St. Louis CofCC Blog Recriprocates

I’m glad the webmaster of the St. Louis Council of Conservative Citizens used the word reciprocity when posting that I made it onto his blogroll, because otherwise I wouldn’t have thought of it, and this post’s title would have to have been, “St. Louis CofCC Blog Adds Me to Their Blogroll Because I Added Them to My Blogroll.” 🙂

His idea for a better blog name, “Confederate Yankee,” would have been a much better name than my current “For the Crown Rights” [of Jesus Christ] … but as he said, some neo-con (why must they make our lives so miserable?) got to it first.

Since commenting’s disabled on their blog, this is my only way of saying thank you to the SLCofCC blogmeister. Thank you! 🙂

Published in: on October 30, 2006 at 2:00 am  Comments (1)  

Absolute Truth versus Moral Relativism

Blogger Brett Keller recently posted a video of an interview of Richard Dawkins, the flagbearer of the New Atheism movement.  My comments prompted a small, decidedly civil debate not as much about atheism but instead about moral relativism versus moral absolutism, or absolute truth.

Most important, I think, to the debate was this exchange:

We have a right to life because we created it, acknowledged it, and enforced it. We are living creatures who are conscious of our own existences and cling to it, and in interacting with others realize that our fellow man shares such longings.

And in a very real sense, rights do evolve. Over time we have increased our rights beyond the mere right to life: to speak & express oneself freely, to protect oneself, and to be treated equally regardless of wealth, gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. Over time we may secure additional rights which are rooted in our common desires; to not freeze for lack of shelter, starve for lack of food, or suffer for lack of health care, all in the midst of plenty.

That’s Mr. Keller’s view on the origin of rights.  My view:

You say that we have a right to life because “we created it.” When did we create it? Are we like God; did we create the right to life in the beginning of the universe? Now, if we merely created the right to life at a certain point in time, doesn’t that mean that everyone who lived before 1776 did not have a right to life? No, we didn’t create the right to life. Only God can endow such unalienable features of mankind — we merely discovered after years of harsh living that God had given us the right to life from the very beginning. Your evolutionary view of the progress of man holds that we are in a continual state of creation, constantly creating new rights for ourselves (or taking them away, which we do just as much if not more), while my absolutist view of progress holds that we are constantly discovering God’s Truth.

This is summed up more concisely by my last sentence:

Again, it’s not absolute truth or rights that evolve — it’s [our] understanding of the rights and laws already given to us.

Following moral absolutes, we know that no matter where we are in history or in the future, it will always be wrong to steal, murder, adulterate, etc.  Following moral relativism, however, what was immoral hundreds of years ago, like adultery, isn’t immoral today since everyone’s doing it (no pun intended).

Published in: on October 29, 2006 at 3:31 pm  Comments (1)  

Gay marriage: Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have it right

Blogger jesterballz recently posted a piece about his pro-gay marriage views entitled “Gay Marriage: Why do straight people care?“.  I found the post unconvincing, so I commented a response in the form of a letter. As a long letter, I think it would be appropriate to replicate here:

Dear jesterballz,

It is clear that you have never been exposed to a true Christian. There are no neoconservative Christians. (Neoconservatives are people like Bush, Cheney, and just about anyone else who supports their regime.)

Your research into the opposite side has proven insufficient, due first to your fallacious reasoning against it, and due second to your having researched in the wrong place.

Your arguments are fallacious because they contain two prejudices, prejudices which allowed me to determine that you’ve never met (or seen) a Christian:

1. Your assertion that I hate gays and don’t want them saved. Why wouldn’t I want to help a homosexual repent of his sin and go to Heaven with me? Who are you to accuse me of hate? If Jesus were to hate anything, which He does not, then He would hate hate.

2. Your assertion that I am afraid of being gay. Have you met me? Do you know for sure that I am afraid of being gay? Where’s your proof? How is this mere prejudicial remark a valid argument for gay marriage?

Is it not hypocritical to write a post that attempts to refute prejudiced people, when in fact your post is just as prejudiced?

Now, there is only one completely valid, irrefutable reason not to allow gay marriage, and this argument is recyclable for many other issues: God did not grant civil government jurisdiction over marriage. Legislation should neither legalize nor illegalize gay marriage, as all such legislation is void in the eyes of God.

Since the State has no jurisdiction over the affairs of marriage, it does not have a right to give heterosexual couples special benefits any more than it does to give homosexual couples special marriage benefits. If you want to get married to a woman, grab a minister, two witnesses, and a Bible and go into a Church and get married. If you want to get married to a man, grab two witnesses and a “minister” and do what the heterosexual couples do (the reading, the tears, the ring, the Man may now kiss the Other Man, etc.). This marriage will not be valid before God, but if you’re gay, do you care?

I advise all couples, heterosexual and homosexual, not to let the State act as a god and make marriage a government institution. Such leads to the tyranny that manifests the Democrats and Republicans’ agendas, creating the marriage debate that we have today.

The Crown Rights Patriot

For more commentary on not letting the State act as a god in affairs of marriage, please read:

Published in: on October 27, 2006 at 8:35 pm  Comments (1)  

New Jersey Court Fallaciously Arrogates Power to Endow Rights

The New Jersey courts just released their 4-3 decision that same-sex couples who have gotten “married” have the same rights as real couples.

The State has no business interfering in matters of marriage.  Marriage is between the bride, the groom, and God.  The ridiculous, unconstitutional healthcare benefits that come with marriage should simply be abolished.  In such an ideal world, the gay marriage debate wouldn’t matter because no one would be after the welfare of the State.

Also, the courts do not make law.  They have no right to tell same-sex “couples” that they any certain rights.  Rights come from God.

Published in: on October 25, 2006 at 9:03 pm  Leave a Comment