Skip to comments.The United States of Sodomy
Posted on 07/01/2013 12:29:44 PM PDT by AnalogReigns
Of course the title of this little essay is over the top--you may well not be reading this otherwise. Still, my thesis is that in as much as the U.S. Constitution has become something far from a written document defining and limiting our government, and protecting the peoples rights--rather, through the extreme stretching of judicial review, its become a flexible, general, almost blank...document, where the high courts can write whatever policy they in their "wisdom" want--without any consultation or permission from the people--the supposed sovereign in our system---this means to swear to "protect and defend" the constitution (found in military and police oaths), now means to swear to protect and defend sodomy.
Ten years ago, in 2003, the Lawrence v. Texas decision struck down all laws against same-sex deviant sexual behavior, sodomy, and now the high court has said that Congress cannot even define its terms for what benefits it gives through the federal government. Legally, the Constitution now defends and protects...and even promotes (in states where its allowed--likely soon to be universal) sodomy. "Sodomy" is a term derived from the biblical story of Sodom--well known for its sexual degeneracy--which was directly destroyed by God about 2000 BC during the life of Abraham. In English law--"sodomy" has been broader than just homosexual acts, covering all kinds of unnatural sexual acts. Still, the main unnatural act under the legal term "sodomy" is same-sex behavior.
Since the US Constitution is legally seen as what the Supreme Court says it is, this means that EVERYONE who swears an oath to defend and protect that constitution--is swearing to defend and protect the propogation and promotion of homosexuality....now even up-to and including the abomination of homosexual "marriage." What this means is that every member of the military, and law enforcement, at the federal and state levels.....is swearing to defend and protect sexual immorality of the worst and most disgusting form. In those states that require recognition of sodomy-based "marriage," it means that every state official and employee--from the governor, to all police, fire & rescue, teachers, down to the lowest DMV clerk...in swearing to their State constitution...is also swearing defend, protect, and sometimes (say for public school teachers) to actively promote SODOMY.
To me this surely gives pause as to whether Christians should now enter or stay in the military or law enforcement, or any government job....if it requires one to swear allegiance to the "Constitution" (federal and/or state--as the current courts understand it)--if they do not, by their solemn oath--want to violate their conscience before God.
The USA now stands for...protecting and defending disgusting, perverted, utterly immoral sexual acts... How can Christians, and their sons and daughters, volunteer to swear to fight and die for that?
It seems to me we are rapidly approaching the times of ancient Rome...when Christians could not serve in the military, as soldiers were all required to swear an oath to the Emperor, calling him a god.
Nobody ever argues that the past laws weren’t without merit. There were challenges and the arguments given for criminalizing and outlawing are fantastic.
Injustice Kennedy stating that those who do not support gay Marriage is like those who told Pilate he was not a friend of Caesar’s if he doesn’t crucify Christ.
Ancient Rome did not have a former ancient Rome to reflect on.
Capitulation is the only threat we face.
Before long, essays like yours will be banned.
And I’m not kidding.
Ancient Rome had numerous (4 or 5) world empires that had priviously collapsed—due to moral degeneracy—to learn from.
One thing we can learn from history—is people don’t learn from history.
I think it’s time to seriously question the Marbury v. Madison case, the legal root of judicial review...and the Supreme’s assumed authority to have final say on constitutional matters.
I agree. It’s a question I’m forced to ask myself. With America fully embracing evil, it arguably alters a plethora of lifelong stances I’ve had towards country itself. Do I really respect the military the same way I used to, since Obama faggotized it? No, I don’t. Would I be willing to give my life for my country the same way I used to throughout entire my adulthood? No, not really. Will I maintain the same amount of concern towards some ‘fag-marriage’ state were it the recipient of a 9/11-style attack? No, not at all.
Changes a lot of things for me, if America embraces this deviancy. Changes things to the very core.
Changes a lot of things for me, if America embraces this deviancy. Changes things to the very core.
I don't think the perverted elite have thought this through at all either--as their security, historically, is guaranteed by about THE single most socially conservative group in the country--Christian men.
Although I get, and agree, with your main point (the demise of America and the exultation of a sinful and depraved culture), I believe there were quite a few Christians in the Roman Army.
In the writings of Justin Martyr, there is a letter supposedly written by the Emperor Marcus Aurelius - who had launched many persecutions against Christians. He was stuck out in the middle of nowhere, surrounded angry Germanic (I repeat myself) tribes, and after his prayers to his gods had failed, he asked if there were any Christians amongst his troops so they could pray for help from their God. He was shocked (and 'irritated'), that there were many Christians amongst their numbers ... but when their prayers were answered, he put an end (albeit, only temporary) to the persecutions.
Below follows a copy of this letter which is just after Justin Martyr's First Apology, as contained in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I.
The Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, Germanicus, Parthicus, Sarmaticus, to the People of Rome, and to the sacred Senate, greeting!
I explained my plan to you and what advantages I had gained on the borders of Germany after much labor and suffering. Due to the circumstances of this war, I was surrounded by the enemy in Carnuntum. 74 cohorts cut us off from help, being stationed 9 miles off.
Then the scouts pointed out to us that the enemy was at hand. Our general, Pompeianus showed us that a mixed multitude of 977,000 men was closing in on us, which we all could see. I was cut off by this vast host, and I had with me only a battalion composed of the first, tenth, double, and marine legions.
I examined my own position and my army, considered the vast mass of the barbarian enemy, and I quickly betook myself to prayer to the gods of my country. They disregarded me.
So I summoned those among us who go by the name of Christians. After some inquiry, I determined that there was a great number and vast host of them. When they appeared before me, I raged against them.
This was not appropriate, for afterwards I learned their power.
They began the battle not by preparing weapons or bugles. Such preparation is hateful to them because of the God they carry around in their conscience. We call them atheists, but it seems that they have a God as their ruling power in their conscience. I say this because they threw themselves on the ground and prayed not only for me, but for the whole army as it stood, so that they might be delivered from the present thirst and famine. For five days we had gotten no water because there was none. We were in the heart of Germany and in the enemy's territory.
As soon as they threw themselves on the ground and began praying to Goda God of whom I am ignorantwater poured from heaven. On us it was most refreshing and cool, but upon the enemies of Rome it was a withering hail.
We also immediately recognized the presence of a God after their prayer, a God unconquerable and indestructible.
Because of this, then, let us pardon such as are Christians, lest they pray for and obtain such a weapon against us! And I counsel that no such person be accused by our courts only on the ground of being a Christian.
If anyone is found laying to the charge of a Christian that he is a Christian, I desire that it be made clear that he who is accused is a Christian. If he acknowledges that he is one and is accused of nothing else, then whoever arraigns him should be burned alive.
I also desire that whoever is entrusted with the government of the province shall not compel the Christian, who confesses and certifies such a matter, to retract.
These things should be confirmed by a decree of the Senate.
I command that this my edict be published in the Forum of Trajan in order that it may be read. The prefect Vitrasius Pollio will also see that it is transmitted to all the provinces round about.
I Don't Think So!
Two primary problems with this reasoning:
1) You imply that the government and it’s underlings will be protecting and supporting the homosexual agenda to the exclusion of all else, and
2) You are citing biblical andecdotes as evidence of an inevitable “Doom”. I’m not particularly religious, but I’m not exactly an athiest either. Whatever my — or your — personal feelings towards religion and it’s influence on culture growth, it must be reiterated that religion has no place in governance.
To support the ideals of one faith over any other would be unjust, and so no religious teaching should be considered in the creation of law. That was one of the founding principals of the American way.
The oaths to the Emperor as a god, were a pro-forma ceremony, consisting of throwing some insense on a fire—usually as a unit. Of course some would get away with mumbling “Jesus is Lord” (instead of the required “Ceasar is Lord”...where the “Jesus is Lord” phrase originated) under their breaths or staying silent...so yes, Christians were in the Roman army.
The Romans by pagan standards were not intolerant at all—as to a poly-theist, swearing to (yet) another god is no big deal. Of course to a monotheist Christian or Jew things were entirely different.
Most of the known Christian Roman soldiers (and certainly in Justin’s day) were new CONVERTS however, ex pagans—who often suffered severe persecution and even death, if their faith became known.
Since Christianity gained its biggest foothold in the lower classes—where most soldiers then (and now) came from—naturally lots of soldiers became Christians—coming out of paganism.
Noteably, John the Baptist when asked about it, didn’t require soldiers to resign before baptism—rather that they were not to extort civilians—and were to be content with their (low) pay. So Anabaptist pacifist Christians (like Mennonites or Quakers) are incorrect to identify a commitment to pacifism a requirement of the earliest Church—it was all about refusing to worship the Emperor that pushed Christians away from the Roman military.
Jefferson, the radical, was unusual, as he only called for castration of convicted homosexuals--instead of execution, which was colonial and state law (though very rarely resorted to).
Given the Founders--however personally religious any of them were or were not--ASSUMPTION of Christian ethics, this is a non-sensical statement: "To support the ideals of one faith over any other would be unjust, and so no religious teaching should be considered in the creation of law."
Every law has a moral underpinning, and morality & ethics by their very nature have religious assumptions as their basis. Religions contradict--hence laws WILL inevitably "support one faith over any other" (or do you support the execution of apostates--as the religion of Islam demands?)
The promoters of sodomy have a faith--ideals held without objective proof--that homosexual orientation and behavior is perfectly fine and normal--and is to be held up to be as honorable and dignified as marriage. That is a faith-based ideology--even if supposedly "secular," just as faith-based as anything in the Bible. The courts are now saying in essence that we must all believe and accept this, or else.
To oppose this idea--is the moral equivelent of racism and sexism--outright bigotry--in their eyes. As Scalia in his dissent said, Christians--and anyone who has a traditional understanding of marriage, are now understood as "enemies of the human race" who do not need any consideration or respect--THIS THE OFFICIAL WORD FROM THE US SUPREME COURT.
As I read it, the supreme court only ruled that each state must decide for itself whether-or-not to recognize gay marriage.
While I agree that colonial law certainly reflected religious morality, those laws were never meant to be static. Much as laws regarding slavery and racism changed over the centuries, the common attitude towards homosexuality these days is not so much “Kill it with fire!” as it is “Deny them certain rights and liberties!”. Even the most conservative elements in the country have grown out of their belief that anyone should be deprived of life for the crime of their birth.
As far as the sanctity of marriage goes... eh. It’s been a long while since marriage was an exclusively religious institution. Historically, the way that marriage law reflects Judeo-Christian ethics is simply a testiment to the inordinate sway that religion had over past nations.
Surely you don’t think that marriage is only as old as Judaism?
The books of Moses—some of the oldest, and certainly the best attested—writings from antiquity, teach that marriage between a man and a woman was directly instituted by God, at the very beginning of human existance.
EVERY culture and people on earth has recognized male/female marriage—though most allowed more than one wife (as due to war, there was often a shortage of men, and traditional societies have no social support structures but families.) Never have any of those societies—no matter how pagan, or even secular (in the case of the USSR, or China), recognized homosexual couplings as anything like marriage. Most pagan/polytheistic societies tolerated homosexual activity, along with adultery, incest and bestiality....which the Jewish scriptures—and therefore Christianity too, rejected as debased. In fact, the whole of Old Testament sexual ethics, can be understood as the mirror opposite of the Canaanite peoples who had lived in Palestine before the Jews—who were uniquely debased...as among them there were practically no sexual ethics at all.
Marriage has NEVER been an “exclusively religious institution” in that it always had special legal and social responsibilities & priveledges attached to it—which is why the libertarians are totally wrong in their idea that it should be privatized—as the definition of marriage includes by definition a publically, legally recognized union—much more than merely a private, religious commitment. Especially with big government and big business benefits—adding homosexual-partner benefits to that narrowing pot—effects everyone.
The secular side of marriage, is exactly why we Christians are so upset at one Justice telling us we’re all bigots if we don’t jump on the sodomy-based “marriage” bandwagon. Since marriage is public recognition...legal recognition of perverted-marriage means by definition—forcing religious people to violate their consciences in innumerable ways.
I for one will NEVER accept the legitimacy of perverted legal unions being called “marriage,” nor will I accept adoptions being done by such perverts, nor inheritance, nor the forced teaching in schools that homosexuality is lovely, nor benefits given by government or corporations rewarding such perversion (making everyone else contribute to it), nor forcing people to rent to, hire, or “marry” such individuals, who are freely CHOOSING to live immoral lives... nor the sodomizing of our military, nor the elevation of sexual perverts to cabinet level, congressional, or other high government positions of leadership.
Persons pursuing the homosexual lifestyle are moral-midgets—below the level of Bill Clinton’s adultery in diddling an intern...and really should be kept away from leading our country, to the same hot & hopeless place they in their immoral lives, are rushing to go.