This editorial from National Review is wisdom crying out in the streets. It’s just plain old common sense, which for some reason has become increasingly uncommon these days. It takes on two popular tropes from the Left:
1. “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.”
2. “How will my gay marriage affect you?”
Well guess where this faux libertarianism has led us? It has led us to totalitarianism on our doorstep. Do you think I’m exaggerating? Did you know that the ACLU is suing the U.S. Catholic bishops and trying to get the government to force them to offer abortions at Catholic hospitals? Did you know that right now there are lawsuits against Christian business owners in several states trying to force them to participate in gay weddings?
What’s going on here? Here’s the bottom line. The Left is in an all-out war against religious liberty. The pressure points are the issues of abortion and gay marriage. The Left is not offering a “live and let live” arrangement. They are going for the total conquest of anyone whose conscience forbids them from affirming gay marriage or the killing of unborn children. If you think I am exaggerating, you’re not paying attention to what’s unfolding all around us in broad daylight right before our very eyes.
The editors at National Review have nailed it. I encourage you to read this one.
It occurred to me a few weeks ago that America does in fact, have an established religion. It is the religion of islamic (submission) atheism. The Left will tolerate any belief, as long as it doesn’t believe differently from their beliefs. Everyone else must submit or be forced to submit to their “enlightened” views.
1) “It has led us to totalitarianism on our doorstep. Do you think I’m exaggerating?” Well, yes.
2) The NR piece is long on bluster and barely says anything about the allegations in the complaint. I’m pro-life, but I think the plaintiff has a point.
The plaintiff developed a condition that was all but certain to end her pregnancy and, if untreated, likely would have put her health at serious risk. The Catholic hospital did not perform an abortion, but that’s not the main issue – they allegedly refused to even inform the plaintiff that inducing labor was an option or that it might eventually be necessary to save her life.
I’d be pretty furious if this happened to my wife. To me, abortion can be justified when a woman’s life is at risk. If an abortion might be necessary to save my wife, I would expect my doctor to let me know, even if he won’t perform it. A Catholic hospital should not be allowed to unilaterally decide to put my wife at additional risk by deciding a highly murky ethical issue behind our backs on the basis of Catholic doctrine. That’s a major breach of trust between doctor and patient. How can doctors at Catholic hospitals do this while holding themselves out as fiduciaries?
Well said. Thank you. To Dr. Burk’s point about how “The Left is not offering a “live and let live” arrangement.” Well the same can be said for those who oppose marriage equality, since they would impose their view on all in society.
https://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom-womens-rights/tamesha-means-v-united-states-conference-catholic-bishops has the ACLU version of the story. I know if it was my wife, I would be upset by the way the Catholic hospital treated her, based on the 2 versions of the story I read.
In the USA, we have an adversary form of justice, this means that authors of the Constitution recognized that there are many sides to a story. This is one reason why there is constant polemical battle in all parts of government.
I would have to agree. From the get go, gay-marriage proponents said that it would not affect those that disagreed with it. Would not affect florists/bakers, etc. That was a flat out lie. They preach a message of live and let live and relativism in the public eye (they shout for equality), but then punish those who disagree. The only alternative to disagreeing with someone is not hating them, contrary to public belief. Can you logically make an argument that disagreeing with someone means you hate them? (hint-the answer is no.)Take emotionalism and personal attacks out of their argument and it has no legs to stand on.
To those that think giving social justice/equality to all people, regardless of their lifeviews, is not the same as the redemption found and offered in Christ. But in ‘merica, social justice and redemption in Jesus are becoming/have become synonymous. Trying to do ‘good things’ will not help you get into heaven.
Good point. That seems to be the lefts m.o. in regards to same sex marriage issues. When conservatives who diagree with SSM express concern over possibly losing their freedoms, liberal say “don’t worry that will never happen”, then when it does happen they say “you people are just hateful bigots” and compare us to segregationists.
Perhaps another less-than-useful headline would be “The Right’s March Toward American Theocracy.”
As late as early 2012, most Democrats including Barack Obama were opposed to same sex marriage. Were all of them “Right Wing Theocrats” at the time?
No, that would certainly not be term. You could have called them timid, because I believe that many of them were in personally in favor of marriage equality, but were afraid of the political fallout if they went public. Not exactly a profile in courage, but what changed was that a social tipping point manifested itself, at least in some parts of the country. My bigger point was to poke a little fun at Dr. Burk’s alarmist, and IMO inaccurate headline.
Your headline has a degree of truth to it.
Roy, I am well aware we do not live in a theocracy, nor do I desire one. However, as a small-business owner, should I be forced to choose between my moral/faith convictions and my livelyhood? Or is that just the “price of doing business in America?”
If the repsonse from the left is, “how will my gay marriage affect you?”
Is it equitable/fair for the opposite response to be, “how does my not baking a cake for you affect you?”
If politicians in this country decide to become pro-this and pro-that, at any given whim to get votes to maintain their positions (cough President Obama cough) in a never ending term in that cesspool on the Potomac (different issue altogether I admit), this country will be and partly is forever lost. The constitution’s authors did not intend on people taking claim with certain amendments and using them to gain whatever they fancied. We cannot forget authorial intent.
“If politicians in this country decide to become pro-this and pro-that, at any given whim to get votes to maintain their positions (cough President Obama cough) in a never ending term in that cesspool on the Potomac (different issue altogether I admit), this country will be and partly is forever lost.”
I’m really trying to understand this. There’s no point in being pro-something or anti-something until a movement or counter-culture arises. Pro-2nd amendment, pro-life, pro-civil rights, or pro-gay marriage. It’s nothing new in our politics.
“The constitution’s authors did not intend on people taking claim with certain amendments and using them to gain whatever they fancied. We cannot forget authorial intent.”
The constitution does not address gay marriage. You should not confuse it for a moral document or rather as a replacement for the Bible in governing morality.
I am both a Christian Fundamentalist and on the political left. I find the conservative claim that Leftist are at war against religion to be discrediting to Christians. Are there rubs? Of course. But why are there conflicts tells us more about what is happening than staring at headlines.
Like it or not, abortion is a medical procedure. It isn’t a religious practice. It is morally indefensible but socially acceptable and legal in our current society. To think that Christians are being targeted because some insist that a socially acceptable and legal medical procedure must be included as medical services is therefore consistent. Should we work and fight for an exception here? Certainly. But that does not mean that Christianity is being targeted and Bill Hickman’s comment adds to my point here.
Likewise, if you are offering a public service and you reserve the right to deny service to a potential customer because of a private, religious objection you have to that person or their behavior, realize who you have become like. You have become like those who tried to prohibit Blacks from sitting with Whites because you thought it was it was unbiblical. And you set up the possibility for the person you are refusing service to from obtaining any service at all because you are allowed to refuse service. So is legislating that Christian businesses to provide services to gay weddings targeting Christians?
If we are to maintain the credibility of the Gospel, we must stay away from past examples of Christians using the laws and society as a supplemental disciplinary arm of the Church. Realize who we are becoming like when we try to do this. Martin Luther appealed to Germans to punish Jews for their refusal to believe in Christ. He told his fellow Germans that if they did not punish the Jews for unbelief, they would be complicit in the Jews’ refusal to believe in Christ.
The past examples of many of our Christian forefathers was that of Christian domination of society. And what many of us Christians now feel is persecution when our position of dominance is challenged. This desire to rule over unbelievers unnecessarily causes people to blaspheme God and the Gospel. And it is the wrong way to treat others.
Christian fundamentalist while being politically left? Now I’ve heard everything. What’s next? Jerry Lewis for vice president?
As a Christian fundamentalist, can I assume you are against abortion? You claim it’s indefensible above, yet state that it’s a medical prodcedure and socially acceptable. If you are politically left, you would predominantly vote for candidates that maintain the status quo and keep a form of infanticide socially acceptable. How do you claim to find abortion indefensible and yet vote for those that allow it?
Not a personal attack,, just trying to understand your reasoning.
From what I understand, Jerry has not announced his intentions to run for the office of President of the US so I guess that is not next.
I am against abortion but I also find that being prolife moves me against war and the nationalism that often drives us to conflicts. Being prolife also moves me oppose economic systems that put so many people at risk and in poverty. And herein lies the problem for the prolife movement, it has lost its credibility because it has not opposed war strongly enough if at all and has not opposed the current economic system that hurts so many people. And, in fact, until we address where we are inconsistently prolife, our prolife campaign will all too easily be perceived as being against women.
Another way to explain my voting is this, if we destroy the world by waging war or wrecking the environment, the abortion issue becomes moot.
BTW, you stated legitimate questions respectfully. Thank you.
I still don’t understand how selling flowers for a wedding to a couple on their 3rd marriage is different in practice than selling them to a gay couple for their wedding. Aren’t both weddings violations of the moral law? I guess I’m just not surprised when sinners act like sinners and continue to suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Isn’t calling all men to repentance through the preaching of the word a better strategy than yearning and fighting for christendom? I prefer a secular government until Christ comes, as a baptist I don’t think I would have been real comfortable in Europe when the Pope ran things or for that matter Calvin’s Geneva.
At what point should society punish people for sins? Should society be a supplemental disciplinary arm of the Church as the Reformers thought or should we find a place in society for sinners? And if I am a Christian businessman, am I called to treat gays ethically as a businessman or am I called to exercise Church discipline on them by refusing to do business with them? And if I can do that, why should anyone else be required to do business with gays and thus set up a situation where they can’t get legitimate services.
Just last year a baptist Church in Crystal Springs, Mississippi told a black couple they couldn’t get married there. The pastor wanted to marry them but he was overruled by the trustees–the day before the wedding. So the black couple had to get married someplace else. The First Amendment clearly & certainly allows the church to do this.
So, yeah, in addition to churches having the freedom to do this we also need bakers, butchers & candlestick makers who can do it too. That would be wonderful for our country.
And, if National Review actually cared abt women, it’d be siding with this woman–who nearly died–because her DRs refused to inform her of the risks to her life. Let DRs be DRs & Priests be Priests.
To James- I made the flip-flop analogy because there were many democrats, including the president himself, that were not pro-gay marriage during his first term and yet as the movement begain to gain more media attention select politicians and the president himself flipped his views. Sure, one could claim that he “did what he always felt inside” but the more probably answer is that he did not want to commit career suicide and not get re-elected as other politicians did the same things. That’s what I was referencing.
To Ryan-Yes, for the record, the 3rd marriage after divorces would not be biblical. Even a 2nd one. However, that wasn’t the topic at hand. But I understand that some people bash on an issue like this and have no problem with multiple divorces, etc. Promblem is though, the media never finds/asks a person about that, or if they do, they find someone that doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
If you wish to find out why you are wrong about second marriages and how you are taking the Scripture text out of context, see David Instone-Brewer’s books on divorce.
Divorce is never the first and only option in a marriage when things aren’t going right. There’s other things you can do to fix your marriage. I would hope you would agree. I am aware that you can seek divorce Biblically, but it’s not as easy as it may be in a secular-world view.
Divorce is not required, but is allowed when the other has broken covenant vows. There may be nothing one can do by oneself to fix one’s marriage. In Matt 1:19 Joseph was called just or righteous and was going to seek a divorce from Mary until he was informed what was really going on by an angel.
Once one is divorced, one can remarry.
Out of curiosity, was my reply to Mike Dunger not approved because of the links I included or was it seen as offensive in its own right? I honestly didn’t think it was that bad, but I’m not always the best judge of that.