By Douglas V. Gibbs
According to the Founding Fathers, and writings by people like John Locke, we possess natural rights that belong to us based on the fact that we were simply born. These rights are unalienable, because they are God-given, and therefore government does not have the authority to take them away. With rights, however, comes responsibility, and when a culture is not responsible with its rights, well-intentioned bureaucrats attempt to insert regulations, to better maintain societal balance.
When we are irresponsible with our rights, it opens the door for government to intrude upon them.
That is not a statement condoning government actions against our rights, but simply a warning because big government always takes advantage of crisis.
It is the goal of statists to change individual-centric societies into systems built upon collectivism. Group-think. A communal society where equality is not based on opportunity, or the law, but based on outcome, and the whims of men.
Everybody has the right to be stupid, but unfortunately, some people abuse that privilege. As a result, things like Political Correctness emerges. In an attempt to be courteous, an extreme condition is met, and everyone runs around hyper-sensitive, fearing that they may offend someone. Statist systems take advantage of such crises, pitting groups against each other, inserting social engineering by manipulating language, and claiming that every want, desire, and action is a right. Individuals then take advantage of the sickened system, trying to get what they can by calling themselves victims, offended in a hurtful manner over something someone said that wouldn't have been a big deal only a decade earlier.
But when is a right a right?
If, as John Locke pointed out, our rights are God-given, then would not the definition of a right lie in the reality of whether or not God would sanction such a thing?
Freedom of Speech, for example, is not the freedom to say whatever you want, whenever you want to. That right ceases when our speech interferes with Natural Law, a self-evident understanding that recognizes slanderous speech, for example, is not protected by free speech. As a result, defamation laws exist. Defamation is not something that would be sanctioned by God, therefore, it is not a form of the Freedom of Speech.
Another example would be life. We have a right to life. The Declaration of Independence even lists that right as one of the self-evident rights endowed by our Creator. We have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property). However, a serial murderer who raped his victims acts in a manner that is not sanctioned by God, and in our country we have always seen such a crime as being a capital offense, deserving of capital punishment. Can that serial killer/rapist say, "I have a right to life?" He let go of that right when he brutally took the life of another through an action that is against natural law. The offense against God is self-evident.
What about persons that have yet to be born? Do they have a right to life? We must ask ourselves, when it comes to the so-called "woman's reproductive rights," would God sanction the termination of a pregnancy of a woman? Are there factors that may change it?
To abort a child healthy in the womb would never be sanctioned by God, therefore it is not a right. However, if a child developing in the Fallopian Tubes because the egg failed to drop and attach to the Uterun Wall, was required to be terminated, due to the fact that to carry the pregnancy full term would end the lives of both child and mother, then that is something we can reasonably say God would sanction, therefore the woman would have the right to that "medical procedure."
Then we come to marriage. Does a person have a right to marry whomever they wish? The definition of a right, once again, is going to go back to the fact that our rights are God-given. A marriage between a man and a woman would be sanctioned by God. A marriage to an animal, a person of the same sex, or to a number of people, would not be.
A federal judge recently stated that, when she unconstitutionally struck down Wisconsin's gay marriage ban, "As an initial matter, defendants and amici have overstated their argument. Throughout history, the most 'traditional' form of marriage has not been between one man and one woman, but between one man and multiple women, which presumably is not a tradition that defendants and amici would like to continue. History alone wasn't enough to justify a ban on same-sex marriage. Like moral disapproval, tradition alone proves nothing more than a state's desire to prohibit particular conduct, preserving the traditional institution of marriage' is just a kinder way of describing the State's moral disapproval of same-sex couples."
Polygamy has been a common form of marriage, and a "traditional" type of marriage in history, so is the term "traditional marriage" accurate?
Which brings us back to our point. Same-sex marriage is not a right not because it is not traditional, but because it would not be sanctioned by God.
Does polygamy share the same distinction? After all, Biblically, polygamy was very common in the days of the Old Testament.
The fact that something happened, and it was noted in the Bible as a historical occurrence does not make the action something God would sanction. We forget that most of the Bible is not a doctrinal document, but a history book laying out the history of Israel in the Old Testament, and much of the early Christian Church in the New Testament. In the Old Testament God never sanctioned polygamy, and in fact he disapproved of it, forbade it, and punished it.
Abraham, for example, was not a polygamist, despite popular opinion to the contrary. While Sarah was his wife, he never married any other woman.
Abraham, however, did have an illegitimate son by Hagar. That son was the result of an adulterous SIN.
Abraham had no excuse to do what he did, but when his story is taken into context, one can understand his excuse for it. Sarah was barren. For a wife in ancient times to go childless was felt to be a disgrace. It was Sarah, Abraham's own wife, who brought to Abraham her servant handmaid, asking him to produce a child for Sarah by this servant woman. We can imagine Hagar to have been attractive, and not necessarily lacking in voluptuous charms simply because she was a servant. That temptation, under these circumstances, at Sarah's instigation, might have been great. Certainly the very invitation coming from Sarah would have made it harder to resist.
Abraham was a strong man. But this temptation appears to have been stronger. All humans have sinned. Abraham was human. Abraham lied when he twice claimed Sarah was his sister, fearing for his own life.
Abraham was not without sin. But neither this adultery, nor the two lies, were sins of the nature that springs from a wrong attitude of mind or heart. Abraham, in his heart, was always OBEDIENT to GOD. There was no spirit of hostility or rebellion. These sins were of the FLESH, under temptation -- not malicious or rebellious sins of the heart. But they were SINS! God forgave Abraham's sins of spiritual weakness, committed under heavy temptation.
Nevertheless, the sins were punished. God rejected the illegitimate son, Ishmael, from the birthright. This transgression produced jealousy between the women. It resulted in trouble, controversy, and suffering.
The Arab-Jewish strife today exists largely due to Abraham's sexual sin. The Jews are the children of Sarah, through Isaac, born later by a miracle. The Arabs are the children of Ishmael.
Sarah's death is recorded in Genesis 23:1-2. It was after that (Gen. 25), that Abraham married Keturah. This, of course, was a perfectly legal marriage. There was no polygamy -- no divorce.
A right is a right only when it would be sanctioned by God because our rights are God-given.
The whole argument that rights are God-given, and therefore a right is not a right unless it would be sanctioned by God, opens up a whole new argument from those that oppose a value-based society. Those that oppose the constitutional foundation of our American System would then contend that using such an argument violates the "Separation of Church and State" concept that we hold so dear.
Does it?
First of all, the concept of the "Separation of Church and State" is not constitutional. The argument is not legally binding. It is a concept outside the law, propagated by judges falsely interpreting the United States Constitution.
That said, if we were to buy into the liberal left's argument regarding church and state, and if we cannot base the definition of a right on if God would sanction such an action, then how can we base our laws on God's laws? God would not sanction murder, but then would punishing murder make it an issue regarding the separation of church and state? Our legal system was based on the Ten Commandments as its foundation. Why should our rights be any different?
The liberal left understands the importance we place on being a Godly nation, and they understand that a majority of Americans are faith-based. So, if they can't force us to abandon God, they have decided they will change our system of beliefs through the churches.
Which brings us back to social engineering.
With the aid of political correctness, opposing sin is being labeled as un-Christian. Christians are supposed to love one another, love thy neighbor, and love thy enemy. . . right? But not being tolerant of someone's lifestyle, the leftists tell us, makes us "haters," and Christians are not supposed to hate. So to maintain one's beliefs in line with God's teachings is hateful, therefore, religion must be a living and breathing thing, adjusting itself so that it can properly play with the rest of society.
After all, we don't want to be "haters," do we?
Compromise, for the sake of acceptance by an anti-God society, is a sin in itself.
They tell us that our religion is getting in the way of religious freedoms, and religious freedoms are getting in the way of what is moral. . . like embracing homosexuality, and the "right" of gays to marry.
Besides, Christians are a bunch of hypocrites, or so we are told. We aren't perfect. How can we argue against sin when we are sinners? "Ashley Madison" is a website set up for enabling people to cheat on their mate, for example, and its membership is loaded with Born Again Christians. How can you call yourself a Christian if you sin like that?
Human Nature, and fleshly desire, is a real problem. Just ask Abraham from the Bible, as he faced the temptation of having a concubine.
Guilty as charged. I am a sinner. We all are. That is why we need Jesus Christ as our mediator, as the pure lamb of sacrifice, and as our counsel when facing Judgment in Heaven.
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God - Romans 3:23.
It is a tough battle to wage. The enemy is deceptive, and alters language to create confusion and misunderstanding. They take The Word itself, and manipulate it to say things it never said, because they themselves don't even understand the context of God's Word.
Ultimately, in the end, it is about God, and the fact that our rights are God-given. Sin leads a nation to destruction, not necessarily because God is going to send fire and brimstone, but because sin has consequences. The social fabric of society unravels under the onslaught of sin. Rome fell from within, because they abandoned honest government, abandoned their republic, and decayed morally at every level.
It is a simple rule of thumb. Rights and responsibilities as individuals, and as a nation, are always defined by Divine Providence.
Would God sanction it? If not, it is not a natural right.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Federal Judge to Wisconsin: You know, "Traditional Marriage" was polygamy, right? - Huffington Post
When Religious Freedom Hurts Religion - Yahoo News
You May Be Surprised How Many Born Again Christians Use Ashley Madison - Huffington Post
Here's the Plain Truth about Old Testament Polygamy - Give Share
Myth #8: The Constitution Guarantees the Separation of Church and State - Political Pistachio
No comments:
Post a Comment