Now, whether I get approval through moderation is another thing.In the case of Vance Day and Kim Davis, what you have are two people who are the government. They by definition in the constitution should not be promoting any religion on the job. Kim Davis is on record that it is God's authority, not government's that she denied giving out marriage licenses to same sex couples. Where is the right's love of the constitution here?I am myself a Christian. I'm not a scholar of the Bible, but I've read it a few times. In all cases you mention, it is my belief that the people you feel are being persecuted, are not acting very Christian. Someone comes to you wanting a wedding cake for a same sex marriage? Bake them two. Same sex couple comes up to you seeking a marriage license? Render unto the government what is the governments. Hiding Christ's love in this manner does nothing more than put Christianity in a bad light.But in reality, when it comes to the governmental definition of marriage, it has very little to do with the Christian definition. It makes marriage a contract. It gives you many benefits like tax deductions, and control of what happens to a loved one when they fall ill. Don't believe in the new definition of marriage by the government, don't participate in it. Get married in a church, don't make it final with a license. Pay more in taxes. If you really feel the government's definition is not right for you, there's your true remedy. Don't everyone rush to get your governmental marriages revoked, now.What I truly see this as, is another issue to further divide this country. And whether it be left or right, it is pretty clear who these division peddlers are. Stephen, you have a platform that can be used for good, just as others in this field do. Are you going to do that? or just keep stoking the flames for every last dollar you can get? Don't worry, I won't get my hopes up.
Sunday, September 6, 2015
A message to Stephen Crowder
So, in my readings I stumbled across this article by Stephen Crowder. I felt it my duty to respond. Here's what I said: