WHIMSICAL JUDGMENTS
Homosexuality and the issue of same-sex marriage are currently spearheading the effort to destroy the bases of Western civilization, particularly the family and the Judeo-Christian tradition. Homosexualists, of course, have a real grudge against this tradition because of its historic condemnation of homosexuality. Thus, the homosexualists and their secular humanist allies characterize Christian religion as being intolerant, indeed, as bigoted towards gays, said intolerance and bigotry being "bad" things, of course. Their general condemnation of Christianity because of its "inherent bigotry" would find justification in their eyes, then, which is why Christians are more and more subject to unfavorable court rulings regarding freedom of speech and religion, as well as restrictive legislation that concerns them in many countries by judges and legislators sympathetic to the humanist/homosexualist cause.
But this charge of bigotry and intolerance requires, also, that some sort of moral judgment must have first been made. Thus, is posed a very interesting question:
By what or whose moral authority or standard is this judgment on Christian tradition being made?
Secular humanists and homosexualists have never adequately answered this question.
From what I've seen, the "immorality" of Christian "bigotry" towards gays has been based upon the individual feelings and assessments of humanist/homosexualist sympathizers, whether they be judges, lawmakers, intellectuals, celebrities or other people of influence..... or as some one put it, "all the cool people in the know."
That is to say, these judgments are personal and arbitrary, and may just as well be pure whimsy.
Homosexuality and the issue of same-sex marriage are currently spearheading the effort to destroy the bases of Western civilization, particularly the family and the Judeo-Christian tradition. Homosexualists, of course, have a real grudge against this tradition because of its historic condemnation of homosexuality. Thus, the homosexualists and their secular humanist allies characterize Christian religion as being intolerant, indeed, as bigoted towards gays, said intolerance and bigotry being "bad" things, of course. Their general condemnation of Christianity because of its "inherent bigotry" would find justification in their eyes, then, which is why Christians are more and more subject to unfavorable court rulings regarding freedom of speech and religion, as well as restrictive legislation that concerns them in many countries by judges and legislators sympathetic to the humanist/homosexualist cause.
But this charge of bigotry and intolerance requires, also, that some sort of moral judgment must have first been made. Thus, is posed a very interesting question:
By what or whose moral authority or standard is this judgment on Christian tradition being made?
Secular humanists and homosexualists have never adequately answered this question.
From what I've seen, the "immorality" of Christian "bigotry" towards gays has been based upon the individual feelings and assessments of humanist/homosexualist sympathizers, whether they be judges, lawmakers, intellectuals, celebrities or other people of influence..... or as some one put it, "all the cool people in the know."
That is to say, these judgments are personal and arbitrary, and may just as well be pure whimsy.
posted by A Voice in the Wilderness at 9:27 PM
1 Comments:
If gay people (and I really though only Gore Vidal used the term homosexualists) have a grudge against the United States, the only possible reason would be that some people cloak their bigotry with false piety.
Okay, your religious tradition disdains gay people. I can cope with that.
There are many people whose faiths do not disdain gay people. Under the religious freedom which we hold dear, these people too have their say.
You ask by what or whose moral authority is this judgement of Christian tradition being made?
Simple. The authority of the Constitution of the United States.
Check the first section of Amendment 14:
"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
These are beautiful words. No priest or prophet, saint or savior ever said such wondrous words. Why this lovely clause, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" might as well put into the text the words your personal prejudices and distastes shall not have th force of law.
If we pass laws against single, unrelated adults marrying, simple because we do not approve of their choice or partner (due to issues of race, creed, or sex), we have abridged their privileges.
Ministers, priests, rabbis, shamans, and other clergy will always have the perogative to not officiate at ceremonies if they disapprove of the couple. But they cannot, in a free society, march to City Hall and forbid this couple from being otherwise joined.
Post a Comment
<< Home