This should be a good Sunday post. One of our liberal commenters, Jon, posted his comment in relation to a previous short post titled On Transgender Sports & “Pride” Month. See the bottom of that post for Jon’s first comment and my reply which will put the comment below in context. I started to reply in the comments section but thought this deserved a post of its own.
Jon: Your right, this ruling is from an international organization. What I am referring to is the GOP’s war on LGBTQs and other Christian Law items. The GOP is doing their best to turn this country into a Theocracy. The latest is the SCOTUS Roe vs Wade decision. Why do you consider it OK to impose Christian Law on everyone? Aren’t you one of those that scream about Sharia Law being imposed on people in this country? Why do you feel that you can impose your preferences on others?
Mike: Hi Jon and thanks for your comment. In this post I will attempt to show the following main points:
- There is no “war on NNs” by the GOP.
- Decisions on social issues that have potential moral implications are not decided on the basis of Christian Law.
- America was founded on Judeo-Christian values.
- The imposition of preferences through the legislative and judicial process is what a Republic is intended to accomplish.
There is no “war on NNs” by the GOP
On the subject of the GOP and NNs (nonnormative), there are many NNs that are in the GOP. I’ve mentioned before that you should watch Gutfeld! on FOX News. If you did you would know there are many NNs that are in the GOP. Here is one link with 28 of them. FOX News even hired Caitlyn Jenner. There are many more as that list is from 2016 and it is not intended to be exhaustive.
My brother was an NN (RIP) and I knew his lovers and friends well. I could write a book on this subject. Some Gays think Trannys and other NNs are not right in the head. NNs are not a homogenous group. So, if you think NNs are not accepted by the GOP remember not all NN groups are accepted by other factions of the NN community. One would also have to explain Gays for Trump and the Walk Away movement that is led by NNs.
Decisions on social issues are not decided on the basis of Christian Law.
You seem to tie the GOP in with Christian Law. It is true that the GOP has many more Christians than the DNC according to Pew Research. I don’t want to get caught up in a theological debate. However, we have Christians that read these posts and I fully confess my faith in Christ. That does not mean I or most Christians believe in a Theocracy. Mormons are known for this See this link. So are Muslims, as you point out Sharia is their version of a Theocracy.
I do believe the things the Bible teaches when properly understood and put into action creates a better society. Maybe I should say when the teachings of the Bible are understood as I understand those teachings society would be better off. I cannot speak for others and their understanding. Chief among those teachings is to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. We should also remain humble about our own sinful nature. This leads us to forgive others as we are forgiven. We should also be cautious about judging harshly. At the same time, we do make judgments. We must do so in order to create a structured society. This is the primary reason for laws, not just in America but everywhere. We see what happens when society breaks down and becomes unstructured. It isn’t good.
What I’m trying to say is equivocating Christians or Christian Law with the GOP is something that might offend 63% of your Democrat friends. If you look up how atheistic countries have dealt with NNs it is far worse than the USA ever was. The former Soviet Union is one example. Click here for details. I make this point because the Soviet Socialists were firm on atheism and further left than Bernie Sanders. That should be evidence enough that positions on NNs have zero to do with religion or political conservatism.
As you rightly point out, Sharia is a Theocratic system that would put NNs to death or at least put them in prison for years or life as well as whippings. In Africa, there are 32 countries that still criminalize homosexuality. Some still use the death penalty. Click here for details. Asia has quite a few laws against NNs as well. They represent Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, and Islamic religions. Click here for details. Of course, in the Middle East, Islamic Sharia includes the death penalty in some cases. Click here for details.
Where you are incorrect in your thinking is to somehow equate Christian Law, as you call it, with laws that touch moral things. Atheistic countries make laws that touch on moral things as I proved in the link to the former Soviet Union.
America was founded on Judeo-Christian values
You are correct that America was founded on Judeo-Christian values and that heavily influences our laws. At the same time, those Christian values gave rights to all citizens, not just Christians, and Jews. It did this by recognizing that rights are God-given (Creator), not man-given (Kings, etc). We should all be aware of this clear statement from the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
However, this is significantly different from a Theocracy. Click here for the definition of theocracy.
I cannot be sure but I do often wonder if the founders were thinking about other religions besides the Judeo-Christian view. After all, if you know the history of America early on it was Christian, not Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. I suppose the reason we use Judeo-Christian today is that Christianity is a Jewish sect of sorts. In the same way, Buddhism has its roots in the Hindu religion. Islam was an attempt to reconcile Jews, Christians, and Pagans. It is considered to be an Abrahamic religion. Abraham pre-dated the Jewish tradition as he was before Moses. Now you know why the peace deal Trump & Kushner struck was called the Abraham Accords. Trump and Jared really should have gotten a Nobel Peace Prize for that, but I digress.
I looked up when the various major religions first built meeting places in America. I find this very instructive when it comes to understanding America has been a Christian nation from the beginning (the 1500s).
- First Jewish Synagogue in America – 1763
- First Buddhist Temple in America – 1853
- First Islamic Mosque in America – 1934
- First Hindu temple in America – 1957
There was significant tension between Christian denominations in the 1700s and the writing of the Constitution. I think the Constitution wanted to move Americans into an understanding that we were open to various Christian views as that was the hot issue of the times. The word “religion” in those days referred to Christianity. Anything else was thought of as a Pagan or some other derivative of that word like Idolater or Heathan. You can read a good article at this link about the early Colonies.
Setting aside that argument, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” has come to mean something different to the left. It is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion as some suggest. The phrase “separation of church and state” was not in the Constitution and is misunderstood. If you want to read in-depth click this link. It simply protects the individual and the various religions from government overreach. Also, see Article 6. There is no religious test for a person wanting to hold public office.
Bottom line. When someone argues about law and religion in America it is done with the consent of the governed. If those who are governed follow Christian principles the law will reflect that. If this nation becomes a majority of some other religion or non-religion then it will reflect those principles. For more, you can watch this video from Mac & Mike.
The imposition of preferences
You asked: “Why do you consider it OK to impose Christian Law on everyone? Why do you feel that you can impose your preferences on others?” Congress makes the law. The Executive is supposed to carry out the law. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the law in light of the Constitution. The imposition of preferences through the legislative, executive, and judicial processes is what our Republic is intended to accomplish.
There are remedies that are built into our system but they are slow. Republicans have long waited for a Supreme Court to have a majority that believes in the Constitution as Originalists. The Democrat or Liberal view sees it as a Living Constitution. See this link for clarification. Simply put, Originalists believe the Constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding “at the time it was adopted”. If it needs to be updated or changed there is a process for that outlined in Article 5. See this link. This is the process of Amendments. The Constitution has been amended 27 times. See this link.
I find your line of thinking curious. Don’t you see that if we do things your way then you are the one imposing your preferences?
About the Author: Pronouns are Doctor and Your Highness. Mike Kelly identifies as a person who holds Ph. D.s in Theology, Philosophy, Theoretical Quantum Physics, and Psychology and an M.C.S. in Web-Based Technology. Now doesn’t that make you feel stupid? I mean if you can identify as anything these days, why not have it all? 🙂
Discover more from Veterans for Trump
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jon’s comments are inane and unworthy of a response. He claims the “GOP” is responsible for actions they never have done, and further indicates that the GOP somehow has control over the SCOTUS. Jon claims, without facts or data to support his claim, that the GOP is trying to change our nation to a “Theocracy”. Again, zero proof! I could suggest (with significantly more facts, data and proof) that the Democrats are trying to turn our Representative Republic into a socialist nation! Frankly, Jon’s assertion that anyone is trying to impose “Christian law” in this nation is as farcical as the idea that the moon is made of cheese.
Honestly, I believe I lost a few IQ points just from reading Jon’s inane comments. I applaud your efforts to treat Jon as a reasonable commentor, sadly, I believe your efforts are in vain.
Thanks Mac. My efforts are not 100% for Jon. It is in large part written to defend the truth.
You have likely heard “evil prevails when good men do nothing.” We could also say “stupidity prevails when nobody speaks against it.” I’m also thinking for every 1 Jon there are over 70 million more out there that think as he does. Sad.
Also:
Jude 1:3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. 4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about b long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
MIke: Liberals, as you have proven, lack logic.
Great job.
Good response. We should also challenge the very ignorant leftist talking point that any time Christians give input it is somehow leading us towards “theocracy.” This term is used out of pure hysteria by the left. Most leftists are clueless on what the term actually means.
Theocracy would not only mean we have a state church, it would mean we subordinate the state to church officials as is done in Iran. (Even Iran is not a true theocracy; there has been only one in history and it was the ancient kingdom of Israel). England had a state church (which is why we adopted the first amendment) but the Church of England was subordinate to the King, and thus England, even with an official state religion and Christian principles officially encoded in law, was never a theocracy or even an attempt to be one. The vast majority of Christians understand that there is too much diversity within the church to ever allow for one unified set of church leaders. My point is no Christians anywhere are calling for theocracy. It only shows the low IQ of the left that they repeatedly use this hysterical fear-based term to expose their bigotry against anyone who dares to give input that draws upon religion and/or faith. The first amendment does not forbid Christians from basing policies upon their faith. Using faith to form a world view that influences the way I vote has absolutely nothing to do with theocracy.
All to say thanks for all you do!
Thanks Karl. As I pointed out to my good friend Mac, this is not just for Jon. There are lots of people who think as he does. High emotions take away one’s ability to think clearly. That is the problem I see with most folks on the left. We need to remain calm and factual when dealing with those on the left. It may not change their minds but those who see our calm factual tone might be impressed, Lord willing.
Thanks Jay. I try. The real kicker is Jon does not see the complete hypocrisy in his line of thinking. I don’t know about IQ but it seems there is a lack of ability to think critically. The objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment is important.
I see this skill lacking mainly on the left but we have that problem on the right as well. Screaming at children doesn’t get results. Letting them do and think as they please doesn’t work either. Striking a reasonable balance can be hard but is the way I try to approach these things.
A lot of people are not well educated, especially when it comes to critical thinking. That is where our schools are getting off track. The more we allow school tax money to follow the student the better off we will be in the area of education. Teach a child to think and they will free themselves from dependency and bad ideas.
Your argument for imposing the preferences of the majority is in direct opposition to a few of your statements. Additional Gun Control is preferred by the majority of the population. Roe vs Wade is supported by the majority of the population. Yet, in these and other areas, you support the government going against the majority’s preference. (I apologize for using the second reference again, I just didn’t feel like looking up any others.)
Actually, I see that if we do things “my way” I won’t be imposing anyone’s preferences. “My way” would everyone to enjoy their own preferences. It’s just that no one would enforce their way of life on anyone else.
People preferred life choices different from yours should in no way impact on how you choose to live your life. Just like how you to live your life, your life choices, should have no impact on theirs.
Once again, thanks for your comments.
On argument 1
There is a Constitution to deal with in relation to guns. You and those who share your vision need to work on an amendment if you want it changed. Amendments are by majority vote. I linked to the process in this post.
Roe was just kicked back to the states since arguments from the Constitution are not valid. Again if you want it clarified you need to do the amendment or leave it in the hands of each state.
On argument 2
I lean towards libertarianism. The way you state it could be viewed as borderline anarchy. That’s the problem with libertarianism. Taken too far it is anarchy.
Abortion affects the life of 2 people. NN marriage etc is different as it is not a life or death thing.
I could care less what NNs do in the privacy of their homes. What I don’t want is the thing you are referring to. Don’t throw it in the public face so we have to explain it to little kids because now you are imposing. Don’t insist that others approve of it. That is an individual choice. Acceptance is different than approval.
The left can also have weird pronouns but don’t expect others to use them if they don’t want to. Again, at that point, they are imposing on ohters.
Keep CRT and ideas about NN out of the schools, especially elementary grades. Kids will learn soon enough. Again, it is the imposing thing. See, I agree with not imposing.
Again, abortion is different as it involves a mother imposing death on a child. I get that this can be a sad situition for the mother. However, the child does not get a say, nor does the father. There are nuances like the life of the mother, rape etc.. This will all be worked out on a state level until there is a Constitutional Amendment. Better get to work on that if you want it changed.
Individuals create groups which in turn create society. Societies make rules. It has been that way since man walked the earth. You have an impossible task if you expect extreme libertarianism or anarchy to become accepted by this country.
Why do you insist on a sanitized version of history? Why do you want to teach lies instead of history?
Why are you so ashamed of your country?
I agree, it’s about not imposing. So why do you insist on doing it? Why impose your worldview on everyone? I am not trying to impose my will on anyone. I am trying to keep others from the same. Acknowledging reality is not imposing anything that should be unacceptable.
You seem to think that we have to teach our children lies and keep them wrapped in cotton batting. I prefer that children learn how to deal with the real world, not hide from it. Isn’t that what schools are for? Teaching them about the real world? It is absolutely obscene to lie to our children.
Your way taken too far Is fascism. Which is the most likely? Given the country’s recent history?
Why don’t you oppose all Gun Control? Why don’t you protest the restrictions on Automatic Weapons? Why don’t you protest the restrictions on bazookas and the like? Do you see validaty in restricting those?
The Constitution defines the rights of Militias to be armed, not individuals. At least not according to the writings of most of them. Until Heston turned the NRA into a farce, it was Pro Gun Control. Because the people then in charge realized that if the public gets pissed enough, then they could kiss their guns goodbye.
How many more children will you allow to die?
Are guns more important than children? The GOP seems to think so.
Abortion does NOT involve two people. The fetus is part of the mother’s body until it is viable outside the womb without medical intervention. Only Religions defines life as beginning at conception, science does not. Actually, Science is still arguing with itself about this.
But if the fetus is not viable without medical intervention, then God is saying that it is not ready yet!
Why do you insist that all fetuses be born, yet you don’t care if they live or die after they are born? Shouldn’t someone who calls themselves “Pro Life” care about the lives of babies after they are born? Yet you oppose all programs designed to.
Yet you expect, and encourage, fascism to be acceptable in this country. Doing away with free elections is a good start!
Jon, You think you know me and probably other people’s views and arguments for and against many things. This is called a “Straw Man” argument in logic. Also, each one of your questions can be reversed on you in relation to “imposition”. You are simply angry from the tone of your comments. In this time of your life you are going to have to deal with the political facts of life. Might I suggest some mindfulness meditation or a life coach/counselor? You do need some help my friend. Hope you find peace someday.
Laugh a little
https://youtu.be/I1yMV6KONfM