Wisdom Is the Principle Thing; Therefore,
 Get Wisdom and Forget It Not

 

For some time now, I have desired to discuss an issue I discovered within the framework of the Christian Bible; particularly, the King James Holy Bible. After completing three college courses at accredited universities, I was left to question my entire religious perspective. What I’d been taught over the years by parents and peers and/or educators about religion, didn’t clarify the root of the knowledge encompassed within the historical religious doctrine, we as Christians, cling to with all our heart and soul for comfort and guidance.



This is why I was perplexed to find out a new piece of the puzzle on the current religious warfare Muslims seem to continue being involved in. The details in the discovery, evoked me to begin additional research outside of the Scriptures. What I found out from both the Bible and theological study resources, knocked my socks right off!

Here’s why: in the Old Testament, some Christians in the past were introduced to the angel: Belial, whose history has been repeatedly hammered with direct correlation to Satan, according to theological studies. So when I began reading the entire Christian Bible, and learning about other angels’ that exist within this story, I began speculating that  God had conveyed this information to Christians, in an effort to educate us about our ancestry.

Take for instance, the first acknowledgement of an angel being referred to as God can be found in Genesis 31:11, which conveys: And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, say, Jacob: and I said, Here am I. Now when you read further down to verse 13, the angels says, “I am God of Beth-el, where thou anointed the pillar, and where thou vowest a vow unto me: now rise, get thee out from this land, and return unto the land of kindred” (American Bible Society, 1982, p.26).  Learning this surely evoked me to research a little more about angels.

After all, you hear music artist sing songs conveying messages about angels and how they love and provide wisdom and guidance from a divine perspective. Yet when reading about angels in the King James Holy Bible, I began questioning the existence of celestial presence; wondering if such divine existences were true. This thirst for understanding led me to I Corinthians 15:40, which introduced this idealism: There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial…

Reading this evoked zeal for clarity. This is when I began investigating the name: Belial, which I discovered in I Samuel 25:17, which conveys: Now therefore know and consider what thou wilt do; for evil is determined against our master, and against all his household: for he is such a son of Belial that a man cannot speak to him (1982). Then, I found the same name in Second Samuel 23:6- But the sons of Belial shall be all of them as thorns thrust away, because they cannot be taken with hands (1982).

Now as a Christian, I must admit: I never learned much about this angel-Belial. I say angel because according to Theologian Gustav Davidson, author of The Dictionary of Angels, Belial (Beliar and/or Berial) is the great fallen angel, often equated with Satan. Gustave goes so far as to explain that Belial danced for King Solomon; then, he shares a Scripture from II Corinthians 6:15, which reads: What concord hath Christ with Belial? To me, this passage conveys, Paul concern of Belial being the chief of demons. And as questionable as it seemed, I couldn’t help conducting additional research, hoping to unlock more clues about Belial.

Ideally, this angel’s name is spelled differently from time to time; so much, in some instances, it’s spelled Beliar, and is often interchangeable with Beliel or Bilal.  I learned this because the author points out this name in Deuteronomy, Judges and I Samuel. He also shares details about this angel being written about in the Apocryphal (forbidden books) found in the Septuagint; where Beliar is the prince of darkness, supreme adversary of God.

Next the author shares a passage from The Gospel of Bartholomew, when Bartholomew asked Beliar to tell who he is, and Beliar answered: “At first I was called Satanel, which is interpreted as messenger of God, but when I rejected the image of God my name was changed to Satan, the angel that keepth watch over hell. I was formed the first angel, Michael second, Gabriel third, Uriel fourth, Raphael fifth, Nathanael sixth…these are the angels of vengeance that were first formed” (Gustav, D., 1968, p.74).

Afterwards, the author shares this passage, “Beliar was said to have been created after Lucifer” (1968). But what captured me most, was when I read that Beliar is best noted for his role in Muhammad lore. Surely, any knowledgeable religious study understands this is in reference to Muslims. Then it dawned on me. The local Muslim Mosque here in Canton, MI has a sign outside it that has -Bilal on it as its primary welcome sign.

 

Honestly, I’ve always wondered what Muslims believed differently from Christians. So when I took college courses on Western World Religions, and learned about the history of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shinto, Catholicism, Hinduism, and many others, I couldn’t help trying to put all the piece of the puzzle together. After all, I was introduced to theological research conveying the angel Gabriel, was the one who inspired Mohammed, to compose the Hole Quran, sura by sura. Of course, learning this was quite baffling, because Gabriel is the angel who informed Mary that she would conceive a child name: Jesus, as it is written in St. Luke 1:19 and St. Luke 1:26.

 

Question is: Why does angels play more of a role of God in our ancestors’ lives than God? I ask this, because in Matthew 1:20, the Scripture conveys: But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost (1982).

Almost immediately after reading this, I turned back to Genesis 31:11, which I pointed out earlier, to you: “And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, say, Jacob: and I said, Here am I. (1982).

Surely this mystery has been tucked away from the minds of those who seek to know more understanding on the Word many classify as the Book of God. Even though many theologians and Bible committee members have repeatedly shared insightful clues on how they revise the Scripture and try and provide readers with a more clear understanding of what the text is explaining. I Corinthians 2:15, conveys: But the natural man does not understand the things of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1982).

If man is considered spiritually discerned (he is without knowledge), therefore, how can any one sitting on a Bible committee, determine what the original authors intentions were when they compiled those fragmented scholarly books together, to complete what we have now: The New International King James Bible, The New Revised King James Bible; the New NIV King James Bible, and the countless other bibles, we are forced to purchase at Barnes and Nobles for various prices.

The whole concept of these historical religious documents, is to provide us with some understanding of what was happening during those eras of time, when our holiest of ancestors were groomed with oppression, misled, and mistreated because people didn’t have the same anthropology skills and knowledge required today, to provide thorough answers for us, who seek to understand today’s revised Holy Bibles. Fact is, had I not began studying eMarketing and forced to take courses that teach me about cultures, religions, and beliefs; I would not have learned as much as I have shared with you about the angel Belial/Bilal and his history closely related to the teaching of Muslims.

Clearly, over the course of years, someone twisted the story of each religion; added a few changes that unleashed the meaning of the text, but in a different format than originally presented. Afterwards, groups of ‘learned’ scholars joined together and swore each other to secrecy about the mysteries woven within the structure of all religious bodies. I guess this is why the Scripture found in 2 Peter 1:20 teaches us: Knowing this first that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation (American Bible Society, 1982, p.994).

Christians, I  believe it’s time to invest more interest in the root of our religious history; in order to better combat the seemingly endless negativity that continues eroding our communities because of religious misunderstanding, deeply rooted in our history, established centuries before today. After all, we now live in a world where unbelieving and ungodly fearing people, do not respect your First Amendment right to religious freedom. Or, your 14^th Amendment right in compliance with the Bill of Rights; to liberty (freedom), life, and the pursuit of happiness.  

We are the body of the Church; each of us who takes stock in the message of faith offered through the divine words of wisdom left behind by our ancestors’, to inspire us, protect us, guide us, and console us. Christians, isn’t it time we got back to walking in the rhythm of LOVE, LIGHT, and HAPPINESS? Otherwise, religions such as Islam, will continue looking at us as enemies and not supporting contributors of God’s universe.

“Wisdom strengtheneth the wise more than ten mighty men which are in the city”-

Ecclesiastes 7:19, KJV

 

Reference

 

American Bible Society, (1982). Holy King James Bible. P. 26

Davidson, Gustav, (1968). A Dictionary of Angels including the Fallen Angels. The Free Press a Division of MacMillian, Inc. p. 74

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We must not be hampered by yesterday’s myths in concentrating on today’s needs

- Harold S. Geneen

Ideally, although many religious followers' oppose same-sex marriage and/or the right to abortion; most religious followers’ opinions on these two social issues seem to derive solely from their religious teaching, upbringing and/or bias opinions. And even though the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution enables all American citizens equal protection under the law, as well as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Seemingly, most religious followers’ disregard these Constitutional laws and rights, and instead; adamantly seek political positions of influence in an effort to impose religious idealism upon the rest of those in American who do not believe in one religion or another. Question is: Why does America need to extend the constitutional right to religious belief in the first place? After all, according to most religious followers’, God is in charge of our nation. So, why does the law have any correlation with religious regulations? Congress shall not support any establishment of religion. However, this doesn’t explain why the First Amendment enables all American citizens the right to religious belief in the first place. Yet for years, the Supreme Court has been called time and again to implement fair judgments against religiosity that seeks to strike down the freedoms instilled by the law. But when the forces of today’s leading top tier  religious organizations', such as: Judaism, Catholicism, Christianity, and Islam, embody followers’ and/or supporters’, who have deep pockets to influence political decisions and persuade majority votes in favor of religious beliefs, the end results often back fire and cause a terrorizing affect on us all. This is why I wrote this essay; to  continue a dialogue on an issue that hasn't been resolved, as well as to encourage religious followers' AND theologians, who refuse to share this truth with others', they are entrusted to educate, and those who seek to understand what is happening in today's political climate of Constitutional rights and religious beliefs. Therefore, in an effort to convey why I strongly oppose organized religious advocacy in political affairs, I’ve compiled peer reviewed scholarly research from university professors, theologians, Bible publishers’, and historical philosophers’, who played a key role in helping us better understand what all the fuss is really about regarding religions' around the world and their view of same-sex marriage.

 

 

Interestingly, the first research tool, I discovered while studying world religions', was that “Christianity has had a continuous and complex history of development through the early Church Councils that formulated the Creeds (brief statements of religious belief), the emergence of the Papacy ( the position or authority of the Pope), the schism between Roman and Orthodox Christianity in the eleventh century, the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century, the Catholic Counter-Reformation, and many more developments and splits since” (Leslie S. & David, H. 2009, p.108). Moreover, research compiled by Professor Mary Fisher, author of Living Religions, conveys, “in the ninth century, the Church produced documents old and new believed to legitimate the hierarchical authority of the papacy over the Church, and the Church over society, as the proper means of transmitting inspiration from the divine to humanity. Those who disagreed could be threatened with excommunication and lose their benefits of the Church’s secular power” (Fisher, M. 2008, p.331).

And even though the Church secretly still plays a key role in much of societies regulations today, the  true power holders in this race for secular control and religious indoctrination, are those who over see the publication of today’s religious documents. But what gives these stake holders the authority to manipulate religious followers’ with fear, through their revised doctrine that's controlling the thoughts, actions and/or viewpoints, of not only religious followers but the viewpoints of the non-religious? After all, historical doctrine introduces the ideal that  most religious documents were written by men. And when examining history, especially during eras in which most religious history accounts for (ninth-nineteenth century), I grew driven to understand what each religion’s doctrine actually conveys. Shockingly, what I learned was not only enriching, but mind boggling. For instance, Judaism had no single founder and/or central leader of group making theological decisions; instead, Jewish people have always turned to the” Tanakh (a different version of which Christians call “the Old Testament”)” (Mary, Fisher, 2008, p.236), as their primary source of religious teaching. However, Catholicism, Christianity, and Islam were each established by men. In fact, according to Professor Mary Fisher, “The Roman emperor passed an edict (an official public proclamation issued by authority) that all Christians were to recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome.  And the strongest of Church administrators during these early centuries was Gregory I (“the Great”), who died in 604 CE. Wealthy by birth but ascetic by choice, he devoted his personal fortune to founding monasteries and feeding the poor” (Mary, Fisher, 2008, p.331).

 

 

 

Yet, it wasn’t until, I began combing through Christian Church religious doctrine, did I find a discrepancy, I strongly felt needed to be addressed. Take for instance; world renowned Bible publisher Thomas Nelson has a long standing reputation for publishing and disseminating spectacular Bibles. Surprisingly, when I examined three of their best selling Bibles, I learned that in most of their Bibles, verse I Corinthians 6:9, convey a message that- homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. Yet shockingly, each Bible this publisher has published over the course of years, reads differently. In fact, in one Bible, I Corinthians 6:9 reads: Do you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals…” (Thomas Nelson, 1982, p.770.) Then, in 1984, the same publisher revised the same scripture to read: 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 extortionist, nor abusers of themselves with mankind” (Thomas Nelson, 1984, p.673). Of course, in another Bible published in 2001 & 2006 titled Extreme Teen Bible, the same Scripture has been altered from its chronological order verse 9 thru 10. And instead, verse I Corinthians 6:9 is now listed as I Corinthians 6:10; Scripture 9 has been completely omitted. Still, despite this fact, this edition of this Scripture, too, reads: Surely you know that the people who do wrong will not inherit God’s kingdom. Do not be fooled. Those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, lie about others, or rob-these people will not inherit God’s kingdom”(Thomas Nelson, 2006, p.1346). Obviously, this publisher has no true remorse for this crime against humanity. But when, we honestly examine what I’ve shared, who is to blame?  After all, people volunteer to become active parts of religious organizations. Once we become adults, we each have a right to choose our path. We also have a right to relinquish those ideas rooted in our minds, by our parents and friends, especially regarding religion. It is our responsibility as religious followers, to investigate what it is we are learning and from which we learn that data from. After all, the devil seeks to deceive us all.

 

Now, while there are countless religious followers’, including myself, who find the Scriptures enriching and filled with wonderful words of inspiration. One cannot evade the misrepresentation pointed out above. After all, with laypersons (Bible committee members and publishers) controlling what the Scripture conveys to the public, should evoke all religious followers’ to open their eyes and realize what has been going on throughout history.  I say this because, both Catholicism and Islam’s  doctrine are published and disseminated the exact same way Christian religious doctrine is. Funny thing though, such doctrine can only be obtained via religious bookstores, online, and in brick and mortar stores, such as Barnes and Nobles. Is this how God really intended for us to gain knowledge of HIS existence? If so, why are we subject to cost? Not only must we pay for religious doctrine, in many religions, we are forced to give a portion of our money to the organization. This is primarily why the law has been more or less, forced to play a key role in the on-going development of today’s religions'. Without the law, our society would be even more chaotic; and religion, would have an even greater hold on the infrastructure of political policies. Sadly, the one group that continues to be entangled in religious warfare and bias opinions, is the LGBT community.  Like myself and many others, who practice one religion or another, there is a great divide on the issue regarding, if LGBT people should be allotted the civil liberties the Constitution has always rendered to American citizens', since it was signed. However, it seems such regulations continue taking a back seat to the prominence of organized religions' and their religious itinerary. Because of this and for many more reasons not mentioned, I strongly feel organized religious groups' should not be allowed to influence political decisions of today’s political leaders.

 

In fact, because of the high level of religious intolerance towards homosexuals and lesbians in America, many religious followers’ refrain from embracing homosexuals and lesbians, because they believe such people are an abomination (digesting). Moreover, such individuals believe allowing women the right to abort their child is condoning killing an innocent person. Yet when the government erects a barrier that makes it more difficult for members of one group (homosexuals and lesbians) to attain the same benefits as another group (heterosexuals), the injury is the denial of equal treatment resulting from the imposition of the barrier. In this case, denying same-sex loving people equal protection under the law and disenabling them to wed, nationally, despite Supreme Court rulings and state rebuttals against this fundamental right; not only is the government disregarding its Constitution, but each state that denies same-sex loving people the right to wed, is also denying same-sex loving people their U.S. Constitutional right. However, if any religious follower from any organized religion actually took time to investigate what they are studying and/or have committed their lives too, they would conclude that “past” religious leaders and/or politicians have imposed personal bias viewpoints within the framework of many religious documents, to restrict our lives and condone who is worthy of God's love, but denying homosexuals the right to God's love, altogether. After all, most religions have committees that oversee the development and/or revisions of its religious documents.  This is another reason why, I strongly oppose organized religious groups from being allowed to act as political advocates, because their primary focus should be on the spiritual needs of people.

 

After all, additional research convey, the rise of Constantine to imperial rule in the early fourth century CE, evoked opposition to turn against the embracing of Christianity (2008). Moreover, it wasn’t until Constantine claimed that God showed him a vision of a cross in the clouds, that Christianity was tolerable to be embraced as a religion, alongside the state cult, of which Constantine was chief priest of (Mary Fisher, 2008). Unfortunately, followers of each religion failed to comprehend what revisions (hermeneutics) actually mean. This field of theology study is an attempt to interpret the Scripture. But how can anyone interpret the Scripture, especially when no one living over the past 100 years, can give an honest account for what really happened during the pre-Christ era and beyond.

Perhaps, this one of the primary reasons why so much scholarly research has been conducted on the countless errors and fallacies exposed within today’s religious doctrine. Still, despite such findings, many religious followers’ maintain their beliefs and idealisms in the religion of their choice, because they strongly feel they are right in their assessments. And because of this, many religious organizations that do embrace both same-sex marriage and abortion, without discomfort, gain more followers’ than those religions and denominations that oppose such liberty. In fact, within the 21,000 independent Christian Church denominations, falling under 156 main groupings, the Unitarian church not only embraces same-sex love, but conducts same-sex marriages. Meanwhile, “American abortion attitudes have remained remarkably stable since the 1970’s; there is a solid consensus supporting the legalization of abortion” (Michele, D. & Savage, S, 2006, p.7); even though, “Southerners and rural Americans are more likely than others to disagree with abortion” (2006).

 

Surely, after examining the evidence I've presented, those who seek clarity on the issue of homosexuality and religious doctrine, should honestly evaluate the evidence, without bias. Doing so, will help Americans' begin rebuilding their foundation of hope and faith, on facts that cannot be ignored when questioning the existence of a divine Creator. After all, no man birthed the fish in the sea or helped in the development of cats, birds and/or flowers. Therefore, in conclusion, I must point out that, “conservative variants of Christianity teach adherents that religious scripture is inerrant and authoritative over human affairs, and that it is the yardstick against which all other sources of information and insight should be evaluated (Hempel and Bartkowski, 2008. p.1647-74). And as a person who was introduced to the Christian Church, at an early age; over the years, I’ve learned the value and importance of conducting research on the history of today’s top tier religions'. In doing so, not only have I gained essential knowledge on how each religion was established and/or who established these religions; I’ve learned how many religious followers' actually lack clarity on each religion, they profess to follow and/or support. Because of this lack of knowledge, many in the body of religion suffer tremendously. So much, many of those who seek to find a place of salvation and comfort, disregard the Church and/or other religious organizations as safe havens,  simply because, there has been and continues to be an increased level of corruption entangling people in misinformed data published by today’s religious doctrine publishers. Luckily, most of today’s history conveys a rich understanding on the key ingredients any religious follower needs to consider, in order to attain the level of peace and happiness most religious followers' seek. And despite the seemingly endless outcry for salvation and peace, many religious followers’ continue to spew negative idealism, strongly opposing same-sex love and the U.S. Constitutional right to abortion and equality for LGBT people. Due to this, and for many reasons more, I strongly feel organized religious advocacy has its place within the structure of social and moral perimeters. However, those perimeters should not impede upon the civil liberties of non-religious followers’ and/or supporters’. Not because doing so is a direct violation of an individual’s Constitutional right, but because all Americans' have the right to worship their God as they see fit. No one, regardless of their religion of choice, should be given the authority to force those who do not believe in any religion over another and/or embrace religion at all, to live in compliance to the regulations imposed upon religious followers’, by the religious leaders, religious followers' “willfully” place their trust in. Religion should be the cornerstone of all religious followers' essence of human peace and intelligent understanding...

 

Reference

 

Stevenson, L. and Haberman, D., (2009). Ten Theories of Human Nature: Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Plato Aristotle, the Bible, Kant, Marx, Sartre Darwinian Theories, Oxford University Press,  New York, NY, p.108

 

Fisher, Mary, (2008), Living Religions: Seventh Edition, Pearson Education Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, p. 236

 

Fisher, Mary, (2008), Living Religions: Seventh Edition, Pearson Education Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, p. 331

 

Fisher, Mary, (2008), Living Religions: Seventh Edition, Pearson Education Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, p. 376

 

Hempel, Lynn M., and John P. Bartkowski, (2008), “Scripture, Sin, and Salvation: Theological Conservatism Reconsidered”, Social Forces 86:1647-74

 

Michele, D. & Sarah, S. (2006), Values and Religion in Rural America: attitudes towards abortion and same-sex relations. The Carsey Institute at the Scholars’ Repository, New Hampshire, CT. p.7;http://scholars.unh.edu/carsey/12/?utm_source=scholars.unh.edu%2Fcarsey%2F12&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

 

Nelson, Thomas, (1982), Holy Bible: New King James Version, Thomas Nelson Publishing, Nashville, TN. p. 770

 

Nelson, Thomas, (1984), Holy Bible: King James Version, Thomas Nelson Publishing, Nashville, TN. p. 673

 

Nelson, Thomas, (2006), Extreme Teen Bible, Thomas Nelson Publishing, Nashville, TN. p. 1346

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

“And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage, but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage”- Luke 20:34/35

In a country defined by its U.S. Constitutional laws, coming face-to-face with the debate regarding heterosexual traditions and LGBT (Lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgendered) legalities, trying to hold people accountable to traditions, especially religious traditions, has legally been defined as a violation of one’s Constitutional rights. But when analyzing this concept of thinking in-depth, it’s quite challenging to evade the realism that our current laws were established by those who are no longer living. And even though this is so, today’s American Executive branch diligently seeks to impose laws that are neutral, with hopes of eliminating argumentative controversy amongst American people. But when examining the history of America, one cannot evade the fact that religion has played a significant role in the structure of this country’s foundation. Unfortunately, over the years, there have been countless religions woven into the fabric of American life; and in many instances, each religion possesses its own way of thinking, living, interacting and/or practices. Therefore, how can there ever be a firm resolution to appease all American people. After all, in many instances, many Americans do not have a religious viewpoint at all, because they do not practice religion. And even though, many more Americans do practice one religion or another, the growing debates surrounding U.S. citizens Constitutional rights remains unresolved, especially regarding same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, in order to define what is for the greater good of the American people under the ethical theory utilitarianism, we cannot ignore past laws that reflect idealisms of those with staunch religious viewpoints; assuming that such viewpoints were for the greater good of all.

 Therefore, in an attempt to combat the growing debates that seem to aggravate one side of society or another, scholarly mediators, lawyers, and theologians are continually asked to evaluate what should and should not be done to please the majority of American citizens regarding the matter of same-sex marriage. Yet in order to please the majority, again, there must be a firm resolution. But when such resolution revolves around personal ethical perspectives deeply rooted in religiosity; finding resolution seems impossible. As a result, I’ve compiled a significant amount of research supporting my ethical theories: utilitarianism and relativism- and how the issue of same-sex marriage is classified under each ethical theory. In doing so, I hope to shed greater light on this continued debate and possibly introduce a new perspective towards understanding the U.S. Constitutional rights of individuals’ including their First Amendment religious right. After all, today, heterosexual traditions come face-to-face with LGBT Legality. In addition, I convey research from various religious documents supporting my argument pertaining to my elected choice of ethical theories and how these theories play an intricate role in the lives of Americans’.

Interestingly, one of the most baffling experiences for any person who has been raised in a religion, is not knowing the history of that religion. Most commonly, many religious followers’ tend to cling to idealisms rooted in their minds, by family, friends, educators, and religious leaders, while growing up, because they believe doing so is for their greater good. Yet when such individuals get older and step outside of their traditional training and grasp ahold of new age literature that introduces new concepts of thinking, especially regarding one religion or another; in most instances, such persons’ grow weary with discombobulation. After all, most religious doctrine possesses one individual ethical perspective or another, and has held the minds of those who study such doctrine in bondage for countless years. So when examining ethical theories surrounding same-sex marriage, it’s quite understandable why so many people are up in arms.

 

On one hand, you have those who are encapsulated with religious belief. On the other, you have those who do not believe in any religion and/or a higher deity. To those who believe in such, those who do not believe are condemned to a life of hardship, because some religions teach their followers’ this concept of thinking. But the troubling aspect of this form of thinking, is the reality of the First Amendment and its power over an individual’s religious right. After all, the First Amendment instructs: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (U.S. Const. amend. I)” (Mosser, K. 2013, p. 16). Yet when arguing if same-sex marriage is ethical, especially when examining the First Amendment, which includes the clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, its impossible to escape the reality of the impact our Executive branch holds over the decisions imposed by each state refusing to respect the Constitutional rights of those residents’ who seeks to marry as a same-sex couple. Ethically, denying someone a Constitutional right implies blatant disregard for the U.S. Constitution itself; after all, legally, federal laws supersedes state law. Then when you examine why some states are denying same-sex couples their U.S. Constitutional rights, under state constitutional laws, one cannot forget how long such laws have been honored. After all, many laws that refute marriage beyond one man and one woman are more than fifty years old. Moreover, one cannot forget the value of religion and its power over the minds of those who proclaim one religion over another. As a result, America faces the most riveting and grippingly issue of all history: Should same-sex couples be respected and allowed the right to marry.

Of course, today, most religions deny same-sex couples the right to marry and refuse to conduct ceremonies honoring the union of love shared between two people of the same sex.  Even though, doing so often violates some religions sole purpose of existing. Take for instance, Christians’ strongly believe Jesus Christ was the only begotten son of God, who was sent to earth to shed his blood for the sins of all humankind. To Christians’, Jesus is a symbol of love sent to rectify the lives of those who believed, from the bondage imposed upon them, by unbelieving humans who took control of the people and oppressed them, with vain philosophies. Unfortunately, not all religious people believe this idea. In fact, Hindus believe in Brahmanic tradition, which can be traced back to the Vedic age, thousands of years ago. Moreover, Hindus honor a “multiplicity of deities” (Fisher, M. 2008, p.72). This metaphysical belief in the Vedas was elaborated into various schools of thought by philosophers and sages; completely different than the teaching of Christianity. Meanwhile, Muslims’ on the other hand, believe in Allah and strongly believe that Muhammad was the last prophet to come, with a message of faith from God. Furthermore, Judaism, “which has no single founder and no central leader or group making theological decisions, is the diverse tradition associated with the Jewish people” (Fisher, M., 2008, p. 235). And although each religion has its own founder (s), each religion shares the tradition that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. Yet to those who do not practice religion at all, such beliefs and idealism impose upon their Constitutional right to equal protection under the law; and thus, shouldn’t be considered relevant when determining, if same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. However, when looking at history and how the American Executive, Legislation, and Judicial branches were formed, one must realize the monarchy controlling our rights, regardless of religion and/or our personal ethical idealisms. Despite this fact, same-sex couples all over America feverishly seek to find resolution in a country that often sides with the religious infrastructure of the denominate world religion: Christianity. And because this is so, in most states, same-sex couples are denied the right to marry. Looking at this from a Christian perspective, one should first analyze how this religion gained control over the world in the first place. Secondly, one must also consider the realm of power this world religion has and who helps it maintain its power. If our laws were established by man, then so were our religions. And because man established the law and/or religion, those who oppose same-sex marriage often hold the economic influence of the purse and possesses the power to influence the voting outcome of most political debates on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Unfortunately, these debates continue to divide the American people and defy what this country is supposed to represent: Liberty and Freedom for all. Regardless of religious beliefs, the United States of America was formed without religion as its top priority. The United States of America was formed by non-religious founders, who imposed the Bill of Rights as a way of allotting the American people a life without restriction, especially a life without religious restrictions. However, today, America is slowly beginning to question how to move into the future, without infringing upon the religious rights of its citizens. Sadly, not all citizens agree with this idealism. Apparently, most of those who do oppose this idealism, are voluntarily joined with one religious group or another, that opposes same-sex marriage. But how can any religious follower use their religious beliefs to deny those who do not believe in any religion, their rights under the U.S. Constitution. After all, most religious doctrine was written and/or published by a group of men and/or women.

 

 

In fact, when examining some religious documents, such as the proposed replica of the Holy Bible King James Version (I say ‘proposed replica’ because the actual Holy Bible is under lock and key in a museum of sort), I learned a few Scriptures support liberty and freedom for all. Take for instance, Galatians 5 verse one teaches: “Stand fast therefore in liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage” (American Bible Society, 1982, p.953). However, in order to apply this to all Americans, every American would need to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Furthermore, when looking at various Sura’s within the proposed replica Holy Quran, and all other religious documents published today, by limited liability corporations, it’s difficult not to comprehend how often such documents have been altered to reflect the viewpoints of those who possess the most influence over the body of their religion and/or denominations, i.e. Christians, Hindus, Jews, and Muslims. Ideally, such persons’ holds the titles: Bible Committee members or religious committee members. These scholars have established a specific term to explain their concept of interpreting the Scripture. The term ‘hermeneutics’, is defined: the field of theological study that attempted to interpret Scripture.

 Ideally, this form of interpretation has been applied to the proposed replica Holy Bible King James Version, more than 2400 times, in more than 600 languages. And according to one ethical theory: Relativism, which holds the meaning “there are no objective moral truths, but that any moral evaluation is relative to someone, whether a single person or a larger group, such as one based on language, culture, gender, ethnicity, ideology, or another type of community” (Mosser, K. 2013, p.3); clearly, this ethical theory has been violated; mainly because, most religions teach ideology based upon one or a group of people’s morals and/or beliefs.  Of course, to some this seems unethical, but such changes to any religious document are legal under U.S. copyright publishing laws, which enables lay persons to duplicate and/or revise published works, whose copyright dates have expired. And since the proposed replica Holy Bible King James Version has been copy written longer than the publishing law allots a copyright holder to claim rights to a filed copyright document, legally, anyone or business has the legal right to republish a revised replica of the proposed Holy Bible King James Version, as he or she sees fit; and any other religious document that holds a legal copyright on file with the U.S. copyright office.

 

 

 Sadly, most religious followers who trust in religious documents and build their traditional thinking concepts around the philosophies enveloped within the page content of such doctrine, refuse to invest sincere time and/or effort evaluating the history of their religion and/or the doctrine itself. Take for instance, if Christians really investigated their doctrine, they would learn that one Scripture teaches: “But the natural man does not understand the things of God for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (American Bible Society, 1982, p.932). In another Scripture of the proposed replica Holy Bible King James Version, it instructs Christians: Owe no man anything, but to love one another: for he that loveth another has fulfilled the law (American Bible Society, 1982, p. 928). And lastly, II Peter 1 verses 20 and 21 of the same Christian doctrine conveys: “knowing this first that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost”( American Bible Society, 1982, p.994).

 Therefore, to further the discussion whether same-sex marriage is ethical in today’s society, and if heterosexuals have a right to deny LGBT people their U.S. Constitutional rights based on religious beliefs, I strongly believe additional research should be applied to both sides of the debate; simply because, the law enables people to have their religious right under the First Amendment. And since the law controls people’s religious rights under the First Amendment, the rights of all U.S. citizens seeking to marry as a same-sex couple should not be denied based on one religious groups beliefs or another. So in determining the outcome of this argument, I will utilize the following scholarly peer reviewed doctrine: The replica King James Version Holy Bible, published by the American Bible Society; the Handy Supreme Court Answer Book (a reference guide to Supreme Court historical laws); Ten Theories of Human Nature ( Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Plato, Aristotle, The Bible, Kant, Marx, Sartre, Darwinian Theories); Living Religions; The Spirit of the Law; Ethics and Social Responsibility, Cultural Anthropology, and Introduction to Psychology,  with hopes of conveying enough evidence to support and/or defined one ethical theory over another, regarding heterosexual traditions coming face-to-face with LGBT legality.

After all, within the paradigm of religious practice and/or political power, is a strict code of ethics that applies to the ethical theories: utilitarianism and relativism.   On one hand, when looking at utilitarianism, one can ascertain the comprehension of those who seek to instill laws, regulations, traditions, and policies that reflect a traditional concept of thinking. Believing that doing so is for the greater good of all. Then when looking at the ethical theory relativism, one also cannot evade the reality that imposing laws that restrict people from enjoying the same benefits as another, under the U.S. Constitution, is a blatant disregard for those individuals rights as American citizens. Surely, the ethical theory relativism argues that there is no objective moral truth; after all, mankind has lived on earth for thousands of years. To assume that those who lived a thousand years ago would embrace our present climate of social standards, would be a sign of ignorance. After all, not one human living today can forecast the world 100 years from now. Besides, the issues we face today solely derive from the lack of knowledge our ancestors’ possessed; even though, much of our history conveys our ancestors’ as brilliant beings. Conceptually, there is no direct correlation between then and now; the only correlation is the one our political leaders hold us accountable to. And because this is so, when heterosexuals come face-to-face with LGBT legalities, the outcome can seem unjust.

 

                                                                          References

 

American Bible Society, (1982). King James Holy Bible, New Testament, American Bible Society, New York, NY. p. 857

Mosser, K., (2013). Ethical and Social Responsibility. Bridgepoint Education Inc. San Diego, CA. p. 16

Fisher, M. (2008). Living Religions. Pearson Education Ltd., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, p. 72

Fisher, M. (2008). Living Religions. Pearson Education Ltd., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, p. 235

American Bible Society, (1982). King James Holy Bible, New Testament, American Bible Society, New York, NY. p. 953

Mosser, K. (2013). Ethical and Social Responsibility. Bridgepoint Education Inc. San Diego, CA p. 3

American Bible Society, (1982). King James Holy Bible, New Testament, American Bible Society, New York, NY. p. 928

American Bible Society, (1982). King James Holy Bible, New Testament, American Bible Society, New York, NY. p.994