Alvin York
Published April 29, 2015
by Carter Wrenn, Talking About Politics, April 28, 2015.
I didn’t see much sense in making a lady in Indiana (or anywhere else) cater a gay wedding if she didn’t want to, so I said the Religious Freedom Act sounded like a fine idea – which turned out to be like lighting the fuse to a stick of dynamite.
Before I knew it I’d been accused of wanting to allow restaurants to refuse to serve African Americans – after all, I was told, if a fellow could say no to catering a gay wedding (because of his religious beliefs) he could say no to serving an African-American in his restaurant for the same reason.
In a way, it sounded oddly logical – until I thought of Alvin York.
Back in 1917, when Alvin York was drafted he wrote back he was a Pacifist. A Conscientious Objector.
Back in those days, before we got entangled in modernism, folks had a pretty sensible way of solving those kinds of problems – when one fellow’s religion ran head-on into another fellow’s law.
First, they asked: Was York’s Pacifism a genuine religious belief or a scam to avoid the draft?
What happened next was simple too: If York’s religious belief was genuine he’d still be drafted but he’d be working in someplace like an army hospital. He wouldn’t be shooting Germans.
And if his belief wasn’t genuine, well, he was off to Flanders Fields.
In fact the powers-that-be decided Sergeant York’s Pacifism wasn’t genuine. Because his tiny mountain church – the Church of Christ in Christian Union – was not recognized as a legitimate Christian denomination. So off he went to boot camp in Georgia where his commander convinced him shooting Germans wasn’t sinful after all and, well, the rest is legend.
Right now, in North Carolina, we have a similar problem – with religious beliefs and new laws colliding head-on.
After a federal court in Richmond ruled gay marriage was the law of the land, six magistrates said they couldn’t in good conscience marry gay couples and what happened next was a far cry from how folks treated Conscientious Objectors back in 1917 – the magistrates were told they could either perform the marriage ceremonies – or be fired. Or prosecuted. And, even, sent to jail.
Faced with a choice between keeping their jobs and keeping their faith – all six magistrates resigned.
Which was a pretty harsh outcome.
So State Senate Leader Phil Berger stepped in to offer a compromise: He said the law was the law and gays had a right to marry but if a magistrate had a religious objection he could be excused and another magistrate could take his place. Then Berger went a step further and gave judges the power to perform gay marriages if there was a shortage of magistrates.
Of course, that didn’t suit some folks. But, on the other hand, it was a lot like allowing Conscientious Objectors to serve as medics.
April 29, 2015 at 9:52 am
Norm Kelly says:
Plain and simple: today's radical, extremists do NOT allow anyone to dissent. No one is allowed to disagree with the group chosen as the bell-weather today. If the LGBT extremists say that YOU MUST participate in their 'celebration', then you MUST and there is no getting around it. To say that the LGBT extremists have other choices, as all Americans do, is to say that they are limited, restricted as no other single group of people in the world. They have NO OTHER choices than the one THEY decide to make. No one is allowed to tell these extremists that they can move on and get what they want. They will FORCE the rest of us to accept their choice, and FORCE us to participate in their choice because they ARE the chosen group of the day.
Allowing ANYONE to choose not to participate in their 'celebration' is being equated to skin color issues. There is absolutely nothing in common between the two, but if they draw an unrealistic, unrelated comparison, and the powers-that-be allow them to make THIS choice, then we end up with individuals fighting against the government that is supposed to be protecting us.
To say that someone who objects on CHRISTIAN religious beliefs is to say that the LGBT extremist is being prevented totally from making their religious choice. To provide an alternative to the LGBT extremist is to prevent the extremist. At least in their mind. The LGBT extremist COULD choose to pay another baker to make their cake. But that would mean the extremist is actually PREVENTED from holding their 'celebration' at all. So the government MUST force a Christian to violate their religious beliefs in favor of the government's religion, which just happens to coincide with the LGBT extremist's religion. The Constitution has been turned on it's head, so to speak. If the Constitution is even recognized by this group! Instead of the Constitution actually saying that no government agency can prevent me from practicing my religion, they re-write it to say that no individual can resist participating in the chosen religion of ANY government agency. So, Berger providing alternative choices is perceived as trying to prevent the radical, extremist from living life at all. The LGBT extremists, like the other left-wing extremist groups, take everything to the absolute maximum extreme. It's their way or no way at all. And nothing will stand in their extremist way. Not even the actual law of the land. If they don't LIKE the law of the land, they will use 'executive action' to change the law. Cuz their way won't pass any legislative body, outside of California. But then since all the nuts & flakes congregate in California, we expect them to do crazy things! The problem is that flakes & nuts don't STAY in California. They migrate to live with the rest of us and bring their wacky ideas with them! Infecting others with their loony religion. And make no mistake, my religion is in definite conflict with the religion of the left-wing extremist groups. All of the left-wing extremist groups! The only thing left-wing extremist groups have to have in common in order to form a coalition is their desire to FORCE their religion on those who choose not to accept their religion. When someone doesn't voluntarily choose their religion, it WILL be forced upon us. Kinda like all the other socialist, demon, liberal, ideas that don't pass the legislative body so are forced upon us through the court system. Resistance is futile!
April 29, 2015 at 12:06 pm
Richard L Bunce says:
The real solution is for the government to get out of the relationship licensing business. This is leftover from many millennia ago when the tribal leader decided who would mate for the good of the tribe but mostly the good of the tribal leader.
