POLYAMORY, POLYGAMY, and THE SLIPPERY SLOPE 

Three men recently got legally married in Columbia. The first country to recognize polyamory. Here’s the story from Charisma News:

In 2016, same-sex "marriage" was legalized in Colombia. One year later, the courts have now recognized a polyamorous "family" of three men. …

As reported by the Daily Mail, "Actor Victor Hugo Prada and his two partners, sports instructor John Alejandro Rodriguez and journalist Manuel Jose Bermudez, have signed legal papers with a solicitor in the city of Medellin, establishing them as a family unit with inheritance rights. …

Here in the States, the Associated Press notes that, "More courts [are] allowing three parents of one child." An example would be when a lesbian couple has a child with the help of another man, all three of whom become parents. …

In recent years, the media has pushed polygamy, polyamory and even consensual adult incest, with public opinion gradually shifting towards more acceptance of these lifestyles and acts.

<Read the whole article>

Response: A few years ago when the drum beat for same-sex marriage began to make real legal gains everyone was denying the existence of any kind of ‘slippery slope.’ But now it is becoming fashionable to accept any kind of consensual lifestyle if ‘love’ is involved.

Once the definition of marriage was changed to include same-sex partners there was really nothing logically keeping our secular society from eventually accepting other kinds of relationships. Polygamy and polyamory are next on the horizon since there are already large numbers of folks living in those types of ‘family’ relationships. The same legal reasoning used to establish same-sex marriage can easily be used to support the inclusion of other ‘love’ relationships. We already have thousands of FLDS living in polygamous communities and an untold number of Muslim families also.

The current liberal/progressive support for American Muslims and Muslim immigrants could easily morph into a push towards accepting polygamy which is recognized by that religion. One Utah court has already proclaimed that polygamists in that state can no longer be prosecuted- a sort of ‘defacto’ legalization in at least one state in the country. The fact that conservative Christians might oppose its legalization actually may lend support to  an eventual liberal/progressive political acceptance.

A Polyamory mixture like in this case could not be denied if Muslim polygamy became legal which is not that far-fetched and is only a lawsuit away. Especially since known polygamist Muslim families have been denied immigration status in the past. It could easily be part of a legal action against the Trump administration’s immigration policies.               *Top

School Division Administrators in Alberta, Canada are asking a Christian school to delete several Bible passages their student handbook. The scriptures in question have to do with morality and sexuality from a Christian perspective. Here’s the story from the Blaze:

Now the Cornerstone Christian Academy, a former private school that joined the division in 2009, fears the administrators have overstepped their boundaries with a new human rights code, Metro News reported. The division has expressed concern about two passages in particular — 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5:19-21.

The 1 Corinthians passage states, in part,

     “Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

The passage from Galatians similarly reads:

     “The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.”

<Read the whole article>

Response: The Christian School administrators are concerned that this may just be the beginning of demands that would force the school to lose its Christian identity or worse yet pick and choose what scriptures and doctrines may actually be taught in the classrooms.

Interestingly both passages have to do with inheriting the ‘Kingdom of God’ and eternal destiny. They have nothing to say about how Christians should treat other folks that believe different than they do. Yet liberal folks that may not even believe in eternal life are offended? Has the same group of administrators moved to restrict any Muslim schools that may be under their supervisory care from teaching their students similar things out the the Quran? Probably not since Islam is on the PC list.

Just last week progressive US Senator Bernie Sanders invoked a religious test against a Christian that involved similar teaching about heaven which might not be politically correct from a progressive point of view. In this case, the school division wants to restrict the usage of Bible passages which offend their PC sensibilities. What is next?

Look for more action against those who want to maintain a Biblical understanding of sexuality and morality. This story is in Canada but even private Christian institutions are under attack in California including non-profits, businesses, schools, and even maybe churches. They may soon be forbidden from having any distinctive moral or ethics codes for their employees.  I was just notified in a newsletter by the Pacific Justice Institute that the CA Assembly passed a bill that would restrict all employers, including Christian institutions, from expecting Pro-Life stands and behavior from their employees. Similar legislation is quietly being prepared and introduced all across the country. Check out what is happening in your own city, state, or province.               *Top

                              (Image: Wikipedia)

Does Senator Bernie Sanders advocate a religious test that would block conservative Christians from serving in the government? Sanders’ recent comments seem to support that view when he voted to reject an administration nominee because of his historic Christian views on salvation.  From the Atlantic:

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” On Wednesday, Senator Bernie Sanders flirted with the boundaries of this rule during a confirmation hearing for Russell Vought, President Trump’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget. …

During the hearing, Sanders repeatedly quoted one passage that he found particularly objectionable:

     Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned.

     “In my view, the statement made by Mr. Vought is indefensible, it is hateful, it is Islamophobic, and it is an insult to over a billion Muslims throughout the world,”

Sanders told the committee during his introductory remarks. …

Later, during the question-and-answer portion of the hearing, Sanders brought this up again.

     “Do you believe that statement is Islamophobic?”

he asked Vought.

     “Absolutely not, Senator,” Vought replied.

“I’m a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith.” …

Finally in his conclusion Sanders’ seems to reject the nominee based solely upon the ‘exclusivity’ of his religious beliefs:

    “I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about,

I will vote no.”

<Read the whole article>

Read also the following articles:

“In Christ Alone: Bernie Sanders Attacks Wheaton Grad’s Stance on Salvation”

“An Open Letter to Senator Bernie Sanders”

Response: Since the views under question by Bernie Sanders were historic Christian teachings and not just the understandings of a single individual, Sanders’ rejection of Russell Vought stands as a condemnation of all Christians that hold historic Biblical views on salvation. It is a religious test after all and an example of what the framers of the Constitution wanted to avoid.

I believe that in this case that Sanders did not fully understand what Vought was actually referring to in the quote that bothered him so much. The passage was part of an ongoing theological conversation between conservative Christians over whether Muslims actually worshipped the same God as Christians. It is not a question with an easy answer. In his writing, Vought tied his conclusions to the historic Christian understanding of salvation coming only to those who accept Jesus Christ.

Sanders is ignorant of historic Christian teaching on salvation and divine condemnation which is all about eternal destiny in the life to come and has nothing to do with personally condemning or mistreating those of another faith in this life. In fact the teaching of Jesus is clear that we are to love and treat all people as we would like to be treated.

Does ‘secular’ Bernie even believe in a ‘life to come’ when those condemnations would be applied? Surely he understands that by the Orthodox standards in his own Jewish background divine condemnation is prescribed for those who do not follow the Torah in this life.

Obviously Sanders is also ignorant of the very fact that the daily prayers of the Muslims he is trying to support are just as exclusive if not more so and condemn Christians and Jews and all those who are not Muslim believers.

It has become fashionable among progressives to attack conservative Christian beliefs when it comes to abortion, the sexual revolution, LGBTQ issues, and Islam. In this case Bernie was putting forth the view that the nominee was not qualified for office because of his historic views on eternal life and destiny. Yet he would not even consider blocking a Muslim with similar exclusive views on future divine condemnation and eternal destiny.

This will not be the last time that a religious test will be applied to conservative Christian nominees. It was rather blatant on this occasion but look for more subtle attacks in the future.  I expect adherents of the new progressive/sexual/ LGBT belief system to call for all those who do not bow at the altar of the new ‘state religion’ (those who do not support same-sex marriage) to be disqualified for public service in the years to come.                 *Top

A high School in Allentown,  Pennsylvania will not allow students to form a Pro-Life club because it would be too political and controversial. From Life Site News:

Last fall, senior Elizabeth Castro and junior Grace Schairer attempted at Parkland High School to start a Students for Life club. Parkland already has a gay-straight alliance club, a political science club, a fashion club, a chess club, and other student-led groups.   … 

They soon found out the real problem: Parkland High officials didn’t want a pro-life club at school.

After going through the entire process to start a group and securing an adviser, the assistant principal turned them down, saying a pro-life club was too "controversial" and "political."

<Read the whole article>

Response: Nearly half the country supports pro-life positions or at the very least a support for the reduction of abortions but somehow it is ‘too’ controversial for a high school? Meanwhile, a gay activist club along with a poly sci group is fine and not too political? Seems rather hypocritical when education and student growth is suppose to be the real goals for the school administrators.

Another example of how so many academicians occupy the progressive left and anything in the center or right, or religious at all is an anathema to them. We see this leftist bias in colleges all across America, now the school administrators that our universities produce are demonstrating these same views and acting on them.

This really does create a problem in local schools where the community, including the parents and students, may be more divided in their views and even far more representative of the center or right.               *Top

According to the hosts of The View, Christian business owners like Hobby Lobby who do not want to provide for birth control coverage for their employees, including abortifacients and abortion because of religious principles, are on par with The Taliban. From the Blaze:

On Thursday, the liberal women on “The View” discussed the recent decision by President Donald Trump’s administration to remove a mandate in Obamacare that forces employers to provide health insurance plans that cover birth control. …

But according to the liberal co-hosts on “The View,” stores like Hobby Lobby essentially “imposed” their beliefs on their employees. The ladies argued Thursday that not providing birth control and not wanting tax payer dollars to fund Planned Parenthood amounts to restricting people’s choices.

<View the video above or Read the whole article>

Response: A ridiculous comparison. The Taliban forces everyone under their rule to adhere to their radical Islamic beliefs. People under the control of the Taliban have no individual rights. The Christian businesses do don’t restrict employees from purchasing birth control of any kind including abortions.  They just do not want to pay for anything that is contrary to their religious convictions. It is all about religious liberty and the 1st Amendment.

You can always count on the liberal ladies on The View to get it wrong when it come to the freedom of religion and particularly Christianity. Unfortunately the TV show reflects a progressive view that is shared by millions which is why we are now in the battle of our life for religious liberty and are in danger of losing our rights in spite of the words written in our Constitution which is now being interpreted by judges in ways that are far different than our founders and the original writers intended.               *Top