One of the big issues being debated today is marriage, specifically the desire of homosexual community to be able to enter the same arrangement. The institution of marriage is defined as: “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.” The homosexual community wants to change this definition based on discrimination and perhaps a desire to feel accepted. However, marriage has always been defined as an institution between man and women.
Marriage and its definition are also sacred to many religious communities. They see that its definition can never be changed, because its very foundation is the basis for the genesis of a family, procreation, and the rearing of children. The attempt by the homosexual community to hijack the definition and change it, will always be challenged by the religious community, because the religious community disagrees not only with homosexuality as a practice, but also the attempt to change marriage’s definition is seen as an outside attack upon their beliefs.
I do not understand homosexuality, plain and simple. I know the Bible speaks against it, but I also live under a government today that accepts its practice. We are a government that tries to not dictate religious views.
I am empathetic to the homosexual community with regards to the state. If the state says homosexuality if not against the law, then perhaps the state should make provisions for what they have created.
Also, consider two spinsters that live together for several years. They have pooled their resources, bought a house together, and maintain a tight financial interdependence. Whether they are engaging in sex or not, it doesn’t matter. They are in their own right a family unit. The same is true with homosexual couples. Given that the state has said “it’s OK”, then the state needs to create similar contracts and tax mechanisms for homosexual couples.
However, the homosexual community has an obligation to create its own social institutional name for their type of relationship and not hijack the heterosexual community’s term: marriage. Doing so is an attempt to impose their will on the heterosexual community.
I challenge the homosexual community to create their own term for their relationship. It’s not hard and in fact very much respectful to those who don’t believe the way they do. Continuing to try and make the term marriage apply to both heterosexual arrangements and homosexual ones can only be seen by the heterosexual community as attempt to dictate the homosexual community’s view upon their lives, their institutions, and their religion.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Thoughts from “Expelled”, The Scientist, Religion, and the State
I recently watched the movie “Expelled”. This movie is about systematic removal of teaching alternative views to evolution from public schools. Ben Stein presents a good case. Preaching evolution in government institutions goes beyond political correctness, science, and our first amendment.
The present day governmental line is that we cannot teach other forms of human origins other than evolution, because it would violate the constitution. The government would then be adopting a religious stance.
However, the constitutional framers were believers of a deity, but were careful not to cater to one denomination or faith. Things like “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness….” should be a clue. I reference that famous quote from the Declaration of Independence not because it shows our forefathers were creationists, but rather they were believers in God.
What has changed is the “separation of church and state” argument (which by the way is not in the constitution, but rather an evolved interpretation that has recently been twisted by those who are atheists). The removal of a concept of God from our learning institutions has in fact forced the government to violate our first amendment right by adopting a very specific state religion, atheism.
Here is my proof.
Scientist and author, Richard Dawkins, was one of the scientists offering an opposing view (pro-evolution) in the movie “Expelled”. He is a professed atheist. His approach to God is that you cannot prove God exists. His conclusion therefore is that God doesn’t exist. I have a problem with this biased way of scientific logic. The scientist must always be agnostic when approaching the concept of God. If one cannot offer proof to a hypothesis, it simply means that the proof may not be measurable at that time or an experiment has yet to be devised to offer proof. So, to say that there is no God actually takes faith, faith that no experiment or data can be produced that God exists.
I ask Mr. Dawkins and all atheists. Show me proof there is no God. They can’t. As a deist and scientist one cannot make the logic mistake the atheists do by claiming the antithesis to their conclusion using the same data; since you cannot prove God doesn’t exist, then God exists.
Therefore, when examining the debate of the existence of God and more specifically the application of Dawkin's logic, atheism and theism both require faith (some would argue in that the deist usually expresses that they have had some sort of encounter with God providing them with personal proof).
We should be asking our government; why have you violated the first amendment by adopting atheism as the state religion and expunging the concept of God from our institutions? Don’t the first amendment words cry out this present day constitutional violation, "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"?
By removing creation (or maybe more generally panspermia) from the classroom as other hypotheses as to our origin, the state violates the first part of the first amendment by establishing atheism (or minimally advocating it). They violate the following amendment statement by prohibiting through law the "free exercise thereof" by refusing to allow the deist the freedom of debate.
The present day governmental line is that we cannot teach other forms of human origins other than evolution, because it would violate the constitution. The government would then be adopting a religious stance.
However, the constitutional framers were believers of a deity, but were careful not to cater to one denomination or faith. Things like “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness….” should be a clue. I reference that famous quote from the Declaration of Independence not because it shows our forefathers were creationists, but rather they were believers in God.
What has changed is the “separation of church and state” argument (which by the way is not in the constitution, but rather an evolved interpretation that has recently been twisted by those who are atheists). The removal of a concept of God from our learning institutions has in fact forced the government to violate our first amendment right by adopting a very specific state religion, atheism.
Here is my proof.
Scientist and author, Richard Dawkins, was one of the scientists offering an opposing view (pro-evolution) in the movie “Expelled”. He is a professed atheist. His approach to God is that you cannot prove God exists. His conclusion therefore is that God doesn’t exist. I have a problem with this biased way of scientific logic. The scientist must always be agnostic when approaching the concept of God. If one cannot offer proof to a hypothesis, it simply means that the proof may not be measurable at that time or an experiment has yet to be devised to offer proof. So, to say that there is no God actually takes faith, faith that no experiment or data can be produced that God exists.
I ask Mr. Dawkins and all atheists. Show me proof there is no God. They can’t. As a deist and scientist one cannot make the logic mistake the atheists do by claiming the antithesis to their conclusion using the same data; since you cannot prove God doesn’t exist, then God exists.
Therefore, when examining the debate of the existence of God and more specifically the application of Dawkin's logic, atheism and theism both require faith (some would argue in that the deist usually expresses that they have had some sort of encounter with God providing them with personal proof).
We should be asking our government; why have you violated the first amendment by adopting atheism as the state religion and expunging the concept of God from our institutions? Don’t the first amendment words cry out this present day constitutional violation, "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"?
By removing creation (or maybe more generally panspermia) from the classroom as other hypotheses as to our origin, the state violates the first part of the first amendment by establishing atheism (or minimally advocating it). They violate the following amendment statement by prohibiting through law the "free exercise thereof" by refusing to allow the deist the freedom of debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
