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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment