There are many viewpoints, in fact arguments people
offer in an attempt to justify the permissiveness of our society today, such as the “woman’s right to choose” or what has more recently been relabeled "a woman's reproductive rights". A tireless effort to retain the
so determined legal validity of abortion, fought for more intently than our right to practice our faith even according to the constitution which supposedly provides us our freedom of speech. In reality, our permissiveness has become a quest in
this country to justify and legalize immorality in general for nothing more
than individual conveniences to a point of perverting the American culture that before this period thrived as one nation under God - but no more. IT IS NOT AND NEVER WAS within the scope of our
Government’s authority to determine what moral values may be dispensed with
or at what age a human life has no value beyond that which God determines and instills within each of us. The principles of God and morality were our foundation as a nation.When the foundation of any structure is removed, the structure weakens and will collapse.
Morality is not limited
only to those who do believe in God. But we are going to pass beyond
all the arguments and opinions and view points of the “most intelligent minds”
of our day, our supreme court justices for example, and speak the truth of it all regardless of who’s "side" anyone might
be on. I have to ask, do we not realize that a mentality of a society that denies the humanity of a preborn infant would certainly spawn the same mentality that raises children who commit mass murder of their classmates, or adults who commit mass murder on the most innocent children in their classrooms? Acceptance of legalized mass murder in the killing of millions of preborn children due most commonly to carelessness and the lack of self respect and self control can not breed healthy relationships, respect for life or respect for self let alone generate any kind of Christian love the majority of this society claims as a foundation of their faith. How many of us reelected a president who has refused to support the legalization of required medical intervention for infants born alive after a failed abortion determining it was better to leave them to die?
The time has long past...
for a reexamination of the principles and beliefs that formed the foundation of theseUnited States of America . We do not
exclude our political representatives who may personally claim to believe in
Christianity or God our Father and Creator. Yes, we must question our stand
today on the very beliefs and principles of our forefathers. In fact there no
longer is a stand. This is about the separation from God and systematic
replacement of morality for extreme liberalism for conveniences at virtually any
cost. Those men who wrote and believed in the rights of “man”: the rights of
citizens of this country.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
Our political representatives and our judicial system have
assumed the authority and right to define what is acceptable morally
through the institution of law merely for what is convenient; Abortion, same sex marriage, etc., etc. - Yes, as our representatives they are attacking recognition of God in any public forum as much as possible. On our behalf, they pursue the complete removal of
any audible or visual expressions of prayer to our Lord, God, in schools and
government buildings to a degree that it is against the “law”, an infringement
on others rights to practice their faith if such expressions may be realized by another person, but who are these "others"? approximately 2.2% of
the world population denies the existence of God and approximately 80 percent of Americans claim to be Christian. The separation of church and
government was a large part of the premise behind this movement but it was
intentionally distorted in its true objective in order to accomplish this. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either very ill informed or deceitful in their argument.
In the founding of our country, this separation was meant only
to keep government from adopting one faith and forcing that faith on all
citizens as it was in England
before our independence. It was never meant to eliminate God from our founding
principles. Before our independence, William Penn requested land from the King
of England with the personal intention to provide a place where people of different
beliefs could practice their faith without interference. This land was later
named Pennsylvania .
Our Governing body continues working diligently to eliminate
the words “In God We Trust” from our currency. We are, in a growing number of
our states, supporting the legalization of “same sex” marriages, which is in
itself contradictory to science, nature and moral principles of this
institution not to mention Scripture. And we accept barbaric means to pursue
stem cell research. Many institutions including commercial businesses will not
allow employees to say the Words “Merry Christmas” as a greeting but take full
advantage of this event to commercialize and profit from it. Yet it still
represents the Celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ on a world wide level
whether some like it or not. And on it goes as if the time will never come that
we will have to answer for the transgressions of the society we created.
“… whoever eats the bread or drinks the
cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the
Lord.” (1 Corinthians 11; 27)
Underlying all of this, we must remember one person has but one soul and their is no separation that enables the soul to reach salvation while the body defies the will of God.
for a reexamination of the principles and beliefs that formed the foundation of these
Let us look at the Declaration of Independence rationally
and in good judgment. The following is an excerpt from that document that all
men including those of various races and heritage have called upon in seeking
recognition of their equality:
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
"When in the Course of human events it becomes
necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected
them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and
equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a
decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the
causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (God being the creator) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life (Life being the first unalienable right), Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (God being the creator) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life (Life being the first unalienable right), Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Now notice our forefathers who founded and established the
principles of our country referred to these principles as “truths” and as “self-evident”
meaning obvious and without question. Also notice they did not say, endowed by
God, but in fact went further and referred to God as our “Creator”. And what is
the very first “right” specifically, stated? Is it not the unalienable right to
life? “Unalienable” in this reference as in rights bestowed by God not to be
alienated from them or dissected in part or selectively taken away from any human being.
Within the last 50 years through to today at the hands of
those of government and most recently and profoundly our president, events have historically
recorded our establishment and endorsement of laws providing our acceptance for
numerous immoral and in some cases perverted practices not limited to the
acceptance of no-fault divorce, same sex-marriage and casual abortion. These in
themselves are the virtual destruction of the covenant of marriage, family and
procreation.
What is abortion?
Simply and truthfully it is the selective elimination of the most vulnerable of
human life under the legal elements of murder. For convenience rather than the assuming
of responsibility, we choose to brutally and sadistically take the life of a
healthy fetus which realistically we know is a human being while arguing at what point
one becomes “human” technically; as though we can determine when God would find
it acceptable for us to terminate at leisure. Now, Considering our forefathers
believed in God as our Creator as well as the charity, humility and morality
taught in Scripture, let us consider what God has to say;
“Thus says the LORD, Your redeemer, who formed you from the
womb: I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens;
when I spread out the earth, who was with me?” (Isaiah Ch 44: 24)
“…For your own lifeblood, too, I will demand an
accounting: from every animal I will demand it, and from man in regard to his
fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life.” (Genesis CH 9: 5)
“Behold, children are a gift of the LORD, The fruit of the
womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of
one's youth.” (Psalms 127)
President Obama suggested the legalization of casual abortions was supportive to each
person’s dignity yet where is the dignity in carelessness or promiscuity which leads to
the majority of these unwanted pregnancies… Where is the dignity in pregnancy outside of a marital
relationship, and where in all earth is there dignity in the aborting or murder
of human life or even supporting such practices? How does one justify such an
accepted practice that now often results in multiple abortions as a form of
birth control itself in place of abstaining or even a reasonable effort of
self-control through self-respect? Isn’t the protection of human life
historically recorded as part of our culture as well as an
expression of one’s belief in God? Where also is dignity in the methods of
abortion now sanctioned by the passing of laws by our most recent president?
And we as the voting body elected these “representatives”. We have abandoned our own principles and God Himself for the
convenience of irresponsibility.
The works of many past and present political representatives
have served to support and promote materialism and greed while eroding the
principles of God and what this country was founded upon. In many cases our
government itself is governed by the most commercially influential Industries,
not by the people for the people. We claim to be knowledgeable of our religious
beliefs and in God but it is not evident nor do our beliefs reflect acceptance
of what God teaches or desires of man. What respect can we demand when we
promote marriage of the same sexes while approving the murder of new human life
in the womb?
Finally, to those representatives who have and continue to
support such bills and claim to be Christians, to be Christian one must believe
and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and in so doing accept through living
it, His word as it is proclaimed in the Gospels. Those who promote the idea
that this country should recognize God and morality as an interference with
democracy and then attend Church and seek to receive the Body and Blood of
Jesus should consider the following;
The time has come for all Christians to recognize the
responsibilities of their calling and reunite, living their lives once again
according to our Heavenly Father and our Lord, Jesus Christ, supporting the
return of morality to this nation before we are left to the consequences of our choices.
There is no argument, no opinion, and no viewpoint… Only truth. Yet above all, God accepts those who seek to return to Him with a repentant heart.
Why men rape women is a question that people throughout the world would like to know the answer to. According to psychologists, rape is caused by some psychological illness within the offender. Sociologists, however, believe that rapists are relatively normal people and do not have psychological problems. Sociologists view rape in a couple different ways. Some believe that rape is due to an expression of gender inequality while some sociologists believe that rape is attributed to permissiveness, sexually, within society.
ReplyDeletePsychologists and others within the field of psychology strongly believe that those who rape are either emotionally disturbed or have personality defects. They do not believe that rapists are 'insane', but believe that rapists have problems that impair them in relationships when under stress through sexual violence. Some other psychologists believe that rape is caused by a sexual addiction. The average psychologists will state that a rapist is a man who had childhood experiences that were relatively difficult to deal with and now they cannot relate to women in a successful manner which ultimately is a defect called sexual inadequacy. This theory however, only applies to very few cases of rape.
According to some sociologists, it is sexual permissiveness that causes rape. In societies that are more sexually permissive, men take rejection from women personally which results in severe frustration which forces them to rape women. Other sociologists refer to the feminist theory of gender inequality when discussing rape. Feminists believe that men rape women as an expression of male dominance over women, which is a result of society's long time sexual inequality. Therefore rape is used to intimidate women and to keep them in their 'place'. There certainly is evidence of this theory. Throughout the world, it is clear that majority of recorded rapes involve men as the rapist. Men also are usually more powerful physically, politically, and economically than women. This would prove that rape truly is an expression of power and dominance over women.
I believe that both the psychological and sociological perspectives regarding rape can be proven correct depending upon the individual rapist. I believe that some rapists truly do have psychological problems while other rapists feel a need to dominate women or feel sexually frustrated as a result of rejection. Regardless of the cause of rape, I don't think that there is any excuse for invading another person's body and individual space without proper consent. As far as most rape cases are concerned, I believe that both sociological explanations of sexual permissiveness and gender inequality provide the best explanation equally.
Published by Jennifer McGrath