Should We Baptize Infants?

        I haven’t blogged in a while because I’ve been working on a paper, which is why this blog post is so well researched! Enjoy my paper!
       

   The purpose of the sacraments of initiation are to mark the beginning of a conversion to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. They strengthen the believer on the path that they are committing to embark on for the rest of their lives. The most famous story of the Old Testament is the story of Moses and the Exodus. The crossing of the Red Sea marks the beginning of a long and arduous journey through the desert towards the Promised Land. That miraculous event gave strength to the Israelites and took place as a type of Baptism for the chosen people. They made a choice to turn away from literal slavery which, for us, represents the slavery of sin. The decision to turn away from sin and towards the Promised Land is an interior decision which is marked with an exterior event. In other words a spiritual event (conversion) is marked by a physical event (baptism). This physical and spiritual intermingling is the ritualizing of a conversion experience. 

        In scripture we see the point of the sacraments of initiation clearly. In baptism specifically, we see repentance of sin as an important element of what that sacrament symbolizes. In Acts 2:38, Matthew 3:5-6, Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 the confession or remission of sins is mentioned with Baptism. This suggests that baptism is usually identified as a choice, a desire to live a new life in Christ, meaning it is a physical expression of a spiritual conversion. I would argue that our sacraments of initiation need a reformation back to being expressions of this conversion experience. Baptism should not be performed on infants who do not have the mental capacity to make the conscious choice to be a disciple of Christ. It should be open to anyone who feels they are ready for a conversion to Christ at whatever time they feel they are ready. This would allow people who are in the midst of a conversion to use the ritual as an expression of that conversion. 

Arguments 

 The Urgency of Baptism

Baptism starts to be practiced sometime in the 4th and 5th centuries because of a fear of Hell rather than as a conversion to Christ. Augustine seems to initiate this thinking when he says,

“Likewise, whosoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that sacrament shall be made alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration, and condemns the universal Church, in which it is the practice to lose no time and run in haste to administer baptism to infant children, because it is believed, as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ.” (Augustine, 53)

However the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that,

“As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.” (CCC 1261)

Baptism cannot be a sacrament that is done out of fear. If we are doing any religious action because of a fear of Hell then, we are missing the point of why Christ came to us entirely. Baptism is a sacrament of love, but only if we make baptism a ritualization of our conversion to Christ. Christ came, so that we may be able to choose to follow him.
    

Christ seems to focus on the spiritual significance rather than the physical ritual as it is often portrayed in the scriptures. Jesus says, “…there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.” (Mark 7:15 NRSV). It seems that most of his interactions with the Pharisees involve some sort of teaching about the importance of the spiritual aspects of the faith over the ritualistic aspects of the faith. This is not to say that Jesus did not see the significance of ritual and our human need to express things in a physical way. Jesus says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. ” (Matthew 5:17). Modern Catholicism has put so much importance on the ritual of baptism that we have forgotten the spiritual conversion, including the most obvious evidence of a conversion: a repentance of sins and a commitment to Christ.
Free Will and the Imposition of Grace

    Faith and the reception of grace is never forced or imposed on a person against their will. God does not coerce anyone into faith, 

“ It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man’s response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will. ” (Paul VI, n.10)

The Code of Canon Law states that for adults not only must they have an intention to receive baptism, but there is a set of obligations they need to be conscious of, “For an adult to be baptized, the person must have manifested the intention to receive baptism… ” (Can. 865 §1). 

Aquinas goes so far as to say that a person who is baptized without intention must be “rebaptized”, 

“…so must he, of his own will, intend to lead a new life, the beginning of which is precisely the receiving of the sacrament. Therefore on the part of the one baptized, it is necessary for him to have the will or intention of receiving the sacrament….If an adult lack the intention of receiving the sacrament, he must be rebaptized.” (Aquinas, Article 7)

        After looking at the importance of intention in baptism described by the magisterium and our greatest theologians, we should not baptize infants against their free-will. To be clear, it is not to be taken that infants receive no grace when they are baptized, only that the graces they receive lay dormant until it is accepted by the baptized. Augustine said that one, 

“who lacks charity, whether he be carried away outside the Church at once by some blast of temptation… if they have once been born in baptism, need not be born again”. (Augustine, 22). 

This suggests that the fruits of baptism do not emerge until it is accepted through the will of the recipient. The Catechism reinforces this when it says, “No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.” (CCC 1272) If this is the case, then we ought to wait, allowing a child to mature and make the decision for themselves to be initiated into the Catholic faith. All three sacraments of initiation should be done at once, with a repentance of sins and a conscious devotion to living a Christian life as a disciple of Jesus Christ. This would also solve the problem of separation of the sacraments of initiation.

Counter Arguments and Refutations

Baptism as a type of circumcision

It is argued that since baptism is the New Testament equivalent of circumcision, and since circumcision was done at infancy, then baptism too should be done at infancy. The problem is that although this is true, circumcision (and much of the Old Testament thought) was focused on being included into the “people of God”. The New Testament focus was to open up that inclusion to everyone. Paul is suggesting that the meaning of circumcision needs to change to that of conversion in Romans 2:28-29 when he says, “a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal”. Circumcision was supposed to be about a spiritual turning towards Christ and in 1 Corinthians 7:19 he says, 

“Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but obeying the commandments of God is everything.”

In baptism, the spiritual conversion and desire to live according to the Christian life should be our focus. Infant baptism separates, with time, the physical expression of conversion and the spiritual conversion. If a conversion to Christ happens for a Catholic, it happens long after their baptism.

Grace as early as possible

    As stated earlier, grace is useless without the cooperation of a person’s will. There is no urgency in getting the graces of baptism to a child if those graces cannot bear fruit until the person has accepted it. We do not need to fear that a child will go into limbo or Hell if they are not baptized (CCC, 1261). As stated earlier, we can trust that God’s mercy and justice will not be hindered by the physical act of baptism. Although the sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation Augustine says that there is a “Baptism of Desire”, “which, with God, counts for the deed.” (Aquinas, Article 2) Therefore there is no urgency in being baptized because we can believe baptism will occur without the physical act if the desire is there. Tertullian even encourages waiting to baptize children when he says, “And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children.” (Tertullian, III: 678)

Scripture suggests households were baptized

The argument is that in 1 Corinthians 1:16 Paul says, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas…” and the word “household” would include children of all ages. This is a valid argument although it is not a strong enough argument to stand on its own. Let us assume that baptism was presumed in the scripture to only be for adults. If this is true the word “household” probably would have been used to mean “all those in the house eligible for baptism.” They would make the assumption that people would know who is to be baptized in the household. There is enough reasonable doubt in this argument that we should not base our theology of baptism solely on it.

When should the mentally delayed be baptized?

The argument is, if choosing to be a follower of Christ is the key to being baptized, then someone with a severe mental handicap would not be able to choose. I would say that most people who suffer with a mental handicap are able to make some gesture of acceptance of the sacraments, even if it is non-verbal. For those who cannot, since no choice can ever be expressed to another person, (although the choice could possibly still be made internally, just not expressed) then baptism would be done as it is with infants where the parents choose on behalf of the mentally delayed person. In this particular case, a physical baptism would always be contingent on a “baptism of desire” (mentioned earlier) and the child’s desire to be baptized would take precedence. 

Conclusion

Baptism in the scriptures in all its manifestations and symbolism was always primarily about a turning away from sin and towards Christ. Baptism has always been seen as a beginning to a new life or 

“being born again of water and spirit” (John 3:5). 

Although over the years the preparation has changed, it has always focused on fostering that conversion experience. Slowly the importance of the rituals seems to overtake the importance of the spiritual conversion, but above all Christ wanted to create disciples of all nations and the beginning of that was baptism (Matt. 28:19). The Catholic Church seems to have many members but few disciples, because discipleship requires a decision to turn away from sin and selfishness towards Jesus Christ. Baptism was always meant to mark the beginning of that journey, just as it did for the Israelites when they crossed the Red Sea.

Why I Spoiled My Ballot

Ok Justin, I know this blog is about politics but try to stay awake!

At the election on October 19th I plan to walk in and hand in my ballot completely blank. Why would I do this? To make as many enemies as possible? Here is the problem, no one cares if I vote or not, people only care if I vote for who they want! Technically I did vote, so no one can be upset. So why would I waste my time spoiling my ballot when it’s pretty much the same as not voting? I don’t know, mostly so people don’t yell at me for not voting and to show that it’s not about laziness. The reason I didn’t vote is because I don’t believe in our democratic political system.

Who wants you to vote?

All of the campaigns to encourage people to vote are supported by Liberals (or NDP) and aimed at young people. Why, because younger people are more likely to vote More liberal. Conservatives don’t encourage people to vote for the same reason. So when it looks like people care about something, it’s really just a calculated political move, which is all politics ever is. Everything they do is to win, do they even have any ideological values? That explains why no ones platform is consistent. Trudeau is “Pro-Choice” but doesn’t allow his party members to CHOOSE where they stand on abortion…that’s called pro-ABORTION not pro-choice!

  

What is an Ad Hominem Fallacy

I don’t know what hardly any of the issues are because all I everhear are arguments about how terrible the person is and how they aren’t good enough to lead the country. What is an ad hominem argument? It’s attacking the person instead of the persons arguments. If I argue that the death penalty is wrong because we don’t have the right to kill anyone and you respond with “You’re just a wimp!”that is not addressing the actual argument, just the person. So all this Harper is racist and Trudeau isn’t ready really just comes down to slandering the opposition to make yourself look better. If we are going to steal something from American politics, let’s steal voting on specific issues and leave the mudslinging to the experts. Ooooooo Burn, America!

But Mike, aren’t you Pro-Life?!?!? Think of the Children!!!!

I am pro-life and I think it would be nice to have a pro-life party to vote for. Harper has been Prime Minister since 2006 and there is absolutely no regulations on abortion. You can literally kill a baby legally while the mother is in labour.  If Conservatives care about this issue, then when will anything happen? Oh remember what I said about no party being consistent…. Ooooo burn, conservatives! So yes I’m pro-life, who do I vote for to get abortion laws changed? Let me know when you find out….
 

  

Democracy does not work

I’ve been a Communist and an Anarchist and now I just realize there is no good system. Plato said in the Republic that democracy is the least just system of government. He said dictatorship is more just! Maybe we should try a dictatorship? (Don’t forget that Hitler was elected democratically!) The only way you can have a just political system is if the people/person in charge cared more about other people than themselves… So we have no hope. I think the people in charge need to be philosophers first and foremost. They need to objectively look at things, they need to change their minds once in a while and they need to admit they are wrong sometimes!

 

Seriously though, read some Plato!
 

Conclusion

The conclusion to this hopeless, depressing rant… I hear Switzerland is nice this time of year! I hate politics precisely because I have no good solution and I’m not sure there is an actual solution. Individuals need to look into what is right and what is wrong. Just because it is legal does not make it right. Have an informed conscious, have a truly open mind and don’t be afraid to change sides! And for the love of everything good and holy, take a philosophy class! Philosophy was the only subject I took in University that, I felt, wasn’t completely bias. There is a lot more I could say but my main point is that you need to think critically, always look at what someone’s motivations could be before you buy what they’re selling. I think philosophy is the only way to make reasonable decisions.

  

Ordain a Lady (Deaconesses)

  
This post is not about women becoming priests, for that see both sides of the argument below. (Ok that might be bias but Peter Kreeft gives a good account of the argument here)

If you need a good laugh and like horrible singing to a catchy Carly Rae Jepson tune, then watch the video Ordain a Lady!

Today I want to discuss specifically women being ordained Deacons, not priests. 

  

Argument from History

We used to have female deacons. That is a very well documented fact. Now I’ve heard from many conservative sources that they used to be called Deaconesses. I’ve also heard that the only reason we had “deaconesses” was because the baptism of adults was done naked. However, I’ve also heard from the professor of my sacraments course that women deacons were never called deaconesses, but were also just called deacons. This appears to be true if you look at the direct sources from the church fathers and early church.

Regardless of this fact it remains that we have had women who acted as deacons, even if it was only for baptism. Even if this was an exception to the rule, it proves that there is no theoretical reason that women cannot be deacons. Maybe it was a cultural practice, circumstantial, a necessary break from the norm, but whatever the reason there is no theological reason women cannot be deacons or they never would have been. Women were deacons, therefore they could conceivably be deacons again.

  

Argument from Theology (In Persona Christe)

So then why can’t women be ordained priest but they can be ordained deacons? Well when a priest celebrates Mass or forgives sins in reconciliation, he is acting “in persona Christe” or “in the person of Christ”. This means that in a sense the priest becomes Christ. The problem then becomes sexuality, is Jesus being male a coincidence or is it part of his substance, who he is? Is God being called Father just a man made invention from a patriarchal society? I would suggest that the maleness of God has a much deeper meaning. (I’ll save that for another blog post though!)

To get back to the point, deacons can baptize, give homilies, celebrate weddings etc. None of those things require him to do something supernatural like forgive sins or turn bread into the body of Christ. My point is that there is no theological reason women cannot be deacons since that is the reason women cannot be priests. 

Slippery Slope Counter Argument 

This is one argument, and I think the main argument people have with women deacons. The “This is one step towards women being priests” argument.

Slippery slope arguments are one of Aristotles logical fallacies. Basically it’s when someone says “if we allow this one thing to happen, then a series of much worse things will happen.” The reason it is a fallacy is because when one thing happens, there is no reason that the next thing will happen. If a women becomes a deacon maybe some will see it as a step to women becoming priests but that does not necessarily follow. In other words there is no reason women would have to be allowed to become priests if they become deacons because of what I said above about priests being “in persona Christe”.

  

In conclusion I would say that we cannot be afraid of change just because it is different. Too often we are against something because it “feels wrongs” or “unnatural”. We need to base our opinions in logical facts and have reasons why we believe things. There are things in the church that will never change, but there are things that can. We shouldn’t be afraid to ask the necessary questions. Can this change? Should it? What are the consequences? Why has it been like this for so long?  I am open to hear other people’s opinions on this, although I think I’m right, there is a lot I don’t know about this topic.

Bill Nye “the Barely a Science Guy” …. Guy

Bill Nye Video on Abortion


Please watch the video by Bill Nye in the link above before reading further.

First let’s address the fact that Bill Nye is not a scientist, he’s an actor. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell. Engineering is an important subject that requires a high degree of intelligence but engineers are not scientists. I have a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology, but that doesn’t make me an artist. Bill is also not a philosopher and clearly has never studied philosophy. If he did he would know that a straw-man argument is when you present your opponents argument falsely so you can tear it down. Maybe Bill should take a philosophy class then he would literally know what he is talking about since this debate has equally as much to do with philosophy as it does with science.

1560549_280824082067341_1903838953_n
So why is his argument false? Bill Nye’s main argument is that fertilized eggs often do not implant and therefore are naturally terminated before implantation. I use the word naturally because there is no intent to end the life that has begun. Morally evil acts must have the intention behind them, this is the difference between manslaughter and murder. Murder is the intentional ending of a persons life, which is what I would argue abortion is. If someone dies of old age we don’t have a trial as Nye so disingenuously suggested we do when a fertilized egg does not implant. Secondly, Bill Nye does not offer an alternative explanation of when we should not abort. It seems to me he was suggesting that it is an important life once the fertilized egg implants into the uterine wall. So Bill let’s stop the 99% of abortions that happen after it implants.

My main criticism of Bill’s video is how arrogant he is to say “You literally don’t know what you’re talking about.” It is one thing to disagree with people and have a debate with them, it is another to insult their intelligence. I gave Bill Nye credit for discussing evolution in a debate with a creationist, because engaging in debate says “I don’t think you’re unworthy of my time, but I do think you’re wrong”. Saying people don’t know what they are talking about is ignorant and suggests that Bill thinks he’s “above” everyone pro-life. Engage in a debate Bill, and then you won’t be able to use ignorant straw-man arguments to prove you’re point. The ironic part of it is that he accuses white men of European descent of promoting these oppressive ideas from on high! Oh wait Bill, aren’t you a white male of European descent promoting your ideas from your elevated platform because you think you know more than everyone since you had a children’s show about science?

*I’d also like to add that Bill Nye turns this into a religious issue when there are many secular people who are pro-life. He claims the reasons of this “ignorance of science” is because of a 5000 year old book. My reasons for being pro-life have little to do with religion, but has a lot to do with philosophy, logic and science. Check out Secular Pro-Life on Facebook.

Here is a video that explains how science can explain how abortion is wrong, Catholic Answers – When Does Human Life Begin?

Lady Gaga on Rape Culture

Lady Gaga – Til It Happens To You
  
Lady Gaga* recently came out with a new music video. Different from her usual videos, this one is about the harm and seriousness of “Rape Culture” in our modern society. Now normally I am not a fan of Lady Gaga at all, but this video is very good. I encourage everyone to watch it, even if you strongly dislike Lady Gaga as I do. The song and video are both in support of a documentary on rape. They show the pain and isolation our rape culture causes. It is a powerful social commentary.

The problem is that rape culture goes far beyond just rape, hence the title rape culture. It is the whole culture that is infected with this syndrome which includes sex trafficking, promiscuity, pornography, prostitution and the general sexualization of our media. The criticism I have of Lady Gaga is that our rape culture starts with her other music videos which I would consider to be Pornographic. The Pornographication of our society that Lady Gaga doesn’t seem to have a problem with at all and even promotes and is a part of, is the first cause of our rape culture. 
Lady Gaga promotes young girls and boys to have promiscuous sex by glamorizing sex. She entices boys to objectify her by showcasing her body which primes them to become rapists! Now that may seem like a stretch but we can see studies that show violent pornography is directly correlated with rape myth acceptance and non-violent pornography, also contributes although not as much. It is also well known that softer forms of pornography lead to more extreme and violent forms of pornography. Study on the Relationship Between Rape and Pornography

  
 The point of writing this is to point out the hypocrisy of the rape culture. It is often perpetuated by the very people who are speaking out against it. Now at this point it may appear as me, a male, pointing out that rape culture is women’s own fault. “Victim blaming” women for dressing in a certain way suggesting they are “asking for it”. However, I believe Lady Gaga (the person) is in fact one of the many victims of rape culture, probably being used and persuaded into be as provocative as possible by men on her production team. We blame porn on the women depicted on screen when the producers and owners of pornography are all men. The people making money and taking pleasure from our rape culture is  almost always men, while women are usually used. Which brings to mind the saying “getting their cake and eating it too”.

The solution is that every person male and female needs to reject the sexualization of our culture, as Saint John Paul II called it the “Culture of Death”. This feels insurmountable but we must unite men and women together and stand up against this sexualization attitude. Sex is an act of love that our society has perverted and defiled. Let’s work together to transform this rape culture. The only way to do this is to place Love as the highest good, which means knocking pleasure and selfishness out of contention for first place in our own lives. 

*when I refer to Lady Gaga, I refer to her as the person but also as the corporation her name represents. It is impossible for me to tell where the line is between her as a person and her as a brand*

  

Objectification of a Woman

    

  

I have seen articles like the one above on Facebook several times this past little while. Is this not the epitome of objectification of women? I often have little good to say about feminism, mostly because of this exact thing. When we see modern feminism in the news/media we usually only see one type. We see women like the FEMEN movement who are protesting with their shirts off. While what they are protesting may be for a very good cause, all anyone is seeing is angry women with no shirts on. Which seems very counter intuitive….
For the most part Feminism has become first world women complaining about first world problems. They are upset because they aren’t allowed to murder children in their womb. They want to be liberated so they can do what they want with their bodies, which means have sex often and with many different partners (which sounds a lot like what they accuse men of doing….). Meanwhile men, women and children are being actually oppressed in other countries. Maybe it is unfair to lump all Feminism into one category like that, but that is exactly why we use words like “Feminism”. We use titles as short hand so we don’t have to describe our beliefs on each individual issue. Sorry sane feminists but crazy, naked, pro-choice feminists have high jacked your word.

  

I don’t believe we have to go to other countries if we want to find women being oppressed though. It is going on in our own backyard, the problem is I don’t hear many people talk about it. The article above and the many others just like it are a prime example of women being oppressed, except I haven’t seen one article from someone upset about it. 

The suffrage movement started because women were not seen as people and were not given the right to vote. That is a legitimate problem that needed to be fixed. From there women have come such a long way, even to the point of being able to do any job a man does. Women have entered the world of politics and high ranking CEOs and even…. sports. It’s taken women 100 years to go from not being seen as a person to making the cover of a sports magazine. And yet read the title of the article above… “20 Female Athletes Known More For Their Looks Than Their Game”

All this way for women to be looked at as sex objects instead of being seen for their abilities. That is what feminists should be upset about! These girls worked their whole lives to be good at a sport and it turns out they just needed to look good. Apparently it doesn’t matter how good at the sport they are if they are ugly, because no one cares about you if you’re an ugly woman. We should want women to be looked at as more than something to look at. So when FEMEN only lets attractive girls be their protesters and they happen to be half naked, is that solving a problem? I’m sure they get more attention that way but they are also encouraging what they should be fighting.

  

Gay Marriage Discrimination

          The U.S. recently passed a bill making gay marriage legal nationwide. This issue is an interesting one to me because I have many conflicting opinions on it. On one hand I believe what the Catholic Church teaches about sexuality which I’ll explain. On the other hand I absolutely believe that gay people are discriminated against. They are treated differently both on a personal level and in legislation because of their sexuality. When we define marriage the way we do in North America (which I don’t believe is proper), we must make gay marriage legal, if we do not, it is absolutely discrimination. First I will explain  what I believe about sex and why, then I will explain why we have been defining marriage wrong for a very long time.

            I believe sex has a purpose or goal and that goal is children. That is the main function of sex and a secondary purpose is an expression of a particular kind of love. Love does not need to be sexual. You can love someone without sex being a part of it and that love is not less than sexual love, just different. Marriage is the same as sex, it’s purpose is to create and rear children. I also believe that marriage is the only proper place for sex to take place. In an ideal world every kid would be born from and raised by their parents. There would be no need for adoption (as great as I think it is in our broken world) because every kid would be raised by their biological parents. This is what I believe sex is and the reason it exists which you can agree or disagree with. (Also notice that explanation of my belief has nothing to do with God or religion.)

Artificial Contraception

            The prevailing christian idea of sex is much different than my idea of sex. Many christians oppose gay marriage while maintaining that artificial contraception is morally acceptable. This is where I believe homosexual people are discriminated against. If artificial contraception is ok, then sex is something people engage in primarily for pleasure and secondarily for procreation. Many Christians still believe sex is only for marriage, however for many of them the belief that “sex is only acceptable in marriage” is their only concrete moral belief about sex and marriage. The question it raises is “why is sex only for marriage?” If the reason is having and raising children then artificial contraception undermines the purpose of sex and marriage for many Christians. In Principle, artificial contraception is anti-children and anti-monogamy.

No Fault Divorce

               Many christians also believe that no fault divorce is morally acceptable. If no-fault divorce is morally acceptable then it follows that marriage is not a permanent union. If this is the case it destroys the argument that marriage is about children, in that children need both a Mom and a Dad. This is the most common argument I hear against gay marriage. I actually agree with the argument that children need both a Mom and Dad, but the state of marriage in our modern world (i.e. No fault divorce) cannot support such an important argument. The solution I see would be to have stricter regulations surrounding marriage to lower divorce rates. If people viewed marriage as a permanent union when they got married, rather than having such an easy escape hatch, they would appreciate it more. I believe they would work harder at marriage and put more thought into who they are marrying.

           I realize my beliefs about sex and marriage are more traditional or conservative, I also realize that many people disagree with this view. A majority of people in the United States do not believe any of what I said above. The role of government in a democratic state is to do what the majority wants. It is not to be concerned with what is morally right or wrong, only the majority vote (Which is why I don’t care for the democratic system). So I believe it was the governments obligation to legalize gay marriage in the states.  

  

             Many people say “God wants us to be loving and accepting” and that is more important. What is clearly most important to God is children.

“If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” – Matthew 18:6

 In order to change the tides and create a country (in both Canada and the U.S.) that is more in line with the natural law and what God would want, we need to focus on children. The first thing we need to do is as a society, to stop talking about children as some kind of burden. We need to stop treating them as second class citizens and celebrate the birth of a child! We also all need to be more like children too, joyful, innocent and fun loving so we can appreciate those characteristics more. How many white haired church people treat the youth as an annoyance in “their” church. As Christians who believe in traditional marriage we need to start with the way society defines children long before we deal with how society defines marriage.