights as anyone else. The problem that were talking about in this thread is the Constitution does not define or create marriage, it simply accepts what Nature and Nature's God created. The recent SCOTUS decision, however, for the first time defined marriage and did so in a fundamentally different way than it's historical roots. Marriage has never been defined as simply an emotional bond or union. It has always been understood as a binary one-flesh union for the purpose of procreation. This is why Government's have recognized marriage; procreation. Now that procreation is not part of marriage, the Government has no need to recognize any marriage because there is no compelling reason for the Government to care about anybody's emotional union.
Some critics will say, "well what about infertile couples or Senior Citizens, are they not married." Yes, they are and the Government recognizes their marriage because it follows the pattern established even though children may or may not be produced. Thus, a marriage where children are not possible still models the good of marriage and the two individuals become one in mind and body in a way that same-sex couples cannot. Marriage has never been solely about self-gratification, it has always included the idea of future generations and their need for a Mother and a Father.
Lee,
I believe that what you are witnessing is that we "evangelicals" are disturbed by what we see as an unraveling of the fabric of American society that has been held together by basic Judeo-Christian principles since the formation of the country. The rejection of the traditional family unit is only one consequence of what is taking place as society progressively writes its own basis for morality. We "Evangelicals" are recognizing that we cannot turn things around as perhaps many of us had hoped. I believe the SC ruling was a defining moment in bringing many of us to that recognition, as painful as it was for us to concede.
I know that for me personally, I will now seek to assume a role to minister to the shipwrecked collateral damage of it all instead of a pursuit to save the society as a whole. I agree with you that many of us see the days of past patriotism, dependency upon God as our benefactor, desire to see a better and more righteous nation, has past. I feel quite alienated and will no doubt adjust my attitude to much the same as it was when I served as a missionary abroad being devoted to ministry to the people and loving them but recognizing I was not one of them.
Before the Supreme Court rulings US resembled somewhat the story portrayed in this film Elysium. If only ACA was extended for illegal aliens then it will provide a respite for lot of suffering. Hopefully racism against African Americans, Mexicans, Asians and LGBT will also subside. But human nature and prejudices being what they are it will a long road and uphill struggle.
"Hopefully racism against African Americans, Mexicans, Asians and LGBT will also subside"
"Racism" against LGBT?
New race on Federal forms;
Check the "race" that most closely fits you:
"Your race:
Caucasian/
African-American/
Asian/
Kind that likes both sexes/
Man that likes men/
Woman that likes women/
Other
RRR,
I’m only a racist against those that say I’m a racist.
I like the choices you added to the ‘check list’.
Rex Ray,
I suppose we can call anything anything and dare anyone to dispute it.
Racist: "Why do you have a shoe on your RIGHT HAND?!"
Victim: "This is my left foot."
Racist: "That's not a foot! That's your RIGHT HAND!"
V: "How dare you say that! Just because YOU think it looks like a right hand doesn't mean that it IS a right hand! I have ALWAYS thought and felt that this is my LEFT FOOT. I don't care what any scientist says, what any orthopedic surgeon says about its bone structure looking like that of a right hand; I KNOW and have always felt that it is my LEFT FOOT! I wear a sock on it, I keep it in a shoe and when I am home and nobody sees or laughs at me I even use it as one of my two feet to WALK ON! I was born this way and I believe I should have THE RIGHT TO GET A HANDICAP STICKER AND PARK IN HANDICAP PARKING PLACES because it is difficult for me to walk with this LEFT FOOT AND my right foot being so far away from each other!"
Racist: "Okay, if THAT is your LEFT FOOT, does that mean you don't have a RIGHT HAND?!"
V: How dare you! Of course I have a right hand. Don't you you see it here with my glove on it!?!"
Racist: "Oh, sorry. I thought that was your RIGHT FOOT wearing a glove."
My bad.
What I had in mind was violence/hatred against LGBT community. What I remember was the lynching of Matthew Shepard and US evangelical help in Uganda in violence against LGBT there.
Have a happy and safe July 4th
Facts are so inconvenient sometimes.
Mathew Shepard was not lynched. Nor was he actually murdered because he was gay. He was the victim of a robbery gone bad, result of a bad drug deal. More a matter of meth than homosexuality.
Jonathan Turley > OBERGEFELL AND THE RIGHT TO DIGNITY
Your prophetic prediction is frightening for both the US and for the rest of the world...first chaos and then totalitarianism. We have seen history being made with this radical shift and regressive reformation of how society should be governed. It seems to me like a USA 'own goal'.
Gone is the fair and just Christian social principle of 'subsidiarity'. The scene is now set for the abolition of law based protection of minority rights, enshrined in a Republic form of government, soon to be replaced with a majority approved Democratic tyranny. No longer will set principles, historic values and interests be recognised when determining what behavior is permissible , but national statistics will become the accepted normality and arbiter of what is required in all States and from all citizens. The 'dignity' of the fluid majority will unfairly trump the dignity and interests of the homogeneous minority groups and individuals. Surely this was not the intention of the founders who wanted to escape the restrictions of conformity imposed by England.
It is wholly predictable that the land of the free can now become the land of the fundamentalist liberals and intolerant liberal bigots. You can expect the imposition of strict conformity upon all with regard to thought, expression and behavior, as well as harsh control by the merciless, godless sinners who tell the oppressed to "forget about it and move on". But to where ?
Is it inevitable that 'ichabod' will be written over the USA? Are Russia or China yet to become attractive destinations for choking social, religious and economic emigrants ? I am hoping the result of the 2016 elections will prove to be decisive in halting the decline of the Republic and the rule of law. May the enemies of the USA...both within and without...all disappear as the morning dew.
I think, Gordon, that your dream of seeing "the enemies" disappear is fanciful given your perception of who the enemies are. We're in a new day. "We" are the enemies. We're in the way now but not significantly. I remember Joe Biden saying during the V-P debate last time, "Why can't you people simply get out of our way?!" I thought then that was a very "telling" statement of the arrogance of those in control.
Those in opposition to your assessment would say that you're over-reacting in terms of recent changes leading us to our demise. I personally don't believe there will be any turning back or return. It's not that God "couldn't" turn things around but I personally don't believe that is the Plan. Given the direction we've been headed at an increasingly accelerated speed I think that things will simply get intense at a more exponential pace.
Post a Comment