Accommodations and tolerations are the order of the day. Everywhere you look in the news someone is either suing for their " freedom " or citing reason why they should be exceptions.Things are getting just a little out of hand. Just how much accommodating and tolerating am I supposed to allow ? A reasonable amount is what the law states. What's reasonable ? That will certainly change from person to person. Is the court to rule on reasonable as well as moral issues ? The supreme court has already given their opinion on just what marriage is, changing that definition. With that decision they purport to uphold individuals rights. So be it. Of course ,by doing so they have disregarded the moral laws that have stood for thousands of years. Those of us that live, or at the very minimum attempt to live, by those moral laws are being forced to accommodate and indeed tolerate those actions. Is it reasonable ? Yes, I suppose it is, but you can't make me like it. In voicing my opposition I should not in turn be jailed or labeled as a bigot. I may lose my job for failure to comply with the " law " but that is the cost of my sincerely held beliefs. I can choose to disassociate myself from any activity I do not agree with. I am not saying you must accommodate me. The best I can hope for is, tolerance.
Take the case of Kim Davis. I will say she has sincerely held beliefs. She stood in opposition to issuing a marriage license to those she felt were not entitled to one. I admire her tenacity and forthright expression of her belief. The only problem there was, it was her job. No matter that the court ruled on that legality while she was in office and not prior to it. That in itself is not a defense to not perform your duty. She should have resigned or filed for an exception of some type. She should have sought a legal avenue first. Like it or not that is what the Gay or are we supposed to call it the LGBT community has done. The fact that they prevailed is a bitter pill to swallow but it is the rule. I will not call it law,as the supreme court does not make law ! It is their opinion and opinions can change. Regardless of the intent her actions were just wrong.
I have stated this on many occasions and will continue. You cannot legislate morality. Laws will be passed that infringe upon your personal beliefs. No set of laws will ever sufficiently define what is acceptable and unacceptable on a moral basis. Morality is linked to religion, although not dependant upon it. Laws are supposed to be the fixed,rigid,unyielding statement of what is acceptable in society and what is not. The method and procedure for changing those laws are also set. Circumventing that procedure is rarely the correct course of action. It should only be done in cases of extreme danger and the potential loss of life. Laws are necessary to an ordered society. It can be no other way. Some will like it, some will not. It all boils down to one thing, obedience. Obedience to your God, your country and to your own convictions. The Christian God has traditionally been the guiding influence in America. Is it officially sanctioned by the state ? No, still it can't be denied. Laws are being passed that contradict those teachings. That is causing unrest, that can't be denied either. What we are talking about here is conscience. The conscience of a nation. Will our conscience be steadfast and resolute ? Or have we chosen to be tolerant and accommodating of behaviors without regard to that conscience. Conscience is often a " nagging " thing isn't it ? Can we just eliminate that ? No but we can redefine it. That is what is happening right now. There is no right and wrong, only accommodation. That is what you get when there is no " punishment " for wrongdoing. The ultimate punishment resides in our conscience, in our beliefs. If we say, in good conscience, we must allow everything that removes the burden of obedience. Obedience is self denial. And so now we are shifting to a new philosophy, just say yes. It's easier that way, right ?
Take the case of Kim Davis. I will say she has sincerely held beliefs. She stood in opposition to issuing a marriage license to those she felt were not entitled to one. I admire her tenacity and forthright expression of her belief. The only problem there was, it was her job. No matter that the court ruled on that legality while she was in office and not prior to it. That in itself is not a defense to not perform your duty. She should have resigned or filed for an exception of some type. She should have sought a legal avenue first. Like it or not that is what the Gay or are we supposed to call it the LGBT community has done. The fact that they prevailed is a bitter pill to swallow but it is the rule. I will not call it law,as the supreme court does not make law ! It is their opinion and opinions can change. Regardless of the intent her actions were just wrong.
I have stated this on many occasions and will continue. You cannot legislate morality. Laws will be passed that infringe upon your personal beliefs. No set of laws will ever sufficiently define what is acceptable and unacceptable on a moral basis. Morality is linked to religion, although not dependant upon it. Laws are supposed to be the fixed,rigid,unyielding statement of what is acceptable in society and what is not. The method and procedure for changing those laws are also set. Circumventing that procedure is rarely the correct course of action. It should only be done in cases of extreme danger and the potential loss of life. Laws are necessary to an ordered society. It can be no other way. Some will like it, some will not. It all boils down to one thing, obedience. Obedience to your God, your country and to your own convictions. The Christian God has traditionally been the guiding influence in America. Is it officially sanctioned by the state ? No, still it can't be denied. Laws are being passed that contradict those teachings. That is causing unrest, that can't be denied either. What we are talking about here is conscience. The conscience of a nation. Will our conscience be steadfast and resolute ? Or have we chosen to be tolerant and accommodating of behaviors without regard to that conscience. Conscience is often a " nagging " thing isn't it ? Can we just eliminate that ? No but we can redefine it. That is what is happening right now. There is no right and wrong, only accommodation. That is what you get when there is no " punishment " for wrongdoing. The ultimate punishment resides in our conscience, in our beliefs. If we say, in good conscience, we must allow everything that removes the burden of obedience. Obedience is self denial. And so now we are shifting to a new philosophy, just say yes. It's easier that way, right ?
No comments:
Post a Comment