Posted on 09/05/2015 6:07:54 AM PDT by Diamond
Libs that opposed his confirmation because he's Jim Bunning's son are now ready to build statues of him, disgusting,
Any kind of “Nothing Doing” would be superior to even a North Carolina situation which says personnel may always opt out.
Here, you judicial whizzes have polluted marriage regulation so bad, that we just won’t DO it. We will let churches do it.
Nobody envisioned this kind of crisis, however. Something will have to give.
Powerful and eloquent piece! Thank God.
Basically, what too many "conservatives" are arguing is that whenever the job description of someone radically changes, whether it be defining marriage as now including the union of two or more of the same gender, or btwn humans and animals, or a issuing licenses to cut hair is expanded to include the whole head, or simply to affirm support of company policy of LGBT support, then all who have moral objections must be justly forced into immediate unemployment, with no recourse to be excused from being a party to such.
With the latter example becoming more and more likely, akin to what occurred here , then we can see that this is increasingly headed to being the equivalent of,
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. (Revelation 13:17)
Scoffers will dismiss such, but it was not too long ago that the idea of a city clerk being held without bail for refusing to validate homosexual marriage would have also been met with unbelief.
Very few are brave enough to do what Kim Davis is doing. Most would just take the easy way out.
Very few know what the LAW says! Most would just let pollsters define their lives for them.
Judge Bunning give the lie to the like of JP Mogan Chase's sham "tolerance" policies. We can see that they will use proxies to attempt to enforce their moral dyslexia at the point of a gun.
Kim Morgan has revealed that Judge Bunning or the Gaystapo are not interested in creating "an environment for open and honest dialogue” or of “offering up the opportunity for more inclusive conversations.” When they use the coercive power of the State they are not the least bit interested in, “explore your personal beliefs, use inclusive language, avoid making assumptions by asking conscientious questions, increase your awareness about issues impacting the gay community, include LGBT issues in your everyday life, attend events that celebrate diversity and inclusion, and speak out against hurtful comments.”
Another illuminating aspect of the piece to me is Wilson's reference to Calvin’s doctrine of the lesser magistrates (Institutes 4.20.22-32), (which he urges as relevant reading material) He says,
"And as Calvin points out, after Daniel — a Babylonian official — disobeyed the king’s impious edict, he denied that he had wronged the king in any way (Dan. 6:22-23)
I quote the relevant section here:
32. But in that obedience which we hold to be due to the commands of rulers, we must always make the exception, nay, must be particularly careful that it is not incompatible with obedience to Him to whose will the wishes of all kings should be subject, to whose decrees their commands must yield, to whose majesty their sceptres must bow. And, indeed, how preposterous were it, in pleasing men, to incur the offence of Him for whose sake you obey men! The Lord, therefore, is King of kings. When he opens his sacred mouth, he alone is to be heard, instead of all and above all. We are subject to the men who rule over us, but subject only in the Lord. If they command anything against Him let us not pay the least regard to it, nor be moved by all the dignity which they possess as magistrates—a dignity to which no injury is done when it is subordinated to the special and truly supreme power of God. On this ground Daniel denies that he had sinned in any respect against the king when he refused to obey his impious decree (Dan. 6:22), because the king had exceeded his limits, and not only been injurious to men, but, by raising his horn against God, had virtually abrogated his own power.On the other hand, the Israelites are condemned for having too readily obeyed the impious edict of the king. For, when Jeroboam made the golden calf, they forsook the temple of God, and, in submissiveness to him, revolted to new superstitions (1 Kings 12:28). With the same facility posterity had bowed before the decrees of their kings. For this they are severely upbraided by the Prophet (Hosea 5:11). So far is the praise of modesty from being due to that pretence by which flattering courtiers cloak themselves, and deceive the simple, when they deny the lawfulness of declining anything imposed by their kings, as if the Lord had resigned his own rights to mortals by appointing them to rule over their fellows, or as if earthly power were diminished when it is subjected to its author, before whom even the principalities of heaven tremble as suppliants. I know the imminent peril to which subjects expose themselves by this firmness, kings being most indignant when they are contemned. As Solomon says, “The wrath of a king is as messengers of death” (Prov. 16:14). But since Peter, one of heaven’s heralds, has published 2676 the edict, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29), let us console ourselves with the thought, that we are rendering the obedience which the Lord requires, when we endure anything rather than turn aside from piety. And that our courage may not fail, Paul stimulates us by the additional consideration (1 Cor. 7:23), that we were redeemed by Christ at the great price which our redemption cost him, in order that we might not yield a slavish obedience to the depraved wishes of men, far less do homage to their impiety.
John Calvin - Institutes 4.20.35
Kim Bunning has done no harm to the law. In fact, she has upheld it, as she is upholding her sworn oath. Does Judge Bunning expect her to retract her sworn oath to uphold the Kentucky Constitution? How far this government has fallen. from its foundation on Biblical principles on the proper role of the magistrate and the purpose and function of the law.
Cordially,
True, and too many are knee-jerk reaction headline reader types.
Indeed. What if a company required employees to "increase your awareness about issues impacting the evangelical community, include Christian issues in your everyday life, attend events that celebrate the racial scope and inclusion of the church, and speak out against hurtful comments against them."
"Boss, the ACLU is on the phone."
On the other hand, the Israelites are condemned for having too readily obeyed the impious edict of the king. For, when Jeroboam made the golden calf, they forsook the temple of God, and, in submissiveness to him, revolted to new superstitions (1 Kings 12:28)
Well, according to "its the law; do your job" ethos, when your job description changes from making pottery to making idols, then are to just submit or quit. One should quit if transfer is not possible or some deliverance from doing that, but not some are against her even seeking that. Do your elected job they say.
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.