Posted on 01/16/2014 3:34:17 AM PST by LD Jackson
Every once in a while, I find myself shocked by something someone says. It doesn't happen very often because, after blogging for several years, that shock has mostly worn off. I have received all kinds of comments, been accused of racism, bigotry, hatred, etc. Yesterday, I believe, was a new high. One of the comments I received on my post about homosexual marriage and states' rights actually made my mouth drop open in surprise. Left by S Fuller, it bears quoting in its own post.
There was another time in American history when a large population of Americans believed that they had the right to determine how another segment of people lived. Indeed they believe that “God” deemed these others lesser and that justified their actions. They spoke of succession, revolution, and those things came to pass. All in the name of the God they worshiped, and the morality they chose to enforce on other human lives.You can read my response at the post, but I can do nothing less than respond here as well. Before I do, we need to make sure what the First Amendment really says.Our Constitution protected our country from their bigotry then, and it will protect us from that bigotry now. You seem to forget these two large issues trump all else here. The Constitution overrules all, and the First Amendment take your “God” and your “morality” out of this discussion.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As you can see, the First Amendment does not require me to remove my God or my morality out of any discussion. I can honestly say I have never seen such a misrepresentation of any of the Bill of Rights before. I knew liberals are fond of tearing them apart and using them for their own purposes, but this interpretation of the First Amendment beats any of those efforts. I am not so naive that I believe we can force morality upon anyone. That's just not possible to accomplish. What I do know is this. Anyone who tells you their decisions are not governed by their morality, or lack thereof, is lying. The morals we have ingrained in our being guide us in every decision we make. It doesn't matter if you dig ditches to pay your way in this world, or if you are the President of the United States. Whatever morals you have will influence your opinions, your decisions, and any actions you take.
The First Amendment guarantees us the right to exercise those morals in the form of religious expression, as long as they do not harm others. I know that statement may very well be used against me and my stance against homosexual marriage. No, homosexual marriage does not harm me directly, but it does harm the moral fabric of our society. It goes against every law of nature and procreation and it is not how God designed this world to work.
You can disbelieve God and his laws of morality all you want. That is your choice, but do not deem to tell me that I have to remove my God and my morality out of any discussion, just because you do not believe they are pertinent. The First Amendment guarantees my right to declare that fact and to use my God and my morality to guide my actions and decisions. For S Fuller, or anyone else, to suggest otherwise is ludicrous and it misconstrues the First Amendment in the worst possible way.
What you fail to understand is that “rights” belong only to the left and can be re-defined to fit whatever issue they want to push.
In addition you must remember that free speech applies only to the left and the laws apply only to us.
Keep in mind that that is how the left “thinks” you won’t be shocked anymore.
The Left may control me physically and financially, but they cannot control my morality.
It is easy to assume that journalists favor the First Amendment. They do not.
The First Amendment intends that we be equal in our right to spend our own money to propagate our own opinions. Journalists, having the high ground in that regard - and, via the mechanism defined by Adam Smith, become a de facto monopoly - promote legislation presuming to give journalists rights to be denied to others. And journalists presume to define who is a journalist, and who isn’t. This is anathema to the actual intent of the framers and ratifiers.
We force morality on people every day.
We have laws against murder. That is a morality that we are forcing on people. We have laws against speeding. That is a morality that we are forcing upon people.
Every law imposes morality. The only question is whose morality are we going to impose? The morality of our founding fathers (That is, the Judeo-Christian based morality that all western civilization is based upon) or the liberal “anything goes as long as I can get my rocks off” morality that the communists designed to destroy us.
I prefer to impose, and have imposed upon me, Judeo-Christian morality. It’s worked great for over 2000 years. I see no need to change now.
Key “do Not deem to tell me that I have to remove my God or my morality out of any discussion because you do not believe they are pertinent.” Bears repeating.
Today I am sending snail mail to the 10th Circuit Court on the Latest District Judge who has violated the Bill of Rights to advance the cause of same sex marriage by employing the errant argument that a clause /fragment of the 14th Amendment can be used to nullify States Rights to define Marriage. First Utah -now Oklahoma -and the Reprobate Colorado Legislature is preparing to “fist” the Religious and Moral citizens by voting to recognize same sex marriage.
No compelling State interest has been published it is merely a desire to make us all as Sodom and Like unto Gomorrah. I sent similar letter to the Reprobates in the US supreme Court for they started this cluster F____ when their 5-4 opine found section two of DOMA could be expunged.I CANNOT COMPLY.when Human Laws contradict the Laws made by God ,Himself— human laws are invalid.
That’s not true. Reread Acts 17; the law doesn’t “impose morality” but only condemns, and its moral standard is a high standard that cannot be attained by human power. No one can ever be saved by the law because it only shows our deficiencies; that is why we need Jesus.
you are discussing spiritual law while I am discussing secular law. EVERY secular law imposes morality. (Act this way or suffer the consequences).
Why do we have laws against murder if we are not seeking to impose the morality that murder is wrong? (for example)
I can’t think of one (secular) law that does not impose morality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.