Kim Davis: FLAWED Martyrdom. YEP!

Cal Thomas: Kim Davis' flawed martyrdom
BY CAL THOMAS

Let's get something straight. America has never been a "Christian nation." Those who believe otherwise have an obligation to say what part of our history was uniquely Christian. Was it when slavery was legal? How about when women were denied the vote? The Gilded Age? The Roaring '20s?

America is a nation in which Christians — and every other religious and nonreligious person — have the right to practice their beliefs in private and public free of government intrusion, except in some cases of life-threatening medical conditions in which the courts have occasionally intruded. It may make some evangelicals feel better to think that the country once reflected biblical principles, but despite generic quotations about "divine providence" that hark back to our founding, that's difficult to prove.

In the case of Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk jailed last week for refusing to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, this flawed notion of a once-pristine nation that reflected "biblical values" is again being tested, because we never seem to learn from the past. Davis has since been released by the same judge who jailed her with the caveat that she not interfere with her deputies as they issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The late Charles Colson wrote a book titled Kingdoms in Conflict. It was about what evangelicals call the Kingdom of God vs. the kingdom of this world. For most evangelicals, it appears, these kingdoms are headed in opposite directions toward different destinations. Attempts by conservative Christians to impose through politics and government the principles inherent in their kingdom have mostly failed. The reason is set out in their Scripture: "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14)

If you are part of God's Kingdom, which has sought in nearly every generation to impose itself on the other, answer these questions: If you are pro-life, have you ever tried to get a pro-choice, non-Christian to accept your position? If you believe in traditional marriage and practice it, does your example and argument that marriage should be reserved for "one man and one woman" persuade proponents of same-sex marriage?

I didn't think so. That leaves members of God's Kingdom with two options: Force their views on those who don't share them (which an objective observer might say failed during the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition days of the 1980s and the Prohibition era before that), or accept the biblical verdict for that other kingdom: "And this world is fading away, along with everything that people crave. But anyone who does what pleases God will live forever." (1 John 2:17 NLT)

And what, you might ask, pleases God the most? It is the sharing of His salvation message with members of that other kingdom, which has the additional benefit for those who accept it of changing their outlook on some of those very things most Christians believe. In other words, changed hearts are usually followed by changed minds.

Kim Davis chose the wrong issue for her "martyrdom." Amazingbible.org lists more than 600 sins mentioned in the Bible, including adultery, fornication, divorce and lying. If Davis wants to be consistent she would refuse a marriage license for anyone who has sinned, which would limit the number of applications to zero since "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)

Davis had four options: Issue the license, have someone else issue it, resign, or go to jail. She chose to go to jail, which, unlike Rosa Parks to whom she is being compared, makes her look more like a religious fanatic than a martyr. Removal of her name from the marriage licenses would be a good compromise.

Uncompromising evangelicals should not expect more from a kingdom they regard as heading in another direction.

Reach Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/09/4027949_cal-thomas-kim-daviss-flawed-martyrdom.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

Is The Catholic Church A Cult?!

Catholis, hear this: your #pope CANNOT forgive sins, ONLY God can. wake up sheepish #catholics. QUIT deceiving yourselves. and, QUIT shedding blood of INNOCENT unborn babies!! hell is for REAL, and neither your #popefrancis nor any other pope or priest will be able to save you from it, if you keep murdering babies!!! sheeesh.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/pope-francis-allow-absolution-abortion-155149794.html

Do You Want To Know Why I Am A Strong Supporter Of The National Rifle Association (NRA)? Ask Junior Marvin About "Police And Thieves"! #Reggae.

We Need To Quit This Charade And Legalize Marijuana. To Do So, We Have To Assure White Men In The Southern States Of America That Black Men And Other Minorities Will Not Smoke It And Want To Have Sex With White Women! Watch.

overtime:

QUIT BLAMING JEWS FOR MURDERING JESUS CHRIST. THEY DID NO SUCH THING.

Those who persecute Jews for crucifying our Lord Jesus Christ need to quit doing so and get a REAL life, for real!

Jesus was killed by The ancient Roman, Pontius Pilate, at the behest of SOME Pharisees and Scribes, chief among them, Caiaphas.

Also, Included in this group of malcontents are those in the angry mob who shouted "crucify Him" and "give us Barabbas"!!

So the most these Jews can be guilty of is being accessories to Jesus' murder, but not for His murder!!

And remember who attempted to evade all blame for the dastardly deed by washing his hands?

If ALL Jews are forever guilty of Jesus' death, then ALL White people, are guilty of the Holocaust and other killings, such as Emmitt Till and the Clvil Rights workers in Mississippi and all the lynchings of Black people, et cetera, et cetera and et cetera!!!

You get my drift?

Now what logical sense does that make, eh?

Well, NONE, I tell ya!!!!

SO THERE IS NO GOD!?

I HOPE THE FOOL WHO SAYS THERE IS NO GOD IS RIGHT, FOR THE FOOL'S SAKE, FOR WHAT IF THE FOOL IS WRONG AND THERE'S A GOD (NO BELLYACHING, PLEASE, OF COURSE, I KNOW THERE'S A GOD. I'M MAKING A POINT FROM THE FOOL'S VIEWPOINT)!?

WOULDN'T IT BE FUNNY TO BRING GOD TO LAUGHTER (I BELIEVE GOD CREATED US IN HIS OWN IMAGE. SO SINCE I'M FUNNY AND I LOVE TO LAUGH, THE GOD THAT CREATED ME MUST BE FUNNY AND LOVE TO LAUGH) WHEN THE FOOL GETS TO WHERE HE/SHE IS GOING AND GOD LAUGHING SAYS: "SINCE YOU BELIEVED IN YOUR HEART AND SOUL THAT THERE'S NO ME, I TOO BELIEVE THERE IS NO YOU"!!

"17th Amendment Doesn’t Need To Be Repealed".

17th Amendment doesn’t need to be repealed

Friday, November 19, 2010 11:19 AM CST

I am writing to commend the editorial writer for authoring the piece which appeared in the Daily News, Wednesday, titled: “Repealing the 17th Amendment simply a bad idea.”

With all respect due those who have advocated such a course of action, it sounds to me like a few politicians are jumping on the “repeal” bandwagon for what I suspect is born of mere political expediency, rather than abiding principles.

The principles which should instead abide these folks, as well as us, are those principles embodied in our sacred Constitution, including the attacked Bill of Rights’ 17th Amendment.

Repealing the 17th Amendment does nothing but deprive “We, the people” our God given right to be masters (and mistresses) of our own destiny, and to have the power to select those who we will permit to serve us.

And most important, such a repeal will give the power to the people who least deserve to wield it for us - our legislators, who constantly fail us by their self-serving schemes, and display for the world to see, how incompetent many of them truly are.

And add to that scenario their penchant for corrupt backroom dealing, and we have a recipe for disaster in the making.

Thus, the choice of senator, without the 17th Amendment, will most likely be made when favors have been traded, without due regard being given to the public welfare.

So count me as one who opposes repealing the 17th Amendment.

I say: Let “We, the people” decide our own fates.

Osi Onyekwuluje

Bowling Green

"The Right To Discriminate" --- Or Not!

The right to discriminate
By Walter E. Williams

Rand Paul of Kentucky, U.S. Senate hopeful, is caught up in a swirl of controversy in response to his comments on MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show." He has been dishonestly accused of saying he thinks that private businesses have a right to discriminate against black people. Here's a partial transcript of the pertinent question in the interview:

Maddow: "Do you think that a private business has a right to say, 'We don't serve black people'?" To which Paul answered, "I'm not, I'm not, I'm not in ... yeah ... I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form."

The "yeah" was spun in the media as "yes" to the question whether private businesses had a right to refuse service to black people. Paul had told Maddow that while he supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act in general, he thought that provisions banning private discrimination might have gone too far.

Democrats launched an attack on Paul accusing him of being a racist. Republicans criticized and in the words of Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, Paul's "philosophy is misplaced in these times." He added that Paul has a libertarian perspective and "(has) a very, very strong view about the limitation of government intrusion into the private sector."

Should people have the right to discriminate by race, sex, religion and other attributes? In a free society, I say yes. Let's look at it. When I was selecting a marriage partner, I systematically discriminated against white women, Asian women and women of other ethnicities that I found less preferable. The Nation of Islam discriminates against white members. The Aryan Brotherhood discriminates against having black members. The Ku Klux Klan discriminates against having Catholic and Jewish members. The NFL discriminates against hiring female quarterbacks. The NAACP National Board of Directors, at least according to the photo on their Web page, has no white members.

You say, Williams, that's different. It's not like public transportation, restaurants and hotel service in which Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act "prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment." While there are many places that serve the public, it doesn't change the fact that they are privately owned, and who is admitted, under what conditions, should be up to the owner.

If places of public accommodation were free to racially discriminate, how much racial discrimination would there be? In answering that question, we should acknowledge that just because a person is free to do something, it doesn't follow that he will find it in his interest to do so. An interesting example is found in an article by Dr. Jennifer Roback titled "The Political Economy of Segregation: The Case of Segregated Streetcars," in Journal of Economic History (1986). During the late 1800s, private streetcar companies in Augusta, Ga., Houston, Jacksonville, Mobile, Montgomery and Memphis were not segregated, but by the early 1900s, they were. Why? City ordinances forced them to segregate black and white passengers. Numerous Jim Crow laws ruled the day throughout the South mandating segregation in public accommodations.

When one sees a law on the books, he should suspect that the law is there because not everyone would voluntarily comply with the law's specifications. Extra-legal measures, that included violence, backed up Jim Crow laws. When white solidarity is confronted by the specter of higher profits by serving blacks, it's likely profits will win. Thus, Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights represented government countering government-backed Jim Crow laws.

One does not have to be a racist to recognize that the federal government has no constitutional authority to prohibit racial or any other kind of discrimination by private parties. Moreover, the true test of one's commitment to freedom of association doesn't come when he permits people to associate in ways he deems appropriate. It comes when he permits people to voluntarily associate in ways he deems offensive.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University, in Northern Virginia.

Editor's comment: Walter Williams makes excellent points in this piece. He, however, misses the VERY VALID point that it was OK for the Federal Government to use its authority under the Commerce Clause to control interstate commerce (yes, that is the appropriate Constitutional provision for the "accommodations" clause of the Civil Rights Act) in order to counter state governmental actions of jim crow laws.

NO ONE should be able to argue convincingly otherwise, because with jim crow laws forced on people by their state and local governments, the FREE market ceased to exist.