Saturday, June 28, 2008

Another WHY for the argument "Why Should We Legalize Polygamy"

A while back (2006) I pointed out that the war with terrorists is a RELIGIOUS war. As a consequence, the ideology we are war with MUST BE DEFEATED. There is no negotiation, it is much the same as in the movie "Independence Day" where our fictional President asks the alien creature what they want us to do. The answer is "DIE." There is no negotiating. The most we can ask of a religion is that they keep it in their own yards, and out of ours, if this is not so, they must DIE.

Similarly there is no negotiating with the FLDS. Behind all their fine words about protecting the children, the Marci Hamiltons, the Governor Perrys of the world, the Flora Jessops, the Barbara Walthers all know exactly what they're trying to do. They are trying to defeat a religion. It's a religious war. To their credit they at least know how to fight it, wipe them out.

But they failed. On and on and on they go about child abuse, about how impossible it is to defeat the idea that a woman's salvation is dependent on being a wife, and on top of that, a polygynous wife. They're right. They can't defeat the FLDS faith unless they strike at it's very core beliefs, causing it to become something else or causing it to go away.

So we as a country have a decision to make. If a group wishes to teach that polygyny is a core religious value, what are we to do? The group I described above has an answer, it is "get rid of them, no quarter." What should our answer be? Do we REALLY wish to wipe out a religion with all that entails?

I submit to you that the answer is no. Not only will we not succeed, but we will endanger the practice of our own beliefs. As mentioned before my beliefs, if examined by the outside world contain some noxious ideas. How does the world accept my idea, shared by many in the Reformed world of Christianity that those who are saved were chosen from before the foundations of time, having done NOTHING whatsoever to merit that salvation? That even the CHOICE they make is scribed in stone. The time of it, the place of it, the very words that fall from our mouths confessing Christ, all authored by God Almighty beforehand. On the other hand, you, if you are lost, have had that deadness, that lack of faith, all authored inflexibly from before the foundations of time.

Other "horrible" ideas that I hold that would be considered "abusive" by Marci Hamilton and her ilk. Homosexuality is wrong. I would cease to speak to a child of mine if found homosexual. I would, if King, wipe them from the face of the land. Homosexuality is an abomination. I have no tolerance of it in the body of believers. Now, before you run off shrieking you need to know that I am not King, do not expect to be made King and thus have utterly no interest in meddling in the affairs of homosexuals. They may do as they like. This is not a theocracy or a theonomy, it is a secular state and if God appoints for us rulers that are tollerant of homosexuality, so be it. But what implications does that have for me and my relationship as a religious person with the state?

Already Canada is attacking pastors for preaching from the pulpit that homosexuality is something God hates. It's "Hate Speech." We'll be sued for expelling them from congregations. We'll be imprisoned for "inspiring" acts of hatred and lawlessness towards homosexuals just as Warren Jeffs was for telling Elissa Wall or his own daughter that her salvation lay in marriage and the production of children. We'll be accomplices to murder because one day a man will be found among us who hears a sermon against homosexuality and goes and kills a homosexual, or an anti abortionist goes and kills a Doctor because he heard a sermon that was pro life.

Thus even if monogamy only advocates we must be on the side of the FLDS. They believe what they believe, and we must realize that we allow them to do that, and practice their beliefs however strange they may seem to us, or we must establish a state religion, and all the bloody war that goes with it. We must live with them, and let them live, or they MUST DIE. There is no middle ground.

Sphere: Related Content

4 comments:

georgewiley said...

Well said, Hugh. You are correct, we have to be on the side of FLDS against the State of Texas, because that side is our side, in the final analysis. The freedoms of belief and of religious belief are at stake here. If a CPS functionary can take a child from the parents solely on the basis of the parents' religious beliefs, we are all in peril.

Xorphshire said...

Amen. There is no middle ground. As preposterous as it may seem, this is what it's coming to. It's not simply CPS vs FLDS. The attack is from higher up (or rather beneath as the case is.) All the excuses for the raid were just that.... excuses. It never was about abuse, or even polygamy. Even if all the ex FLDS whiners never whined, this war had to happen eventually.

You mentioned a state religion. I think it is coming soon, and will yet be pressed upon the all people more and more. The FLDS resists mainstream society, and clashes in nearly every way with what our wanna be masters have in mind. If a one world religion were suddenly forced upon everybody, it wouldn't surprise me to see practically all religions collectively bow down to it. The FLDS would resist to the death -- and the wanna be masters know it. So, perhaps they want to get an early start on the obviously more stubborn ones.

There's several good theories about the reasons for this raid. The NAFTA superhighway one is very interesting too. But when you mentioned a "state religion," it really caught my eye.

CPS isn't the only one about to get overhauled. An FLDS victory will mean the entire justice system and government gets hosed. All Americans will be able to choose sides in this because it affects all. Indeed, one or the other will die.

Pligchild said...

Excellent post and I agree wholeheartedly.

The only exception I take is the suggestion that Warren Jeffs taught Elissa Wall that salvation depended on "the production of children" That is not true.

The purpose of bearing children is to benefit them, and has only to do with salvation inasmuch as we will be held responsible for what we teach our children.

But your point, even if he had taught that, is still very relevant.

Hugh said...

That was pretty much the idea. The Apostle Paul taught that such a thing, while not salvation itself, was a great benefit and the duty of wives.