Many in the media, or via the media, have been celebrating the legalization of homosexual marriage in New York State. Listening to the BBC World Service one night one of their guests was outright jubilant over the fact. He claimed that it was a civil rights issue but had to admit “some” religions don’t believe in homosexual marriage. SOME? Yes, some Christian denominations have embraced homosexual marriage and though some of those denominations may be considered large they do not represent the majority. Further, those denominations have faced revulsion from a goodly portion of their congregations; people interested in what is right and not what appears popular in the moment.
Obviously the guest in question has a curious view of what passes for religion and civil rights. This mantra of homosexuality as a civil right, a talking point of the left, has grown in forcefulness of presentation over the last year. The media and special interest groups have been trying hard to convince us that those who oppose the homosexual lifestyle are backwoods hicks and haters. That taking a stand against homosexuality is homophobia; akin to racism.This agenda has one simply goal, a goal I spelled out in a tweet many weeks back; to outlaw religion. (my twitter feed can be seen in the sidebar)
But homosexuality, or homosexual marriage, is not a civil right. Homosexuality is a dysfunction at best, a choice at worst. Something civilization itself, civilizations all being formed around religions, have deemed a sin at worst or unnatural at best. No civilization that has left anything for future generations to build on has embraced homosexuality as normal. No civilization has advanced to greatness without strong family and social structures built around a moral code based on its corresponding religion.
And marriage is not a civil right it is an institution. A product of those same moral codes that made every great civilization fruitful. An institution established to promote those codes; to convey those moral ideals to the greater society; to promote the greater good. One of many institutions that make up what we call a civilized society. And just as marriage is one aspect of a civilized society, the promotion of homosexuality, or sexual depravation, is one of many signs of the moral decline that have marginalized great civilizations, leading in part to their eventual downfall.
Though some Greek philosophers embraced ideas of atheism, such ideas were developed on the shoulders of the zenith of Greek culture and they led nowhere. Such ideas failed to contribute to anything beyond what the culture had already achieved. And though the ideas may appear profound when resurrected from the archives of history, those who built upon those ideas, certain followers of Hegel known as the Left Hegelians, Marx and others, produced theories that when applied brought misery to man. Hundreds of millions were killed under the auspices of communism and these communist states then failed to bring blessing and prosperity to their peoples that remained. A similar comparison can be made in regards to those who claim the Greeks embraced homosexuality, supposedly giving it validity.
We can see that when Roman Empire was ruled by immoral, corrupt and/or insane leaders the Empire suffered, at least a goodly portion of citizens that bore the brunt of the burden of their Emperors indiscretions. And with the dawning of Christianity the moral standards grew even higher. The old institutions,decaying and based on lesser moral standards, could not maintain the cohesion of the Empire. The institutions not embodying the deepest spiritual aspirations of the people were being maintained by marginal or corrupt officials of the old status quo and the Empire broke apart. Any political/institutional ties to the past greatness of the Empire were lost completely with the rise of Islam and the further religious, political and territorial turmoil it brought about.
Many promoting the homosexual agenda recognize the ties between marriage and religion. They say the government should not be deciding what constitutes marriage, but that it should be left to ones faith to consecrate a marriage. I am surprised they haven’t made claims for the separation of church and state. But the homosexual agenda has its own faith grounded in atheism and/or materialism. An atheism embodied in the political ideology of communism; dialectical materialism. A godless religion that holds the strategy of promoting the homosexual agenda to undermine traditional existing institutions and values in order to take control.
Ties between social institutions and faith speak to the inseparable ties government has with religion, or in the case of the United States the moral standards of a Christian faith. (The words “separation of church and state” do not exist in our Constitution) A Christian faith that has driven modern western civilization for the last two thousand years infiltrating every social institution. A Christian faith that has been under serious attack for decades.
Christianity reshaped traditional celebrations, changed man’s outlook of the world, and correspondingly drove the themes and forms in art and architecture; other powerful institutions of a vibrant civilization. The general society, its rulers, religions and institutions all exist in a symbiotic relationship. And when all these aspects of civilization are in line with the principles of this world as best as man can understand them at the time, a world created by God as our founders recognized, then greatness arises. A greatness that benefits all men as has the existence of the United States in this modern era.
Some may make claims that many famous artists, architects or inventors of all the fore mentioned great civilizations, were homosexual, this, that or the other thing in an attempt to validate their wayward ways. Whether the claims are true or not, none of those recognized artisans were commissioned to portray the homosexual lifestyle. Rather artisans were commissioned to highlight the religious values of their society, a somewhat pseudo religious political doctrine, and/or to exalt the triumphs of reason past and/or present. Things that were considered the glue that held society together, that led to greatness; the building blocks of civilization. Where any depravation was expressed it was only in the context of the eternal hell those engaged in such acts would find themselves in.
As artist became more individualistic, namely painters, exploring the darker aspects of the human condition, the more lowly aspects of society, became an accepted genre. Still, I don’t recall in my studies of art history expressions of homosexual vice. And now today we have a government that commissions through grants the defamation of religious faith, faith upon which this nation was built, and promotes the most perverse lifestyles imaginable. This isn’t an intentional assault on our social fabric? We are being destroyed from within.
Freedom has been a goal, or perhaps a natural result is a better description, of civilization as man has advanced. But freedom without responsibility, without any restraints of a moral code, right and wrong, is destructive. The enlightened can see that the United states leads, or has led the way in this march of freedom. The freedoms of this nation are most clearly expressed in our declaration of Independence. That man is endowed with certain inalienable rights by his creator, among them life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
But if one wishes to jump off a bridge is that their right? They certainly are ‘free’ to jump, in a technical sense, but is it condoned by society? Not yet. Don’t we expend great resources, when possible, to prevent such a person from jumping? What if they believe it will make them happy? Surely they believe it will make them less miserable, don’t they? In some way they must think it will fulfill some desire, even if it is only to make a point to others in some crazed way.
And what about Amy Winehouse? Was she pursuing a lifestyle that made her happy or not? Certainly her vices were driven by desire. Yet everyone recognized the dangers of her lifestyle. All would agree she needed help and I am sure she was told that by those around her. That she needed to overcome those desires. We consider her death tragic, but not unexpected. All agree her former lifestyle cannot be condoned. Yet many have the liberty to, and do pursue such a lifestyle. And many believe it makes them happy. Heah, it’s their life!
These are all examples of poor choices. Choices made under the guise of freedom but leading to an enslavement and destruction. Choices driven by desire, misguided as it may be.
Some may claim homosexuality is not a choice, but is that true? Because a desire exists does that make it healthy or productive? No, as already illustrated. Some claim, and there is no reason to doubt many of them, that they have been changed from their homosexual ways through prayer and faith. This suggests a spiritual origin of the problem that can be resolved. That a path exists to overcome unnatural desires, and one cannot deny that much of religion itself, any religion, is the overcoming of desires. Namely self serving desires that distract from a good life..
And how many people with wives and children, presently or formerly, ‘come out of the closet’ and say they are, have always been homosexual? What about bi-sexuals? But most importantly what about that science? That science that for many years, at least in the past, was going to prove it is just a biological compulsion that must be respected. “If it feels good do it.” To quote the 60’s. The most perverse expression of this attitude being proclaimed even by some religious as, ‘that is how God made me.’
In a previous post on this topic I suggested that this world has been shaped by man; represents the fruits of man’s lives. Not to give any credence to that old saying that ‘the devil made me do it’ as man was given the command to have dominion over this creation, which includes his own body, and not the angel. And whether homosexuality can be tied to evil spirits, hormones or genetics (I discussed epigenetics in the fore mentioned previous post) man has the ability to solve the problem of homosexuality whether it be through faith, counseling or the science of hormonal or genetic therapy.
But… Where is that science that so many years back now was being proclaimed the holy grail for what has been labeled the homosexual culture? Years ago now 60 Minutes had covered one study that was pointing to a hormonal cause for homosexuality; a hormonal mishap at the time of birth. Supposedly many other studies were being done to bring the point home that homosexuality is natural …but not, though some may argue mishaps of nature are natural. Yet today we hear nothing. No claims of scientific validation, only claims of some new found civil right.
Is it because scientific explanations of homosexuality make it all that more simply a choice? A choice that is unnatural by …nature. A choice that has not been condoned by any religion outside of those who have bowed to the god named political correctness. A god exalted by those seeking separation of church and state that is meant to dictate every aspect of ones life if one does not want to be labeled a backward hick, a hater and of terrorist persuasion.
Even poor science, as is being revealed in the global warming debate, has and still does carry quite heavy weight among the media and other proponents of a politically correct society. And if they can overlook the short comings of the man made global warming argument you would think they could do better in the argument over homosexuality as natural. Or the argument that the psychological well being of children raised by homosexual parents versus the traditional family structure does not differ. The methodology of studies suggesting no differences in psychological well-being have been critiqued and found lacking. The studies have not been widely touted by the media. Looking at how the questionable methodology used to promote man-made global warming is widely acclaimed, one has to wonder why these studies on homosexual parenting are not more highly exploited to promote what is now called homosexual culture.
But then again television is not shy in promoting homosexual parenting. When I see those catch a predator shows, admittedly I have only watched them in part maybe twice though I’ve seen many portrayals of the practice in other shows, is it not always males seeking young females? Do the shows ever seek to capture men preying on boys or women on young girls? And is it not television and our pop culture that is going to make a millionaire out of the woman who was not convicted of killing her daughter though everyone believes she did?
The assault on the morals of this country is multi-pronged, much like a blitz krieg. There is the removing nativity scenes, prayer and all religious aspects of society from the public square as one prong. There is the battle over abortion as another. Sexual depravity spawned in the sexual revolutions of the roaring 20’s and the 60’s era of free sex still another. Battle fronts that are slowly but surely bringing their forces to question what is wrong with adult child relationships. According to such forces only the stigma society, our Christian society, applies to them.
This nation is in more than a dire fiscal deficit, but is in a more critical moral deficit. There is no longer any right or wrong but only ones intentions that matter; relativism. And the validity of ones intentions is decided by those holding political power. Where democrats can have their gay boyfriends run homosexual brothels in there homes and remain free of consequences, holding important committee positions all the while, republicans are run out on a rail by the accomplice media for the slightest infractions real or imagined.
The conservative movement in the United States representing traditional values is continually under attack, assigned the label of extreme right wing. In fact what is called conservative is simply what is right. It is the left that has been standing up for the depravations of our society, now labeling them civil rights. The left that has no plans, no ideas, they ignore the reality that their policies fail time and again. But what can one expect from a society where right and wrong are no longer differentiated.
Yes, we need candidates for the 2012 Presidential election that are fiscally responsible, that can show some balls and say they support the current best option to entitlement reform; Paul Ryan’s plan. But we even more importantly need candidates who are moral. We need candidates who will say we are going back to ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ for our military. Candidates who will stand by support of marriage bills and referendums and not allow them to be ignored or overturned by an overreaching judiciary.
We need candidates who are intellectually honest. Who can question the funding of Planned Parenthood when much of their money goes to fund abortions and into political campaigns. How do you differentiate the funds? It is all one and the same. And we need candidates that will pursue through the justice department wrong doing in government with great aggression. We need candidates that will differentiate right and wrong according to the Christian ideals this nation was founded upon.
This is what people saw in Ronald Reagan. He was fiscally responsible but called evil for what it was, contrary to those who had given political relevance to evil communist regimes through both government and media. But Reagan was also an all embracing heart. When he spoke of that shining city on the hill he was sincere in his desire that this great nation was for all peoples no matter what their creed or background. He didn’t wear religion on his sleeve. A quality that was present in George W. Bush despite his fiscal shortcomings. An all embracing quality not found in the likes of Mike Huckabee, a man far to willing to stir up religious bigotries for his own personal gain.
These attributes look to be well present in Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry. Rick Perry even proposing a Constitutional amendment to defeat the homosexual agenda. They present themselves as well equipped to take on the moral dilemmas we face as a nation. There is nothing to say candidates such as Sarah Palin, Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan don’t share these values either. But civilizations have fallen not simply because of moral depravation or loss of values, and it would hardly be right to point to a single issue such as homosexuality as the cause for decline. Civilizations, great empires have come to ruin not simply because their institutions, founded upon the moral religious principles of their society were undermined, but also because those founding principles were outdated. And if you take offense that I would be implying Christian teachings can become outdated I have to ask; have you been on a crusade lately? Or perhaps just a good old fashioned inquisition. We gotta burn em to save em …right?
And if you don’t believe religious views hold great power over our society let us look at traditional views on the end of the world. Referencing “World Scripture; A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts” published by Paragon House, A project of the International Religious Foundation, 1991, one finds;
“Consequently, the Last Judgment may be interpreted either as a supernatural event at the world’s end – typically the stance of Islam and most strains of Traditional Christianity – or as a social, political, and religious renovation of this world – a view common to Judaism and some new religions, for example …” (780).
Many are willing and able to condemn Islam as a militant faith by the words of their sacred texts. How is that militant view influenced by the idea that the last judgment is the violent end of this world where one’s enemies will be sent to eternal hell? What is the influence of the Christian teachings of Armageddon? The Apocalypse?
Is there any nation more vilified, continuously threatened with destruction, than Israel. Israel is surrounded by her enemies. Violence is a reality. Terrible acts of violence and terrorism are perpetrated against its people continually. Yet if you travel there, I have, there is a sense of normalcy to life. People are making their livings, raising their families, and looking to the future. Could it be because those in power believe the last judgment is based on good and evil not ones particular doctrine. A judgment where this world we all have to live in together is renovated so all good men, despite their backgrounds, can live in peace on earth?
Yet what happens when violence breaks out between two religions that believe in a violent end of the world, fit with a heavy handed judgment for all those who don’t believe as they do. Do you remember what Lebanon was like back in the day? Do you see what has been going on between Muslims and Christians in Africa? Can you say Kosovo? Or crusades? The words bloodbath and hell on earth come to mind. Religious doctrines hold profound sway over what happens in this world.
What world are we all hoping for?
The founders of this great nation enhanced their faith with reason; a driving force in their age. A new land full of opportunity spread before them focused their efforts on what could be made of this world, filling them with hope for what could be achieved in this life. This was very different from the traditional religious take on life in this world. It was again an all embracing spirit that left at the wayside ideas such as I am saved, destined for eternal life, whereas you are destined for eternal damnation because you don’t believe the same as I. Teachings that I consider inherently discriminatory. And yes, Thomas Paine and others had critiques of the traditional Christian teachings of the time.
A study of Christianity would reveal the teaching of eternal damnation was chosen some 400 years after the birth of Christianity. A rejected gospel of Thomas actually revealed the ‘great secret’ that all must reach heaven for God’s purpose to be complete. Not that there was no hell, and that it might compose what feels like an eternity or many eternities, but that all of us as God’s children were destined to be restored eventually. Otherwise how could we call God perfect, or all powerful, if a mere angel could take those God called his children away?
We have a talk show host here in Wisconsin, Mark Belling, who always criticizes people who belong to churches whose teachings they don’t really believe in. Usually when commenting on abortion. Let me suggest a reason why people join churches whose tenants, some major, they don’t believe in. Some of the most basic tenants found in the majority of Christian churches are unbelievable to the modern man already. What difference does not sharing a view on abortion make?
People believe God is good. Would a good God create a world where evil exists? God is all knowing according to traditional doctrines. He knew evil would arise from his creation before He created. Well, …that would suggest evil’s origins are in God. A powerful contradiction in the Christian faith to the reasoning abilities of modern man. To add to the contradiction God cannot relate with us because of our evil nature, yet that evil was from Him, part of His plan? If you believe in a god that preordained all evil, or foreknew all that has come to pass before he created you believe in a sadistic evil god. That is a natural conclusion if I apply today’s standards of reasoning; a conclusion that can only be denied with delusion.
This is why this nation of the United States, a nation of Christian faith developed to the highest level, cannot put an end to the continuous threat of atheistic materialism. It does not meet the challenges of man’s perceptions of right and wrong in this day and age. This is a paradox as I have outlined a relativism that is undermining concepts of right and wrong as a threat, but it is only because religion has failed to address the inherent contradictions in their teachings verses their preachings that allows people to question the absolute standard of values religion seeks and embrace a relative standard. There are no failings in the spirit of Jesus Christ. A true loving compassionate spirit is clearly conveyed, yet the doctrines suggest something very different.
This dilemma arises from the choices made some 1,600 years ago. I could point to my own faith as holding the answers to this crisis, but I can more easily point to ideas of the early Christians and ideas found in Judaism, Jesus was a Jew after all, to show that it was the choices of the early church, choices often arrived at simply because one group was not as politically well positioned as the other, that give us what we consider the infallible word of God. Choices, that if different would have powerfully changed Christian history as a whole.
Socialism promises a salvation for all men, willing to accomplish their goals by any means, showing unmatched devotion. And though their causes, tactics and results may have been discredited and revealed as the pursuit of power for powers sake, we will never be rid of it with the current state of Christianity.
Perhaps it is easier for Christian clergy to accept homosexuality, believing this is simply all God’s plan, than it is to revisit the validity of long held central doctrines. And if God is good and this is all God’s plan, how can one believe in the condemnation of homosexuals to an eternal hellfire if ‘that is how God created them’? If otherwise they are simply good people?
A God that is only goodness and love and planned only a world of goodness, never capable of imagining evil, is a God that Christianity cannot deal with. But such a God, a God who made man to have dominion over this world, makes all too much sense. That we created this world and are responsible as a whole to solve these problems and that is why God cannot intervene, because he made us “to be perfect as he is perfect. (such a God’s omnipotence depending on all making it to heaven because that is how he created man; as one family; His family never destined for evil) That we are all in this together, and that He provides all we need to return to His ideals if only we respond to His calling.
Such a God is not the God of Christian doctrine. Such a God turns Christian doctrines on their heads. Yet, it is the God people of faith comprehend, and a God most ministers preach in this modern age. It is the God that drives the faithful’s compassion for those lost in sin such as homosexuals. It is a God of hope for all in this world. A God that stands unchallenged before the atheistic powers of this world that use socialism and moral depravation as tools to destroy man, the goal of the angel filled with envy from man’s birth.
It is failings of Christianity that has brought about this moral dilemma threatening our nation. A Christianity that has been powerless against the forces of this atheistic socialist tyranny that we may soon find ourselves in because Christian leaders hold to doctrines set at a time when man lived in ignorance and fear of the natural world, saw life on this earth predominantly as suffering, and a time when Christian leaders saw it as their duty to save man. When Christian leaders taught a violent end of the world, the return of Jesus Christ, where all who disagree with set doctrines would be condemned to an eternal lake of fire.
But the historic march of freedom embodied by this foremost Christian nation of the world, the United States, the omnipotent spirit of God, will win out in the end despite man’s obstinacy. As we watch political events that we could never have imagined even three years ago unfold before our eyes, may I suggest what is coming soon to the realms of religion is unimaginable at the moment. And the United States is still the world’s greatest hope to meet this challenge; this moral deficit.
