Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Stop blaming Christians for Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act: How the Taliban is imposing their doctrine on Hoosiers

The recent signing of 2015 Indiana Senate Bill 101, the so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act [RFRA], by Governor Mike Pence has erupted into a controversy which has gained worldwide attention. Proponents argue that it was in response to a 1997 US Supreme Court decision [en1] which nullified a similarly named law from being applied to the states and that the timing of Indiana’s RFRA immediately following the nullification of Indiana Code 31-11-1-1, [en2] which banned same sex marriage, was coincidental. Opponents of the law argue that the purpose of the RFRA is to allow for discrimination by government and private enterprise against the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning [LGBTQ] community and freethinkers, or those expressing freedom of conscience which they base upon the decision striking down Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriage. Christians have been taking the brunt of the condemnation and demonization for this broadly worded law which elevates the religious community to a privileged class and allows homosexuals to be targeted for discrimination. I think the denouement which settles blame upon Christians is misplaced based upon biblical teachings ascribed to Jesus of Nazareth.

The Bible commands Christians to love their neighbors as they would themselves.[en3] In the Sermon on the Plain Jesus is said to have embodied the basis of Christianity in saying that his followers should not take the easy route which is to requite every act, but to instead have mercy and “condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned.” His disciples were not to return favour for favour and just talk the good talk or return kindness to others but to walk-the-walk and be kind regardless. In short, he said to not behave hypocritically. Jesus wanted his followers to behave in a loving and accepting way rather than being judgmental and erecting walls of division. That is, treat others as you would wish to be treated.[en4] Additionally, Christianity holds that man was made in the image of god. Although man is said to be made from the dust this image of god is not a corporeal reference. Rather it is man as a spiritual being insofar as he has a soul and consciousness. Man has a likeness with god mentally, morally, and socially. It is the essence of some members of mankind to seek companionship or sexual gratification in members of the same sex just as the androgynous or homosexual side which god evinces would seek. Consequently Christians, whether they be, sports fans, epicureans, or frequent drug users, embrace homosexuals for their peculiarities as all individually represent a portion of the image of god.[en5]

It is clear from the Bible itself that Christians, the followers of the word of Jesus, do not condemn homosexuals. Equally clear is that the purpose of RFRA is to grant special status to the pious at the expense of secular society and. more particularly, homosexuals. “Christians,” as explained herein, cannot be the source motivating such a law intended to statutorily drive barriers between neighbors. There is additional evidence that Christians find no objections to persons who exercise their god-given freedom of choice in sexual partners even if they are unable to naturally reproduce by doing so. It is found in medical miracles.

Christians find no harm in homosexuality as their god condones and facilitates it. Who has not heard “Christians” praise their lord god for the miracles that he has bestowed upon them; The miracle of life; The wisdom and skills given to surgeons that perform life saving procedures; and the science that does not conflict with god but is a blessing from him? Christians are grateful for the technology that allows would be Christian mothers and fathers, who cannot conceive naturally, to be blessed with a child following technology assisted fertilization. We have certainly heard them thank the lord for the miracles facilitated through science. They consequently are also grateful for those technologies, along with donors, which allow their homosexual neighbors to also be blessed with children. Christians are thankful to god that committed same gender partners may also experience being able to provide a loving home to one of god’s children. Blame against these benevolent and accepting people is misplaced.

Our condemnation should not be levelled against such a loving people who endorse the longheld Sumerian polytheism concept of respecting their Babylonian neighbors while worshipping the god of their tribe as opposed to the subsequent Jewish cult which proclaimed themselves to be the chosen people of a god who would smite all others. While Jesus attempted to turn back to the Sumerian mythology upon which Judaism was founded and away from the nomadic, tribal practices of favourtism and nepotism that Judaism evolved into, it was the Muslims who would later resurect the Jewish supremacy doctrine. While Jesus promoted acceptance and love for others, however different they may be, it is the Muslim cult upon which is based the antithesis that their clan and practices are superior and must pervade through democratic process or force of violence.

So, instead of Christians it is the Taliban who our ire should be levied against for they seek to impose Sharia law, a theocracy that relegates the members of secular society to second class. As for homosexuals who are loved by their neighboring Christians, the Taliban would have them put to death.[en6] It therefore cannot be “Christians,” the “Radical Right,” or “TEAvangelicals” that can claim or be blamed for the statutory provision that would relegate rationals, freethinkers, people of conscience, and homosexuals to second class status and subject them to discrimination. The logical explanation for Indiana’s RFRA, which has received worldwide condemnation, is that the Taliban has secured an undue influence over the Indiana General Assembly and is attempting to create a theocracy based upon Sharia law.

[1] City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507,117 S. Ct. 2157,138 L. Ed. 2d 624 (U.S. 1997)
[2] Baskin v Bogan
[3] And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. Mark 12:31
[4] Luke 6:17-49; Matthew 7:1-3
[5] Genesis 1:26, Genesis 2:7
[6] http://www.rawa.org/execute.htm

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Make a suggestion for me to write about.

Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.

Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.

View Stuart Showalter's profile on LinkedIn

Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required
©2008, 2015 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.


No comments: