Hutterites Take Rare Political Stand Against Gay Marriage

I could never respect Amish folk and other traditional Christians if they were to lose their distinctiveness and cave in to worldly politics. They have survived pretty unchanged for quite some time. I like it that way. There's something really cool about communities with non-negotiable moral and behavioral standards.

Voting gives you the opportunity to keep your non-negotiable moral and behavioral standards. Voting does not make you lose your distinctiveness and cause you cave into worldly politics. Apparently these folks are finally getting that message. Too bad their country had to go so far down the road AWAY from their moral and behavioral standards to get them to act.

"Voting gives you the opportunity to keep your non-negotiable moral and behavioral standards."

Clinton didn't outlaw the Amish or force them to drive cars. They are free to be who they are and live peacefully in their own communities regardless. They are *plain* people, and plain people don't involve themselves with the filthy world of politics. Voting won't prevent immoral behavior of those around them either. I believe that in God's eyes, gay marriage is not a greater sin than the act of sodomy itself. It's also a violation of their denomination to participate in worldy matters. Let's say they vote, then they decide to participate in war. Pretty soon you end up with Baptists and your religious convictions are no longer..... then there's no point to having these communities because they then become non-distinct from other denominations... The Amish and groups like them are unchanged, traditional reminders of America before she fell into the sewer. Look around you at the Shakers and modern Mennonites. Many don't live in their own self-sustaining communities anymore and their strictness has waned as they have become more "progressive" and joined the "world." You see Shaker women around here who have only one or two children, are overweight and buying onion rings at the local market. They used to make their own food, and raise large families of Christian children. Some of their kids go to public schools, and what will they learn there? It's a slippery slope and not worth a couple more votes.

The reason I hold the opinion that I do is based on my own detailed genealogical research. Those who left the Mennonite communities ended up being fully assimilated into the corrupt culture around them within 2 generations. It all began with one man who decided to don a military uniform, leave the farm and marry a non-Mennonite woman. Had he not done that, I would probably live in a Mennonite community somewhere and I certainly wouldn't have ever smoked or drank. His great grandson (who moved to California) has the distinction of being the first in a centuries-old Swiss-German Mennonite line to cheat on and leave his wife of 20 years with for 17 year old who had his child out of wedlock. His brothers were notorius cheaters too, and alcoholics. When in a controlled environment, people frown on you if you so much as look lustfully at a young girl or even think of trading her in for a younger model. So it's not voting by itself, rather, taking a step OUT of the community, which leads to another step and another. Soon, your kids end up wearing nose rings and listening to gangsta rap. Please, do some genealogical research. The rogues you will find come shortly AFTER leaving the farm.

I am all for these folks keeping to their traditions and not going down that slippery slope. I RESPECT their pacifism and unwillingness to get politically involved. Even if they leaned toward independent voting, I still would prefer they stay the way they are. God Bless them for obeying Jesus.

"The widow and the orphan, the weak before the strong."

This is what if like in these communities. When you leave the communities, the government then becomes the protector of the widows and the weak.

"A person able to protect them must. That means politics."

I respectfully disagree. The community protects its people, not the government. Only if these folks are being directly persecuted should they do anything political. Non-worldlies actually went to court over the issue of the draft. In their case, it was about stopping the government from reaching into their communities and forcing their politics on the brethren, rather than trying to prevent outsiders from doing something that didn't affect them on their land.

"It is the selfish that avoid politics completely, leaving the widow, the orphan, the weak as prey."

How do you know they won't then vote for democrats? I believe the selfish look to government rest homes to care for their elderly, instead of traditionals caring for their own at home.

However, the Mennonite Church of Canada has said it will accept the change as long as the legislation allows religious groups to decide for themselves whether they will wed same-sex couples.

In the future, the Mennonites (and every one else who thinks they have some measure of protection) won't be able to say they haven't been warned. Former Justice Minister Martin Cauchon is on the record as saying in his August 18, 2003 address to the Canadian Bar Association 'As you're well aware, a draft bill on marriage will be sent to Parliament for a free vote, once the Supreme Court provides an opinion on its constitutionality.' Well, we know there is nothing free about the upcoming vote so I'd say we have the ex-Minister on record as lying (or at least he has been over-ruled) so that should be anybody's clue that none of Liberals's platitudes about this can be trusted.

Regarding the act itself, it includes in the preamble and the body, a declaration that 'it is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.' However, our current Justice Minister Irwin Cotler has admitted the declaration is just that, and not a protection itself. In fact he went on to say, "it clearly points to the protection that the Supreme Court of Canada already said exists within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms". This may sound good to some but as Janet Epp-Buckingham, of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has pointed out, "The Supreme Court of Canada said very clearly that the federal government had no authority or jurisdiction to protect religious freedoms, so it may be written in the bill, but it's outside the federal government jurisdiction. They may say it's there in black and white, but the Supreme Court of Canada opinion is there in black and white too."

As Conservative MP and justice critic Vic Toews (Provencher) says, there are many examples where increasingly, 'equality rights trump religious freedoms' in Canada. For example, you have the case of the Knights of Columbus group in British Columbia being sued for refusing to rent their hall for a lesbian wedding reception in 2003, and a multi-denominational youth camp in Manitoba being sued for denying use of the facility to a gay choir 'whose object is to promote homosexuality'. Toews said a Presbyterian church official e-mailed him February 1, 2005 to say the church does not want to offer marriage preparation courses to homosexual couples. "Now they're saying we're too frightened to put on the course because we're going to be brought up in front of the human rights commission. "Why we're saying Mr. Cotler's bill is so misleading and so dangerous is that he makes broad statements about religious protections but in fact grants none," said Toews.

The bottom line is that the guarantees won't be worth the paper they're written on.

Your reasoning for Anabaptists voting is well-reasoned, but in concert with my posts in response, I'd like you to read the link below so that you'll understand my position better.

http://www.anabaptistchurch.org/The%20Differences%20between%20Evangelical%20Protestants%20and%20Anabaptists.htm

In essence, the doctrinal differences Anabaptists have constitute their uniqueness and differences with Baptists. The article warns of allowing Baptist theology to change theirs. Baptists in the past persecuted Anabaptists for those differences. So, if they start voting, especially in elections where such votes contribute to state-sponsored violence\ (whether justified or not) they have violated the tenets of their religion and beleif system. I think the old issues between Baptists and Anabaptists are merely resurfacing, with a different face on them.
I respect those Anabaptists who choose to vote and get politically involved, but they should understand that this is their first step outside of their denomination and off their farms and honorable way of life.

I understand what you are saying. But just since x42 didn't outlaw their way of life doesn't mean that the next liberal won't do so. So, if they start voting, especially in elections where such votes contribute to state-sponsored violence\ (whether justified or not) they have violated the tenets of their religion and beleif system.

I would say that in the case of this that by not voting (especially for something that would protect their country from moral decay) they are voting. They are allowing others to make the laws. They are abdicating a positive position to a negative one. I don't know enough about their specific beliefs to say if they would be violating their tenets of belief.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.