What's wrong with this ?

-I am sure that everyone is up to speed with the events this week in Orlando FL. It is a very sad fact  that someone murdered a lovely little girl who as far as pictures and testimony of others showed she was loved by her mother and family. Her mother,  was found not guilty of her murder. This does not mean she is innocent of her daughter's death. While it is disturbing and sad someone did murder or accidentally killed this lovely little girl who was deprived of life by this action we do not know if the defendant did it.

 The actions of the Lynch Mob and the media were also disturbing. People are sitting in the judgment seat where only those appointed to officiate are allowed and you have a media that is ginning up the hysteria making accusations that had not yet been proven. In the courtroom, it was just as bad as the judge was advocating for the prosecution who had no evidence to convict. What is wrong with this picture and where have the critical thinking skills and moral objectivity of people gone?


In regards to the defendant,if she is in fact gulity of this horrible crime or concealing the accident,it is my hope she repents and finds her peace in Christ. It is not good or wise to go to the grave a unrepentant murderer or party to one and face the judgment of God unrepentant.

People should be ashamed of themselves for sitting in the judgment seat and making statements to the media .One person stated to the media , " We should just kill her" and this was before the verdict was announced. Even worse people waited for tickets to the verdict anticipating the suspense and hoping for a guilty verdict for a case that had no evidence. Why? So someone could be held accountable for a crime they may not have committed; because a conviction would appease them. The crime she was guilty of they had proof of and that is lying to the police. The people rode on unbalanced emotion rather than reason and balanced emotion and the jury is being vilified for making a reasonable but painful decision. This was not the verdict the people and the media wanted as they decided she was a murderer becuse someone needed to be held accountable. It didn't matter if they were guilty or not

 What justice is it that the people wanted? They perhaps wanted in their hearts to kill someone who may have been innocent. If she was innocent and eventually executed that would be murder and the people who shouted for it would be as gulity as the one who  pulled the switch. We then have the media who already convicted the defendant without full access to what the jury knew. But as far as they were concerned she was guilty although there was nothing to tie her to it. This is a false witness. Someone needs to pay and will one day whether it is now or later but that is not for us to decide, this is God's decision. God gives this authority to the state to pronounce justice (Romans 13) and in our system a jury found her not guilty.

 The loss of precious life is sad and it is as bad when people want to sit in the judgment seat and kill someone they do not have a right to; because someone has to be accountable and I am running on emotion. Society was willing to convict a possibly innocent person to death to satisfy their emotions because of lack of evidence and media lies. I am not against the death penalty but it is the state who has the authority to use it and not me. The lynch mob on the outside was far from demonstrating Christian ethic,social grace, or civility. I am surprised they did not throw a noose over a tree branch and wait to hang the defendant.

 Well since we are running on emotion did this mob take time to care for the millions of innocents slaughtered by abotionists annually? Well most people think this is a Constitutional right even though they are responsible for the creation of a life. Why does a woman who has an abortion not get convicted of murder when we have the evidence? The crowd does not get angry about this. But now we have a mother who lost her child get tried for murder and possibly get convicted and sentenced to death for a murder that had no evidence to tie her to it. The defense attorney put it best no one won here! He is right and the millions of aborted babies lost and continue to lose.

Rise of the Government and Decline of Morality

  I do not like to comment on politics on this blog but it seems as if politics wants to infringe on our religious rights via government. It is my opinion that if government can't do the will of the people it serves then it is not government but tyranny. Tyranny usually looks to make itself absolute as it cannot coexist with liberty. In this case, personal liberties are not being infringed rather it is the majorities liberties opposing the government's legislated tyranny.

 The government's interference in people's lives has been on an upswing for quite a while. We now despite our objections are forced to accept "homosexual marriage" as a civil right with campaigns trying to perpetuate a point of view on the public that has been voted down twice and would likely be voted down again( Prop 8) in California. On a side note, the worst part of this is that the appeals court said that the Judge's opinion was not influenced by the fact he is homosexual. I can go on about California as the city of "Frisco" has decided that circumcision of boys is barbaric and therefore should not be allowed even though Jews and Non Jews have practiced it for years. In the opinion, of the supporters of this legislation they say that parents should not force the decision on the child. What is the city doing and what has happened to letting parents be parents? Franlkly, I am glad my mother had me baptized as an infant and I had no decision in that matter, it was for my own good. It was also for my own good when my mother told me not to touch hot pans when I was a child. Doesn't Frisco have better things to do with taxpayer time and money than to put forth silly legislation?The hillarious thing about this is that circumcision can play a role in combatting STDS and AIDS which are a problem of the homosexual  and hetero sexual communities and they are supporting the ban on circumcision for the most part.

What happened in California also happened in New York. Government made a decision for the people that they clearly voted against. Although, representatives are hired to represent the electing public the interests of the majority were sacrificed  to serve an immoral minority who  twisted the terms of equality for their own device. This has resulted in a national explosion to legalize "homosexual marriage". Last night I saw a commercial advertising giveadamn.org that addresses rights for all members of immoral sexuality. As usual the debate accelerates, since homosexual marriage has become legal in New York we have to shove it down your throat along with rights for every other sexually variant and immoral lifestyle. What is not realized is that no one is saying that you can't practice your desired lifestyle but you should not force it on others; which is what has happened. What will happen if the state decides to infringe on the religious conscience and rights of others if the state forces such rank laws and proclammations upon the churches who oppose this? Will their rights be honored or will their rights continue to be trampled on as the government continues to trample on the rights of Christians and the rights of the San Francisco the Jewish community. The verdict for those of us who do not appreciate government interference doesn't look good as the right of free practice is clearly violated by those who oppose God in every sense.
 
Hopefully, the argument to save Prop 8 will not stop here and that the ruling of the appeals court will be struck down and society will not have to continue to be the victim of the "immoral minority majority".I am not holding my breath though. It is getting a little nerve wracking to vote for something and then have it struck down when it does not meet one groups preferences for the world they desire to live in so the world that I want to live in has to take a backseat to the desires of a few. We can always redo the law and maybe avoid government interference by sound legal reasoning and avoid the governement altogether but this is probably wishful thinking. The kicker is no one is saying that someone else cannot practice a lifestyle that others don't agree with and that we all have equal protection under the law( the Constitution).

For those who disagree with us we need only to look to past examples in history to know that all societies that have engaged in such behavior have had to contend with a historical and divine judgment(i.e. Rome, Sodom and Gamorrah). I don't believe we should trust in the government to solve our problems and I certainly do not think it is the government's responsibility to invalidate what it truly means to have equal protection under the law. As far as the sinful behaviors go there are consequences for these behaviors being endorsed.