Obama, liberals are defining devotion down and the First Amendment with it
A call to stop the rot before it goes any further:
"President Obama’s recent formulation, “Freedom of Worship” has the religious seriously aghast. It telegraphs a subversion of faith — by defending a right not in question, the right to conduct religious feasts and fasts and ceremonies, and downgrading religion’s heart, values.
The First Amendment interdicts the making of laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The president now replaces a strong and constitutional word, “Religion,” with a weak and chic one, “Worship,” which is religion defined by esthetics, not ethics. Implication: the Constitution protects our steeples and liturgy, not religious values.
The political elites shamelessly are in the process of “defining devotion down” to liturgy — hey kids, totally up to you to decide whether the priest faces the altar or the congregation, knock yourselves out — and delegitimize the right to advocate for laws reflecting religiously informed values. A delegitimized right collapses, which is the objective of its adversaries.
The Examiner recently, courageously, called out the Moslem world for harboring bigotry toward other faiths. There is, however, a more dangerous and disturbing form of religious bigotry afoot in America. The political elites are fanatically secularist and are becoming emboldened, arrogant, in their intolerance. Let’s call this what it is: old fashioned religious bigotry.
The vast majority of gay marriage advocates, for example, condemn as bigots those who oppose same sex marriage rather than acknowledging that the religious are engaged in something properly within the realm of religion, prescribing moral values.
Morality and conscience, not worship, Mr. President, are at the heart of the First Amendment and of America. Mr. President, stop defining devotion down and perhaps your credibility might begin to go back up.
Source
Background on the Obama terminology here.
10 comments:
Religious people are free not to marry persons of the same gender if they think it's "immoral"; but it isn't moral either to impose that view on everyone else, especially by law.
Homosexuals have exactly the same rights and restrictions on marriage as everyone else. There is not any discrimination. Siblings cannot marry. There is a minimum age for marriage. It is well known that first cousins should not marry. Homosexuals want to be rewarded with special privileges for participating in anti-social, repugnant activities which are known to facilitate the spread of a deadly disease.
Fear not friends. AIDS will make all things right again.
QUOTABLE QUOTES
"When someone in America is charged with racism today, what does it mean to most Americans? It means nothing morally serious at all. Instead, a charge of racism is another tired claim that the welfare state is the only cure for vestigial traces of racism, and it means anyone challenging that claim is a racist. It means that any new way of raising black people into a happier state -- one that does not involve an elaborate bureaucracy of civil rights file clerks -- is racism. It means also that only certain people can be official "victims" of racism, sexism, and similar offenses. So when black leaders speak the unspeakable -- killing white babies -- people on the left yawn, dulled into the trite notion that blacks cannot be racists and whites cannot be race victims."
– Bruce Walker
"Religious people are free not to marry persons of the same gender if they think it's "immoral"; but it isn't moral either to impose that view on everyone else, especially by law."
Repeating ignorance doesn't make it true. EVERY law is the legislation of someone's morality, the question is not that of legislating morality but which morality is going to be legislated.
So let's legislate moral laws that correspond to equality before the law, which is supposed to be in the US Constitution already.
If two consenting adults wish to "marry" and have the concomitant legal status, it should not matter what gender, race or religion they are. The laws have been improved to allow that re race and religion but not gender.
The slippery slope agrument is often invoked about demanding legal marriage between family members, children and even animals. So far it seems rational to most people that consenting adults should come first. Children and animals are not deemed capable of a free choice when subject to adult pressure (age of consent also becomes an issue). Incestual marriage is moot when it concerns adults, as even imbeciles can marry.
The fact that most refuse to accept is that the United States of America was founded upon Judeo-Christian values. History proves that fact repeatedly. Yet Liberals refuse to accept it.
So the fundamental question comes to this:
Should the U.S. Constitution be molded and changed to conform to the changing values of society, or should society conform to the values specifically out by the U.S. Constitution and the supporting documents written by the Founding Fathers?
THAT really is the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives.
-sig
Anon 12:45 said;
"The slippery slope agrument is often invoked about demanding legal marriage between family members, children and even animals. So far it seems rational to most people that consenting adults should come first."
Rational adults have already decided. The overwhelming majority of Americans DO NOT want the traditional definition of marriage changed. DO NOT!
It's not what the majority wants, it's what the Constitution states. The majority's views can change from year to year, and if the majority want to discriminate against a minority, that won't be allowed by the Constitution. The definition of marriage or parity in legal marriage will ultimately be decided by a consitutional court.
"Rational adults have already decided. The overwhelming majority of Americans DO NOT want the traditional definition of marriage changed. DO NOT!"
Where are your fucking references to support this lie?
Post a Comment