By Nathan Barton
A recent article in Reason Magazine Online is headlined, “Christians Started the Wedding Wars.” The article, overall, is actually pretty good in addressing the way that Tranzis, especially associated with the Democrat Party and proud to be “Progressives” and “Liberals” (neo-Liberals), are trying to suppress freedom of speech and expression in the name of the “rights” of various groups (in this particular case homosexuals who want to “marry”) to be accommodated and affirmed in their beliefs and practices.
And rightly, Reason and Stephanie Slade (the author) compare this to the FedGov war against the LDS in the last half of the 19th Century and beginning of the 20th; the Morrill Act and other crimes against “Mormons” (members of the LDS church). And (mostly) her history is accurate.
But where she is wrong is to blame “Christians” (here I use her upper-case version, which is not something I agree with, but a separate issue) for either starting or prosecuting the “marriage” wars now being waged regarding whether or not marriage can include same-sex couples, polyamorous groups, human-animal or human-machine “unions” and so forth.
As the discussion in the article itself points out, the initiative and the actions in this series of incidents over a half-century, applauded though they may have been by “Christians,” were NOT started by, nor done by people acting as “Christians” but as agents of government – as representatives of the States and the people of the States.
And indeed, I argue that those agents, representatives, and even those private citizens – the clergy and religious organizations and everyday people (members of these churches and such) who demanded that something be done about the evil practice of polygamy by Latter-day Saints were not christians in any meaningful way.
Those who are true followers of Jesus Christ do NOT use the government, or advocate the use of government and military force to act against people of other religions. We do have an example of Paul getting government assistance to protect himself from those of another religion who wanted to kill him, but we have no example in the Bible, or for the first several hundred years, of those who claimed to be christian, demanding that government pass laws and take actions against those who practiced things which they believed either to be sinful or damaging to society.
It is obvious that those in DC, Vermont, and elsewhere, who banned the practice of polygamy, stole properties from the LDS church, imprisoned those who committed polygamy were (despite their claims otherwise) NOT christians as defined by the Bible, and usually not even by their various religious affiliations. (Though those various groups – not even the Roman Catholic Church – have any authority to “define” what a christian is; just what a member of their particular group may be.)
And, if not by their actions (or rejection of actions) against the members of the LDS church, then by their actions as “representatives” of the people and agents (as those who have executive authority) of the people, the states, or the FedGov. Lincoln, who signed the Morrill Act outlawing polygamy (and in effect, the entire Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints), is a well-known warmonger who has a long list of crimes against him. Those who enacted this and other laws, and then enforced them, and the judges who denied basic human freedoms and liberties, virtually all CLAIMED to be Christians.
But as Jesus Himself said, “by their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matthew 7:20). And He also said, (a couple of verses earlier (Matthew 7:18), “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.”
Government is not, and was not, “a good tree,” as demonstrated by its bad fruit. And even the “good fruit” that it seems to produce (that people claim it produces) is in fact bad to at least some degree. What are we to do with bad trees? In the same passage He tells us, “Every three that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
Can it be any clearer?
Reason – don’t blame false “Christians” for the marriage wars – and many other evils: lay it at the feet of the government(s) that claim to act on the behalf of those so-called religious folks as they pander and abuse.
Enough is enough.
Mama’s Note: As always, it is the lust to control others and their property at the bottom of all this, no matter which god they claim is giving them the “authority” to do so.
It is the lack of integrity, self responsibility and self control in far too much of the population that allows these power lust driven people to assume “leadership,” and ultimately enables them to inflict the eventual destruction of all. The current political insanity all over the world is clear proof.
We do live in “interesting times.”
The Price of Liberty 
Frankly I do not care what anyone does in the privacy of their bedroom. Nor do I care what someone calls their relationship with their same sex partner or their cat or dog or neighbor or vacuum cleaner. Nor do I care if some old guy calling himself a member of the LDS marries 12 women. God bless him. It is not for me. But where I draw the line is when three of those women are 13 years old. Under anarchy, who is it that would protect those girls from that old lech and from their parents all of whom thought the arrangement perfectly natural?
LikeLike
Who decides which relationships are “natural,” which chronological age is proper for relationships? It has to be the people involved, imperfect as it absolutely will be. It doesn’t matter in the least what you or I approve of, or are willing to tolerate in other people’s lives… Each individual, their family and committed community must decide these things for themselves, regulate them however they wish, and live with the consequences. It is truly nobody else’s business, however painful that may be to those who continue to desire control over others.
What is it about a relationship involving a girl 13 (or any chronological age) that calls for some heavy handed outside “protection?” If their families can’t or won’t protect them, and they can’t or won’t defend themselves, there really isn’t much you or I can do about it. Oh, you might offer to adopt the young girl, but you’ll likely be told to mind your own business.
And have you done any recent research into the current non-voluntary government “protection” available? Take a special look into the horrors of CPS and the foster care systems all over the country. They simply do not… and CAN not actually protect anyone, but inflict a world of harm on both the young folks and their families to a very great extent. That’s not because everyone in the system is somehow evil and wants harm done to others, but the structure of the system gives special power to those few truly evil ones, and almost zero in the way of countermeasures. The system is built on force, fraud and false “authority.” There is no way to fix it except to totally eliminate it.
Utopia is not an option, and especially not with government “protection.”
LikeLike
Mama, What is it about a forced relationship between an adult and a 13 year old girl who had no say in the matter, that does not call out for intervention by someone? Parents in many parts of the world today (and in the early days of the LDS), sell their daughters off for many reasons. It is not a question of can’t or won’t defend. No 13 year old girl can defend herself against an adult male. And if her parents willingly sold her, they are not going to defend her and risk whatever they got out of the deal.
So my question is still – who is it under anarchy or self government that will protect that girl from being sold into slavery? Because if there is one girl anywhere, or boy or adult for that matter, that lives in a condition of slavery, aren’t we being hypocrites when we shout individual freedom?
LikeLike
I answered that specifically, Dave. The “someone” to intervene is first, the family and friends, the committed community, if the individual cannot protect him/herself. The non-voluntary government is not even capable of defending such a person to start with, and has no legitimate authority to do so in any case. And it is interesting that you bring “slavery” into the discussion. The non-voluntary government has created the terrible situation in which most people believe in the “authority” of the government to control their lives and steal their productivity. They are, in every essence, all slaves to that non-voluntary state in that case. Why does that seem perfectly OK to so many people, even if they gripe about some of it?
And I beg to differ with you on the idea that a 13 year old can’t defend herself against an adult male. Of course they can! It is only our dear non-voluntary government that has decreed they must remain helpless… unarmed. I guarantee you that a girl who is trained and armed would not easily be such a victim. They have been RENDERED so, by those who falsely claim to protect them. And yes, of course, self defense involves a great many other things as well… none of which are taught to children these days. Hand them an electronic gadget and let them roam all over the place without a thought in their heads instead. But that’s a very large subject for another time.
There are far more evils in this world than the involuntary living conditions of certain 13 year old individuals… How about looking at the larger picture here? 🙂
LikeLike
(This is in response to your 9:28am comments because there was no reply button after it.)
My heart is with you. But I am having a difficult time getting my head around your argument. So let’s change the parameters a little. What if the girl in question was 10? What if she was 9? How about 5? And what if your committed community of family and friends tell me to mind my own business? Who helps her?
I understand your argument that each of us are slaves to the state. I have been preaching that for years. But this young person would be a slave in a very different way. And no – neither ways are OK!
I am not a bleeding heart liberal. I do not want to solve all evils by Big Brothers hand. But you seem to say that the living conditions of the young “individual” in the case above is small potatoes compared to the “larger” picture. I say that unless all individual rights are protected, no individual rights are protected.
So how do we do that?
The larger picture will become clear as the snapshot is explained.
LikeLike
I’ve explained exactly how that child, or any other, can be protected. Twice. The age of the child is irrelevant.
What part of it don’t you understand? I guess you simply want to justify a non-voluntary government to supposedly take care of it. The fact that no government can or will actually protect anyone or their “rights” – and has no legitimate authority to do so – seems to escape you. The only person who can protect individual rights is the individual and their VOLUNTARY associations. And how they go about it is simply none of your business, nor mine.
LikeLike
Mama, Forgive me if I made you angry. That was not my intent. I am not advocating government involvement. I am anti government in every way. I understood your explanations but they were a little more general than I wanted. I was looking for a “devil in the details” explanation of whose business it is to protect this young child when it cannot protect itself and its “voluntary associations” refuse to protect it.
I’ve enjoyed this discussion. I hope we can talk again.
LikeLike
I was not angry, just a bit frustrated Dave. There simply is no good answer to these things. Sometimes, probably a great many times, it is simply not possible to protect the children, or the elderly, or the disabled, or anyone else – especially if they cannot or will not help themselves. Who’s business is it to save them? Their own/family/voluntary community, as I said before. I don’t always find that satisfactory either, but 70 years of experience leaves me with no better answer.
LikeLike
Please note, that “marriage licenses” were an invention of the Fed. Gov. It conveyed tax privileges, property rights, and status to couples. George Washington did not have a marriage certificate with Martha. They did what Christians had done for a thousand years. They were united in marriage, before God and their families, friends, and neighbors. After this religious ceremony; the only kind that there was, they were “married”. God only recognizes marriage between one woman and one man. All of the other screwy ideas came after marriage became a “civil ceremony”. Before that, men had concubines-and that is a long, long way from marriage; or they participated in “abominations” (homosexuality or whores). We are so far from reality these days.
LikeLike
Big problem with all of that, rally… none of your business who marries whom, or how. Or anything else people choose to do that doesn’t involve force or fraud against others. That is the reality of life. You don’t get to choose for anyone else.
LikeLike
Those who are true followers of Jesus Christ do NOT use the government, or advocate the use of government and military force to act against people of other religions.
Amen.
LikeLike
They do not use force of any kind (except self defense) against anyone else, not just those of other religions. But I’m sure you and Nathan meant that… 🙂
LikeLike
Yes, against any one else… except for that REALLY annoying person bumping the back of my pew through the entire sermon. Seriously, neither use nor advocated the use of force of any kind against anyone, except in self-defense and defense of others.
LikeLike
Dave, as Mama Liberty said early on, “utopia is not an option.” There is ALWAYS going to be a cute (or ugly) five- or ten- or thirteen-year-old girl (or boy) who has the sad situation of parents who not just don’t care but are evil, or communities (whether they are religious congregations or voluntary mutual-aid associations or clans) who either don’t care or don’t see what is happening or WANT that evil thing to happen. Every child abused or enslaved or killed is a tragedy. It is a tragedy for any HUMAN to be abused or enslaved or killed (without justification – but even when we have to put them down like a dog because they attacked us – it is still a tragedy).
But we are human, and we cannot have a perfect society in this life. It is fine to say that if one person is enslaved then nobody really has freedom – great stirring words to rouse the masses and twang the heart-strings!
But here is the problem: there will ALWAYS be cracks to fall through. There will always be evil people who are hypocritical and sneaky and willing to do hideous things to innocents. There is no action that people can do or accept – individually or in groups, voluntarily or by force – that will keep that from happening. The best we can do is to try and prevent it from happening as much as possible, and to take action when it DOES happen to ensure that at least THAT perp is not going to do it again – and that it does not happen to that individual victim again. And provide as much liberty as we can to those who might be victims, to let them defend themselves when nobody else does.
And we come to the crux of the question: human government has demonstrated time and time again, for millennia, that it is not only unable to prevent or protect these children (and other victims), but it is LESS able to do so than alternatives (including what you brand as anarchy – something other than a mandatory human government with an effective monopoly on the use of force). Worse, government (or its members: leaders, troops, police, bureaucrats, acting “under color of law or authority” or hiding in its bosom) is often the perpetrator, and even MORE often, the enabler of such evil people and their evil acts. And still worse, as Mama pointed out, government takes away the ability (at least, the tools and opportunity for learning how) of individuals and families and communities to defend themselves. And finally, government seeks to manipulate people’s thoughts in ways that make such evil acts acceptable and even to require them to endorse and enable and subsidize those actions and those who practice them. To the point of punishing or killing those not brainwashed into acceptance and affirmation.
LikeLike
There was SUPPOSED to be a “” (word grin in brackets) at the end of my statement about the person bumping the back of my pew – but somehow it got lopped off. Really. I’ve never shot or hit or even snarled at anyone for doing that. Honest.
LikeLike