Monday, April 21, 2008

Kidnapped by the government - Vox Day

Kidnapped by government

Posted: April 21, 20081:00 am Eastern© 2008

Given that Mormon readers will probably recall my past references to a former candidate for the White House as Capt. Underoos, it's not exactly a secret that I harbor little respect for Joseph Smith's little cult. While all of the Latter Day Saints I've ever met have been fine, upstanding individuals, I nevertheless tend to view "The Book of Mormon" as being, for all intents and purposes, the literary and religious equivalent of L. Ron Hubbard's "Battlefield Earth."

But despite my admitted lack of sympathy for Mormonism, not since the Waco massacre have I been so completely appalled by an American government action. The recent kidnapping of 416 children from their Fundamentalist LDS parents by Texas Child Protective Service agents is a unconscionable abnegation of not only the United States and Texas constitutions, but a rejection of the very meaning of what it is to be an American. For as P.J. O'Rourke rightly declares: "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please."

Contrary to what a disturbing percentage of the voting population appears to believe, "protecting the children" is not a legitimate function of government. The concept appears nowhere in any constitution, and the very idea that the most lethal institution in human history, an institution that has killed more children than any other, can even be used to protect children is inherently oxymoronic. The state does not own the children whose families happen to reside within its boundaries and it does not possess the right to dictate what is and what is not a proper way for a family to raise its children.

Consider this absurd justification for the mass kidnappings offered by Angie Voss, the CPS kidnapper in chief, offered as an explanation for the mysterious preference of the abused women to remain with their supposed abusers instead of availing themselves of government shelters: "This population of women has a difficult time making decisions on their own." If a distaste for decision-making is legitimate grounds for removing children from their mothers, then there won't be a woman in America left with a child to call her own! For what man has not had a conversation that went like this:

"Where do you want to eat?"
"I don't care. ... You decide."
"OK, let's go to that new Chinese place."
"No, I don't want Chinese!"
"Well, what do you want, then?"
"I don't know, whatever you want."

Sound the sirens, send in Ms. Voss and her Sturmtruppen, and seize those at-risk kids!

The disingenuous bigotry of CPS' action is perhaps best revealed by comparing the pregnancy rates of the supposedly abused teenage girls at the FLDS compound with the rest of the teenage Texan population. Voss stated that five of the 416 children were pregnant or had given birth; assuming that half of the 416 are female, that is a pregnancy rate of 24 per 1,000. The Texas pregnancy rate among women 15 to 19 is 101 per 1,000. It's also worth noting that the "numerous" pregnant 13-year-olds hypothesized by one government worker mysteriously transformed into five "under 18s" when Voss testified.

If the family lives of hundreds of American citizens living peacefully can be brutally invaded and destroyed on the basis of a single anonymous phone call that, as WND has reported, increasingly looks to have been a fraud, then every American family is at risk.

How you raise your children is between you and God alone. It is not a matter for the state or anyone else; it never has been. As this mass kidnapping of FLDS children and incredible violation of due process will almost surely demonstrate over time, government is a ruthless and power-maddened institution that is the very last one capable of serving the interests of the children. No conservative and no religious individual should support this outrageous action, even if adult members of the FLDS community are found to have violated Texas law as well as Texas social norms, because to accept this terrible precedent is to guarantee that future violations of family rights will be committed.

And as history has shown, the next time it may not be some weird and heretical Mormons in the government's gun sights, but Jews, homeschoolers or evangelical Christians.

20 comments:

Doorman-Priest said...

....or homosexuals.

Joseph A. said...

"....or homosexuals."


I doubt it.

Doorman-Priest said...

Why?

Are they not another marginalised group whose rights get trampled on?

Roland said...

DP,
To some homosexuals are worse than those in a cult.
After all, if you looked at one as a person, then how could you hate them?
God loves...
hmmm...
does He love everybody?
I'm sure someone will tell me I'm wrong and that all doesn't mean all, just like someone trying to redefine the word is.
*sigh*

Now that I've said that, homosexuality doesn't seem like the best choice, but that is something that the person needs to figure out for him/her self.
I personally can't condone it.
But then again, I don't condone some of the things I do either.
Therefore, we are both guilty of sin and need help.

Am I standing on both sides of the line now? ;)

Doorman-Priest said...

I've never believed it to be a choice. It is one end of the sexuality continuum.

But this post isn't really about the gay issue. I was merely suggesting that when government steps in and tramples over basic human rights where does it stop? Who may be next?

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


Pastor Martin Niemöller

Roland said...

Understood, DP.
But since you had brought it up...
;)
And if homosexuality isn't a choice, what is it?

WayneDawg said...

"And if homosexuality isn't a choice, what is it?"

It's a choice like every other sin we choose to commit

Doorman-Priest said...

Homosexuality isn't a sin. It is a state of being as is heterosexuality. You don't choose your sexuality any more than you choose the colour of your skin. What you do about your sexuality, straight or gay is the issue. Are you promiscuous? Do you exploit others or treat them as objects for your own sexual gratification?

Sexual morality is for all, it is not just a gay issue which is why I have never understood why some Christians get their knickers in a twist about it and contribute to the marginalisation and demonisation of a group within society.

What did Jesus say about throwing the first stone?

Talk sensibly and debate sexual morality all you like. Fantastic. Stop demonising gays: they aren't the problem any more than straights are. For every critical comment about inappropriate homosexual acts there are a dozen for inappropriate heterosexual acts.

God does not condemn you for WHO YOU ARE - "We are all one in Christ, there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, Slave nor free." We should take the spirit of that teaching and add in, black nor white, straight nor gay, able bodied nor disabled etc. God condemns you for WHAT YOU DO.

WayneDawg said...

DP –

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

I absolutely see homosexuality as a sin; so does the Scriptures. Is sexual morality for all? Yes, of course it is. But if casting a stone is pointing out a blatant open act of sin, sin, then I am casting. Do you have a problem with me pointing out all heterosexual adulterers as adulterers? Do you have a problem with me pointing out all thieves as thieves? Or, how about pointing out all blasphemers as blasphemers…..

Here is a scenario for you:

I have two friends; neither which are Christians.

One friend decides to cheat on his wife and has an adulterous affair with another woman. This encounter happens only one time. After a while his conscience bothers him and he goes home one evening and tells his wife about the affair. After a lot of yelling by the wife she shuns him for a couple weeks. He does all he can do to show remorse and has been continually repenting for his actions. One night she decides to have one more conversation about the affair. He begs her, he pleads with her to stay and give their marriage another shot. The tears are running down his face as he lowers his head. There’s nothing more he can do…his fate is in her hands. She decides to take him back…forgive him unconditionally. He never even looks at another woman for the rest of their lives and they go on to have a much fulfilled marriage.

My second friend decides to have a sexual encounter with another male. Unlike my first friend, my second friend decides to stay in this relationship. My second friend moves in with the other man and they live together in a continual state of homosexuality. After a while the relationship breaks apart and my second friend is now going to all the homosexual bars and is continually engaging in homosexual acts.

What is the big difference between my two friends ‘sin’ wise?

Both of my friends will die and go to Hell if they die in their sins. Apart from repentance and trusting in Christ, they will both spend eternity in torment.

The Bible says that fornicators and homosexuals will not enter the Kingdom of God in 1 Cor. 6:9.

However….if both my friends repent (turn from their sins) and put their trust in Christ, He will save them from their sins and they can enter the Kingdom.

By the way – if one is not born-again and saved from the wrath of God…..God certainly does condemn you!!! John 3:18-21 - “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

WayneDawg said...

"But if casting a stone is pointing out a blatant open act of sin, sin, then I am casting."

That should have read....

But if casting a stone is pointing out a blatant open act of sin, then I am casting."

Joseph A. said...

Roland, as usual, you make blanket statements and plug assumptions into what other people say. I would like to ask kindly of you to please not do so. Please?

Okay, let's resolve the "issue" a bit here. This is not my opinion, this is truth: the bible condemns homosexuality. Let's look at what it says.

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible. It goes against the created order of God. He created Adam and then made a woman. This is what God has ordained and it is what is right. Unlike other sins, homosexuality has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: They are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins (Romans 1:18ff). As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance and trusting in Jesus. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.

What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual?

Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross, repented of, and never done again.
As a Christian, you should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same you would any other person in sin. The homosexual is still made in the image of God -- even though he is in grave sin. Therefore, you should show him same dignity as anyone else you come in contact with. However, this does not mean that you are to approve of their sin. Don't compromise your witness for a socially acceptable opinion that is void of godliness.

Doorman-Priest said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Doorman-Priest said...

You're doing it again. You are confusing sexuality with behaviour.

Homosexuality per se is not condemned. How could it be? It is no more sinful than being black. Both are beyond our control. You are talking about a state of being when you mean to talk about sexual behaviour.

You mean the act not the condition.

By your account a gay man who repents would cease to be gay.

As if!

He would simply be a penitent gay man. He's still gay.

WayneDawg said...

"Homosexuality per se is not condemned."

My friend - That could not be more wrong! Just by looking at the Scriptures Joseph provided we can see that your statement is false.

Homosexuality is a choice; just like every other sin we choose to commit.

"By your account a gay man who repents would cease to be gay."

If a person, any person, repents and puts thier trust in Christ, God will change them from the inside out. 2 Cor 5:17 - 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

We choose to sin...whether it's homosexuality, lying, stealing, committing adultery, blaspheme the Lords name, etc; it's a choice!

We are all born with a sin nature and the act of homosexuality is another sin in a long line of sins.

Doorman-Priest said...

No!

We chose to sin, Yes. We don't choose to be straight or Gay, that is God's doing. Sexuality is not about choice, it is about what God made us to be. Are you saying God designates a sexuality to some who he then condemns for his own act?

I wouldn't worship such a God.

The condemnations against homosexuality are condemnation against sexual behaviour not against the very core of a person's being.

No one chooses to be gay any more than they choose to be Dutch.

Who would deliberately chose to be gay against the prevailing social, cultural and religious norms? You would have to be a very perverse person indeed.

We are all made in the image of God and my sexuality is as fallen as the next man's. If the next man happens to be gay his sexuality is no more fallen than mine.

The O.T. condemnations are about behaviour, not about being. Behaviour is a choice, being isn't.

We have moved a long way from the original intention of this post.

WayneDawg said...

"Are you saying God designates a sexuality to some who he then condemns for his own act?"

No - You are saying that God designates a sexuality....I'm saying people choose to sin; any sin.

If you really believe that God designates a sexuality, then you must believe that God makes someone a murderer as well. Or God makes another one a thief....etc,etc.

No one 'happens' to be gay anymore than one 'happens' to be a murderer or thief or adulterer. We choose to be those things out of the sinfulness of our heart.


"The O.T. condemnations are about behaviour, not about being. Behaviour is a choice, being isn't."

I agree. But, committing the act of homosexuality is not the same as being born a different skin color. No one is 'born' a homosexual; they choose the lifestyle.


"Who would deliberately chose to be gay against the prevailing social, cultural and religious norms? You would have to be a very perverse person indeed."

Why would anyone murder? Why would anyone commit adultery? C'mon, that's not an argument, that's an excuse!

Perversion is equal to the current society norm too, DP. 100 years ago a homosexual would never brand his face. Today, he parades it in the streets. Perversion today is glorified...who are you kidding there!

Doorman-Priest said...

Committing the act of homosexuality is not the same as being born homosexual. My gay friends tell me they always knew they were gay and it was not something they chose. Some tried "choosing" heterosexuality. It didn't work: they were going against their nature. Their homosexuality reasserted itself.

This would be like you or I chosing to be homosexual. It wouldn't work because it would be going against our natures. Our heterosexuality would reassert itself.

You can not equate homosexuality with murder because one is about being and the other is about moral choice. Being homosexual is not a moral choice. Acting on it might be. It's not the same. Being heterosexual is not a moral choice. Acting on it may be. Its not the same.

Perhaps it is a confusion over terms. I have been labouring to point out that when we talk of homosexuality we do not have to be talking about sexual behaviour. When you refer to homosexuality you seem always to refer to it in terms sexual behaviour.

A simple scenario: a man knows he is homosexual but has chosen to be celibate and has had no sexual experience. Does he have to repent?

WayneDawg said...

Ok Jack - Your senario.....

First off - We all need to repent of something. We have all fallen short of God's glory and have sinned (Rom 3:23).

God created male and female. He created male and female exlusively for each other but because of sin, some men lust after men and some women lust after women. God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.(Rom 1:28).

"..to do those things which are not proper."

Why is it not proper? Because they were not designed by the Creator to go after their own kind.

If a man (according to your scenaro)'knows' that he is a homosexual, then he has been lusting after other men and therefore needs to repent of the lust (and other sins) and put his trust in Christ to save him from God's wrath.

If the man repents of his sins and trusts Christ to save him, God will give him a desire to be holy (like any true born-again Christian). If the scenario man chooses to be celibate and glorify God in that manner, then awesome! He can spend more time doing the will of God.

Lusting and burning toward anyone is a moral issue.

Your gay friends (and my gay friends) may say that they did not choose to be gay, but they sure did choose to act on it!

I didn't choose to be born with a sin nature either; but I was born with one.

That's why I needed a Savior to save me from my sins.

God's word is clear....Homosexuality is a sin...whether acting upon it or lusting after another of the same kind...it will always be a sin in the eye's of God.

Doorman-Priest said...

So in essence, the man in my scenario is the same as you and me: we need to sort out our thought lives and recognise and repent our many other sins as we, as you correctly point out, have "all fallen short of God's glory" and rely on the generosity and certainty of his grace. And that in the certain knowledge that we will fall repeatedly and will need to continue to seek forgiveness and Grace, but in the knowledge of the once and for all sacrifice of our Saviour.

Seen like that you have to wonder why we complicate the issue with notions of sexuality at all: they seem irrelevant. Straight or gay, none of us can please God, but straight or gay, Jesus' blood atones.

Anyway, we have wandered far from the path you set before us in your post and I have been provocative.

Time to move on, I think.

Haven't seen you over at my place for a while.

WayneDawg said...

Thanks for the chat......

You're right......I have not been traveling about as I should...see you soon!