In this blog I'll be mainly arguing that aspect for two specific cases: Gay Marriage Rights and Roe v. Wade.
1. Gay Marriage
If you have read my other posts, you will know that I am a supporter of Gay Marriage. I believe that it is everyones right to pursue their happiness, especially when it doesn't affect others. And, in fact, doesn't that seem constitutional?
The only reason why Gay Marriage is illegal is because of the Religious Right who is forcing their views of morality onto the law- thereby merging religion and the Judaical branch.
Now, why exactly these people are doing this, I am not so certain. They say it's to save the sanctity of marriage, but it looks like to me as if they just want to deny the right of marriage to others.
My friend once said that she supported the idea of "having Gay people get something like a marriage, just not called a marriage". I asked if she meant it was separate, but equal, and she said "Yes."
Doesn't that sound familiar?
Gay Marriage is just the new civil rights movement (if you want to hear more of this argument, please check my blog archive and you'll find a past post about this).
For the sake of time, I'll move onto Roe v. Wade.
2. Roe v. Wade
For those of you unfamiliar with the term, 'Roe v. Wade' is the name of the trial that sanctified the legality of abortion. It put the decision into the hands of the woman, not the state.
Christians have been fighting this since it's inception. They believe it's wrong, and it's state sanctified killing.
Ironically, most of them have never faced the choice they are fighting against.
I am mostly against abortion- but I am for Pro-Choice.
How is this you ask?
Well, even though I believe aboritons are often misused, I don't think that the government should be telling people what to do with their own bodies.
If you are faced in the decision of getting an abortion, the Christian movement begs you to keep it and raise it. I usually do as well, but if a parent feels like they cannot properly raise a child- they probably can't.
Freakonomics author Steven Levitt argues that this fact when coupled with the effect of Roe v. Wade is the reason that the crime dropped so drastically in the 90s. His argument is extremely persuasive and revolves around this idea: when abortion was illegal, mothers were forced to have children they knew they couldn't raise- and they therefore grew in broken homes and got involved in crime; but when it was legalized, mothers that knew they couldn't properly raise a kid didn't have too- and then the crime wave dropped.
What am I getting at though? A woman's free will, a woman whom may or not believe in God, is constantly being protested against. Free will is being protested against because people are forcing their morality onto the justice system.
And because of this, God's judgements should be reserved for His people, and not everyone in the eyes of the law.
This ends my God & the Government series, and in conclusion I'd like to end with this:
God & the Government should never be mixed. Neither were created to be intertwined with the other, and the morals of one God differs from that of the general populace. In a land founded on the freedom of religion, the idea that religion is infiltrating the government and taking away that freedom is appalling. Everyone is free to worship (or not worship) as they choose, and the morals of one should never be pushed upon another.
And like I said in the beginning of this series:
God is not Government, and the Government is not God.
And it should stay that way.