Christian Woman Kim Davis Jailed In The U.S. By Homosexual Agenda

Homosexuality is all about love – the love of wickedness and of persecuting Christians.

Time to wake up Christians – we are all in the crosshairs now and there is no longer a “free world”, just different governments with different shades of oppression.

Bill Muehlenberg’s article is an important one:

It has come to this: Christians who stand for their faith, for conscience, and for religious freedom, are now being jailed in America. County Clerk Kim Davis is now in jail for refusing to violate her Christian conscience and do that which is immoral.

Some of us have warned for decades now that this is exactly where all this is heading. The homofascists will stop at nothing to achieve complete compliance to their agenda. All opposition will be dealt with in the severest fashion. And all this in the name of tolerance and acceptance of course.

Prior to her court appearance, Kim said this:

I have weighed the cost…. But it is through God and His grace and strength that I stand, that I can have a smile on my face. Those licenses leave my office through my authority. I cannot be party to that. I just can’t. … If the Word of God isn’t worth fighting for, I don’t know anything that is. We serve a living God who is alive and on the throne. He knows exactly where I am, and I know that His hand is upon me and upon His people. He is in full control.

Some champions for liberty have immediately sprung to her defence. Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz courageously said this:

davis kiToday, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny. Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America. I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to choose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court decision.

In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts rightly observed that the Court’s marriage decision has nothing to do with the Constitution. Justice Scalia observed that the Court’s decision was so contrary to law that state and local officials would choose to defy it.

For every politician — Democrat and Republican — who is tut-tutting that Davis must resign, they are defending a hypocritical standard. Where is the call for the mayor of San Francisco to resign for creating a sanctuary city — resulting in the murder of American citizens by criminal illegal aliens welcomed by his lawlessness?

Where is the call for President Obama to resign for ignoring and defying our immigration laws, our welfare reform laws, and even his own Obamacare? When the mayor of San Francisco and President Obama resign, then we can talk about Kim Davis.

Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office. That is the consequence of their position. Or, if Christians do serve in public office, they must disregard their religious faith–or be sent to jail.

Kim Davis should not be in jail. We are a country founded on Judeo-Christian values, founded by those fleeing religious oppression and seeking a land where we could worship God and live according to our faith, without being imprisoned for doing so. I call upon every Believer, every Constitutionalist, every lover of liberty to stand with Kim Davis. Stop the persecution now.

Various marriage and family groups have also condemned the incarceration, including NOM:

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today sharply criticized federal judge David Bunning for jailing Kentucky clerk Kim Davis because she has refused to issue same-sex ‘marriage’ licenses in violation of her deeply-held religious beliefs. The group blamed the US Supreme Court for creating the conflict by redefining marriage and refusing to stay legal action against Davis pending her appeal.

“It is outrageous to jail Kim Davis because she does not want to personally be part of certifying same-sex ‘marriages’ that violate her deeply-held religious beliefs about the nature of marriage,” said Brian Brown. “What this judge is saying is that now that the Supreme Court has illegitimately redefined marriage, every single person in government if not in the country must stand in salute and participate in the act. That is profoundly wrong and violates the spirit of federal law which provides that the government must seek ways to reasonably accommodate people’s religious views in the workplace.”

This past June the US Supreme Court ruled to impose same-sex ‘marriage’ on the nation when it determined that state laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman were unconstitutional.

“While Judge Bunning is the instrument of the inhumane punishing of Kim Davis, the authors of it are the five justices of the US Supreme Court who illegitimately, without a shred of constitutional authority, redefined marriage without any regard to the profound implications their ruling would have on law-abiding, faithful Americans,” Brown said. “With this ruling, the idea of religious freedom that is at the heart of our constitution has been eliminated when it comes to exercising beliefs about marriage. It’s a profound shredding of the constitution on the altar of gay activism.”

Brown called on federal and state officials to find a way to accommodate people who object to gay ‘marriage’ on religious grounds from having to participate in the act.

“It was utterly wrong for the courts to have ordered every state to license same-sex ‘marriages’ and it is judicial tyranny for judges to say that every individual person must be involved in the act despite their deeply-held beliefs. We call on federal and state officials to immediately enact laws to accommodate the beliefs of individuals who do not wish to be a party to something they consider to be wrong.”

At a time like this it is worth recalling earlier acts of defiance to an unjust state, and the place of Christian civil disobedience. On April 16, 1963 Martin Luther King, Jr. penned his now famous “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”. Parts of it are worth repeating here:

There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an “I it” relationship for an “I thou” relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man’s tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state’s segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

While the particulars of these two situations of course differ, the underlying principles remain the same. When unjust and immoral laws are passed, Christians have an obligation to consider carefully and prayerfully how they might deal with such laws. Civil disobedience, and a willingness to suffer the consequences, is one such option.

We need to uphold Kim Davis in our prayers, and do all we can to help and support her during this difficult period. And we need to finally get our heads out of the sand as to the reality of homo-tyranny. Things will simply get much worse as the homosexual militants ramp up their war against any and all opposition to their nefarious agenda.
billygraham.org/decision-magazine/september-2015/kentucky-clerk-on-biblical-marriage-stand-i-cannot-be-separated-from-what-i-believe/

talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ted-cruz-kim-davis-contempt

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/9682076642.html

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

http://billmuehlenberg.com/2015/09/04/christians-jailed-homofascism-out-of-control/

Advertisements

Feel free to discuss.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s