Hilary Clinton as president: Was she forcing modern views on churches?
Here was what one person thought about the 2016 Democratic ticket, especially Hilary Clinton’s views about gay rights. As president of the United States, assuming she made it to the White House, here was what an article said would happen.
She would, according to one editorial in the local paper May 2, force churches to change ‘ancient teachings’ to make it more user friendly for those that were classified as lesbian bisexual, gay or transgender.
The group she was trying to include already rewrote the Old Testament from the King James version of the Bible to make it more ‘user friendly’ to them. That meant they either removed or rewrote the offensive verses like:
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (KJV)
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (KJV)
As to whether the Supreme Court could redefine marriage to include same sex marriage, that was a tougher issue. What were they to have done, order everyone to burn their version of the Bible just to accept the newer version? One article said, while they might have been able to redefine marriage for legal and constiutional purposes, they cant rewrite an institution that came before any religion or politics. This article also highlighted the last verse in the group above for their reasoning.
A lot of the modern ideas from the past like Plessy v Ferguson and the Jim Crow Laws came from people’s ideas about race which was a far cry from same sex marriage. As Christians the article supports the foundation that the United States and its founding fathers established the this for. It was this writer’s hope that same sex marriage remained a states issue or got struck down enttirely. Two eggs and two sperm cannot make a human being.
Hilary Clinton, as president couldn’t ‘force’ anyone to change those ‘ancient teachings’ because it took an act of congress to do that. As stated before, these ancient teachings existed before the Supreme Court or Clinton herself.. If the Supreme Court allowed the redefining of marriage to take place it woould’ve allowed those ‘ancient teachings’ to be rewritten.This would’ve been like smacking God in the face. Justice Kennedy had it right with what he said in this article. It might’e taken his dessenting opinion to uphold traditional marriage. Like this justice, this writer believed the word of God in its original form as the truth. A lot of Americans knew what the Bible said and still chose to follow the mainstream or modern worldview. There was a verse for ‘fair weather’ Christians too:
So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth (NIV)
Here was another good verse about history
For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope. (NIV)
It didn’t bother me that young impressionable girls were in that article hanging on Clinton’s every word. It was what they knew about the government and the executive branch.