What's next in America? I ask the question because it's the logical question to ask. With the Supreme Court decision to give those desiring same-sex marriage equal protection under the law -- falsely based on a clause in the 14th Amendment which was originally adopted to give freed slaves equal protection under law -- what is next to gain constitutional protection at the hands of an activist majority on the Supreme Court?
When people suggested bigamy and polygamy could become protected under the Constitution using the rationale of the Supreme Court majority, people laughed; but it happened in Montana. A man applied for a marriage license to be legally married to two wives at the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings last week. He cites the Supreme Court's decision as his reason to seek to legitimize his views on marriage and family. And he is looking to sue to make polygamy legal.
People may laugh and scoff, but why not human and pet relationships? People already list their pets among significant others in obituaries. And why not incestuous relationships and adult-child relationships? Hey, they have been legitimized before in ancient cultures and kingdoms and there are already proponents arguing for legalization in America and European nations. If you don't believe me, look at the German Ethics Council's recommendation on incest, or look up NAMBLA if you can stomach even viewing such a site.
And, sadly, Bible-believing Christians can expect to lose their rights and protections under the law. I would be surprised if it doesn't soon happen that anyone who holds to Biblical views regarding marriage will be disqualified from eligibility to hold public office. Why? Because they cannot, in good conscience, support the new interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and might discriminate against those groups given new protections.
I've said this before and will say it again: Can we really expect anything else in a nation and culture which has outlawed God and the Bible from public schools and universities and teaches children, from little on, that they are the result of the evolution of species? If there is no God and the 10 Commandments have no validity as evolutionists teach, what basis is left for moral absolutes? The only basis of laws is the ever-changing views of society; and when society changes its views, anything can happen. And it will.
The Battle Flag Fiasco
Because of the Bible's teaching, I am strongly opposed to any form of racism. After all, God is the creator of all men and all our genealogies come together in Noah at the Genesis Flood and again at Creation. I also believe strongly that Christ died for all and that God desires all to be saved through faith in Jesus Christ -- yes, the Bible is absolutely clear on the issue.
If that's not enough, I could add that I was born in the Land of Lincoln and lived the majority of my life in states that once strongly supported the Union and were opposed to slavery.
With that said, I as a Christian and one who some might call a former Yankee, cannot understand the push for the removal of the Confederate Battle Flag from the public's view. Not only is this push an attack on the freedom of speech we all hold dear, it's just not consistent with the historical facts.
Truth be known, slavery began in America under the British flag and was pushed upon us by the British Crown (read Thomas Jefferson's drafts of the Declaration of Independence). After the colonies declared independence, slavery thrived and even enjoyed Constitutional protection under the Stars and Stripes for more than three-quarters of a century. Numerous American presidents held slaves -- even though many of them viewed it as a curse and evil which threatened our land with untold trouble (the death and devastation of the Civil War may have been God's judgment on both the North and the South for their participation in the evils and abuses associated with slavery).
Many who fought for the Confederate States of America -- probably the majority who actually fought -- were not slave owners. They took up arms to defend their newly-formed nation from the North, which did not accept their secession or acknowledge their rights under a newly-formed government. Abraham Lincoln, though personally strongly opposed to slavery, was willing to tolerate slavery to preserve the Union (read his letters). And General Robert E. Lee, who led the CSA into battle to defend his nation, had already freed his inherited slaves in the early days of the Civil War.
If the Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol which supported slavery and oppression, so are the British and American Flags (at least the pre-13th Amendment versions with less stars). These flew over slave owning colonies and slave states a lot longer than did any flag of the CSA. Yet, no one is calling these flags offensive and demanding they come down.
Perhaps we should also consider the flag flown from 1973 to present while nearly 58 million unborn American children were murdered under supposed Constitutional protections (that might even make the flag flown over Nazi Germany look a little less offensive). And, according to statistics, African American children are aborted at four times the rate of white children, making the Stars and Stripes a bit racist, too. Why is no one calling for it to come down? Perhaps they will.
According to Alveda King, Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety." She went on to say, "How can the 'Dream' survive if we murder the children? Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate."
So, if people are going to judge flags and look at the abuses committed under those standards to support immoral and ungodly activities, no flag is pure. If one should come down in disgrace, the others have no right to fly either.
Randy Moll is the managing editor of the Westside Eagle Observer. He may be contacted by email at [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Editorial on 07/08/2015