?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Journal of No. 118


November 20th, 2009

Battle Lines Drawn @ 10:54 pm


"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our
institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any
other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat
them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and
immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But
under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.
"
 
Share  |  Flag |

Comments

 
[User Picture Icon]
From:shad_0
Date:November 21st, 2009 07:43 pm (UTC)

Re: Caesar

(Link)
I think my favorite part must be where they blame homosexual marriages for the higher rates of illegitimate children and divorces.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rsheslin
Date:November 22nd, 2009 12:56 am (UTC)

Re: Caesar

(Link)
Actually, I didn't read it that way. To me, it seemed that they were saying that the problem was modern society's lack of respect for the Fundamental Nature/Purpose/Whatever of Marriage, and that higher rates of illegitimate children, divorces, and the movement to legitimize homosexual marriage were all symptoms of that lack of respect. The purpose of that part of the declaration -- again, as I read it -- was to hold up an ideal of returning back to the Sacred View of Marriage As Divine and Holy, and that legalizing homosexual marriages would be yet another step in the wrong direction.

(As you know me, I am assuming that it is not necessary for me to state my personal opinion of this assertion.)
[User Picture Icon]
From:shad_0
Date:November 23rd, 2009 07:48 am (UTC)

Re: Caesar

(Link)
Hmmph. My interpretation was more fun.
[User Picture Icon]
From:notjenschiz
Date:November 21st, 2009 09:58 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I don't have a problem with any of that, as long as they keep it in their churches. I find it amusing that corporal punishment was not included explicitly in their list of "anti-life acts."

I sympathize with the problem of using public money funding activities you find wrong. For some people, seeing tax dollars go to war is morally reprehensible. For others, watching their money pay for abortions must be horrible. I'm guessing, in fact, that most people can pick out a thing or two they believe is not only a waste of money, but a terribly directed misuse. I don't know what to do about it, though. Keep voting? Keep rallying? We all agreed to live by the rules, right?
[User Picture Icon]
From:essentialsaltes
Date:November 21st, 2009 11:08 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I sympathize with the problem of using public money funding activities you find wrong.

Yes, which is why their complaint about 'religious freedom' is so ironic. They're complaining that they can't simultaneously suck off the government tit and discriminate against certain kinds of people in employment or services.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rsheslin
Date:November 22nd, 2009 12:57 am (UTC)
(Link)
I like how you sum that up.

Journal of No. 118