George Washington: Father of the Confederacy?

Tonight I attended a lecture sponsored by the George Washington Society. The topic was the Confederate States of America’s claim that they were the true heirs to the legacy of Washington, one Confederate going so far as to suggest that the nation be named “Confederate States of Washington.”

There were a few reasons for this, chief among them Washington’s rebellion against another government viewed as too large and encroaching. Additionally, the CSA knew they couldn’t succeed without Virginia, so appealing to Virginia on the basis of their favorite son was a smart political move.

However, the speaker effectively refuted this point, quoting Washington multiple times as saying the Union must be preserved. Apparently, Washington felt that by accepting the Treaty of Paris that ended the Revolutionary War, the individual states were committing themselves to be a united nation in perpetuity.

I had always tended to the belief that any nation founded in a secessionist movement must be amenable to allowing secession or else its association is hypocritical. But during the lecture it occurred to me that in many ways a nation is a contract, and contracts are not voidable by one party without the agreement of the others involved in the contract. If one party attempts to leave a contract without the consent of the others, a penalty must be paid. Just as no new state can be formed by taking the land from one state without its consent and that of Congress, no state should be able to secede without the consent of Congress. I used to feel that while the South seceded for the wrong reasons, they were within their rights. I’ve now changed my mind on that: States do not have the right to leave the country without the express consent of the other states through Congress.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention, one of the attendees mentioned the Washington-Rochambeau Reveolutionary Route Association (W3R, you may have seen their signs around and wondered what that was). They exist to promote study of the American Revolution, with a specific focus on the travels undergone by the Continental Army under the leadership of Washington and Rochambeau. They’re currently lobbying Congress to get the Washington-Rochambeau Route declared a National Historic Trail. Senator Biden and Congressman Castle are co-sponsors of the bill in their respective Houses of Congress.

Pro-homosexual Churches Begin Campaign of Misinformation on Biblical Prohibitions against Sodomy

Pro-homosexual Churches Begin Campaign of Misinformation on Biblical Prohibitions against Sodomy

The “Would Jesus Discriminate?” Campaign, funded nationally by Faith in America, Inc., features such signs as “Jesus Affirmed a Gay Couple”: Matt. 8:5-13; “The Early Church Welcomed a Gay Man”: Acts 8:26-40; “Jesus Said Some are Born Gay”: Matt. 19:10-12; “Ruth Loved Naomi as Adam Loved Eve”, Gen. 2:24, Ruth 1:14; and “David Loved Jonathan More than Women” II Sam 1:26.

If you take the time to actually read those Bible passages, (I did) you’ll see that any reference to homosexuality is at best remote and in some of them completely invented. It’s just fundamentally dishonest of these Churches to misinterpret the Bible this way. They need to remember that when reading the Bible, we need to open ourselves to God’s Word, not look for support for own preconceived notions. After all, if our preconceived notions were correct, we wouldn’t need the Messiah.

Also, the link above provides the following Bible passages that do deal explicitly with homosexuality as opposed to the supposed references above:

Far from making exceptions for “loving gay relationships”, Mosaic Law, believed by Jews and Christians to have been given to Moses by God Himself, severely condemns homosexual acts or sodomy in Leviticus 18 and carried the death penalty. The very name “sodomy” derived its name from the Biblical city, Sodom, which God told Abraham he would destroy for its unnatural crimes. Leviticus 18 is devoted to prohibitions against adultery, incestuous relationships, and in fact, the prohibition against homosexual behavior falls between verses prohibiting bestiality and infant sacrifice.

Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

Leviticus 18:29-30: “For whoever shall do any of these abominations, the persons that do them shall be cut off from among their people. So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs which were practiced before you, and never to defile yourselves by them: I am the LORD your God.”

Both the immediate context of the Levitical passage and approximately 3500 years of Jewish and Christian tradition strongly refute the contortions of “Would Jesus Discriminate?” campaign.

Early Christian teaching vigorously reaffirms Levitical proscriptions against homosexual behavior in New Testament scripture (Rom. 1:21-29, 1 Cor. 6:9, Jude 1:7, 1 Tim 1:10). Contemporary extra-biblical Christian writings, such as the Didache, also confirm the understanding of the early Church that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and destructive.

The truly Christian perspective is to condemn the actions a person undertakes, but not the person themselves. Note that it is actions that are condemned in the verses above, not what we refer to nowadays as orientations. The verse from Timothy even goes so far as to explicitly refer to practicing homosexuals, clearly drawing a distinction from those with the mere orientation.

The Christian approach to any sin is not condone it but to help those trapped in it to escape and work towards a holier way of life. While they may backslide from time to time, it’s the effort that counts. God is forgiving if you try to live out His will in good faith. But Jesus has a few words for those who condone, or celebrate, sin: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!” (Mt 18: 6-7)

Legal Abortion Not saving Women’s Lives

Another New York Man Kills Pregnant Girlfriend Who Refused Abortion

Another New York man is in court over killing his pregnant girlfriend because she refused to have an abortion. Once month after Ryan Ross, of Spring Valley, was sentenced to 22 years to life in prison in his case, Steven Schiovone of Levittown plead guilty to his own charges.

During the middle of the trial, Schiovone, 37, plead guilty to manslaughter and he is now expected to get 30 years in prison for the 2005 death of Susan Ambrosino.

According to a Newsday story, Ambrosino’s brother, Anthony Napolitano, indicated that Schiovone wanted her to have an abortion — something she refused to do.

One of the many problems with abortion is that it provides unscrupulous men with the freedom to escape consequences for their actions. If their girlfriend/sex partner gets pregnant, they can pressure the woman to have an abortion rather than deal with the consequences of their actions. Should the woman refuse, an immoral person might decide to peform an “abortion” of their own, resulting in two deaths since he couldn’t get the one he sought. Abortion kills women.

How many women have to die before pro-abortionists take note of the blood being spilled in the name of false “choice?”