Unless we turn around this trend, the First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion are headed for the door in America.
Liberals have for some time been pushing for the United States, the world leader in freedom, to be like other nations. We would therefore be wise to stay abreast of developments in other nations that threaten freedom and religious values.
For instance, WorldNetDaily reports Brazil may be about to approve a law that could land you in jail simply for offending a homosexual. The bill is in the Brazilian senate now, after being unanimously approved by the House:
If anyone prevents actions of "homosexual affection" in public or private locations open to the public, they could face up to five years in prison for doing so, the Association of the Defense of Life reports.
The bill also seeks to penalize private and public school administrators with up to three years in prison if they refuse to hire openly "gay" teachers.
According to the CNA, the measure will force prison time for any "moral, ethical, philosophical or psychological expression that questions homosexual practices."
Jail time for Americans who offend homosexuals has already been advocated by some, and there is a growing list of incidents across the country where Christians are being harassed for their refusal to celebrate and accommodate this immoral and unhealthy sexual practice.
Our neighbor to the north, Canada, is already well advanced down this road of government-enforced acceptance of homosexuality.
The latest example in America to make the headlines comes from WorldNetDaily about a woman who works as a counselor for a Centers for Disease Control contractor.
A lesbian came to her for help in pursuing a homosexual relationship, and since the counselor was a Christian who understood this to be wrong, the counselor referred the woman to another counselor who had no such moral reservations.
Not good enough.
The action has been brought by the Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of Marcia Walden, who was fired from her position with a contractor for the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta because her religious beliefs conflicted with the homosexual's goal of rebuilding a same-sex relationship and she reassigned the client to another counselor.
"A woman shouldn't lose her job for merely upholding the highest professional standards," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum. "It is unconstitutional to punish Walden for following her Christian faith, particularly when she made every effort to accommodate the needs of a potential client. Referring her to another competent counselor instead of attempting to offer her own counsel in such a situation was the ethical thing to do for the person seeking help. It's egregious to be fired for honoring professional and ethical obligations."
I don't know if I could have in good conscience gone as far as Walden did. To me, it would be like being a doctor with a patient who wants affirmation for their smoking or drinking habit. Could I in good conscience refer them to a doctor who would tell them that this behavior was healthy and good for them? Or would I be facilitating their continuation of a dangerous behavior by referring them to a professional who will encourage them to continue destroying their lives?
However, it apparently was not enough that her counseling needs were addressed, because the lesbian complained about Walden, alleging the Christian counselor was "homophobic."
The lesbian, who was counseled by Walden's colleague, Ken Cook, told Walden's supervisor, Gordon Hughes, Walden should not be employed because of her beliefs and asked to file a formal complaint against her.
Walden was placed on unpaid suspension over this nearly a year ago.
This is another illustration that for homosexual activists, the whole public issue of homosexuality isn't about mere tolerance. They demand and will settle for nothing less than complete and total normalization, legitimization and celebration of their sexual behavior.
Our culture has lost its collective mind.
13 comments:
While I do not believe this therapist should have been fired for sticking to her principles, I think your reaction is a little unjustified. Christ warned his followers that they would be persecuted and hated by the world. So rather than complaining, you should be rejoicing that he's stayed true to his promise!
I think you missed the point, Alex. :-)
Surely you don't believe that Christ was saying his followers SHOULD be persecuted and hated.
But I don't think they should act surprised.
You might have a point, there. However, after nearly 200 years of Americans understanding the moral foundations of our society, the hostility toward Christianity of the past few is still a little disconcerting--especially for a nation that specifically recognizes religious freedom.
What's far more disconcerting to me is when Christians use the Bible to justify their hostility toward others.
That bothers me, too. Fortunately there aren't many of those around anymore. :-)
Oh they're still common, if you know where to look.
"We invaded Afghanistan because the murderous thugs running the place gave aid and harbor to other terrorists, including bin Laden, the man behind the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent American civilians. The Bible says in Genesis 9:6 that when someone wrongfully takes human life (i.e. murder), their life will be required of them by human government. So in invading Afghanistan after they refused to turn over the terrorists, we carried out the pro-life edict of Genesis 9:6 which upholds the sanctity of human life by punishing those who wrongfully take it with the strongest possible punishment." Your own words, on 7/10/08
Now I guess you'll backpedal and explain how you think retaliation doesn't count as hostility, and how commands like Genesis 9:6 are magically exempt from your rule that the Old Testament laws have been done away with.
You've heard of justice, right? Obviously so, since you referenced Genesis 9:6 (which predates the Mosaic Law or Old Covenant, applies to all of humanity and has never been rescinded). They shed innocent blood, so by men was their blood shed.
The Bible also says that human government has been delegated authority by God to punish evildoers, to administer justice and to protect citizens. We were attacked by terrorists who had trained and were harbored by this nation (itself ruled by thugs hardly better than the terrorists who attacked us), and since they refused to turn them over, the United States government had not only a right but a responsibility to take them out and bring them to justice. Otherwise, it would have only been a matter of time until they hit us again...as they did repeatedly during the Clinton administration.
The Bible doesn't condemn "hostility" or the taking of human life in pursuit of justice or the protection of innocent people, only murder, which is the wrongful taking of innocent human life. Someone who murders has forfeited their own life, and someone who presents a serious threat to innocent human life must be met with whatever force is required to protect the innocent. This is the kind of thing cops are sometimes called upon to do in the line of duty.
See, no magic necessary. Just a little knowledge of the Bible and some exegesis.
Yes it is wonderful we live in a nation with religious freedom. Which means freedom FROM religion as well.
In other words, separation of church and state.
Also, one religion means no more than another. Muslims, Buddhists and any other religion are all equal in the USA.
Since we are constitutionally guaranteed freedom from religion it can not be imposed on others.
You have every right to practice whatever religion you wish.
But you do not have to right to force others to accept your belief of such.
Religion is not required for morality and is not the single source of such.
Two questions, Tom.
1. In what way was this counselor forcing others to accept her beliefs?
2. If religion is not required for morality, then what is the basis for secular morality, and is it reliable?
Two questions, Tom.
1. In what way was this counselor forcing others to accept her beliefs?
2. If religion is not required for morality, then what is the basis for secular morality, and is it reliable?
Bob,
Your explanation wasn't even necessary. All I said was that it's troubling how many Christians use the Bible to justify hostility toward others, and you've proven my point that you are one of them.
I'd ask you what you mean, but I don't think we need to go through that exercise, because we both know that while you think my Biblically-based disapproval of homosexuality is "hostility," it isn't, any more than my disapproval of my children fighting or lying is "hostility" toward them.
Post a Comment