Saturday, August 29, 2015


The Macon Telegraph's on-line version has the following letter to the editor. My only comment is-- good question! Here's the letter:

New ceremony

The Episcopal Church will begin performing same-sex wedding ceremonies in their churches in November of this year. Will the Episcopal Church also allow wedding ceremonies for polygamists? If not, why not?
-- Don Sweat

Read more here:

Then there is a devotional piece by a Macon United Methodist Minister, now retired, the Rev. Creede Hinshaw, a nice guy but not very logical or clear about Christian teaching, but certainly a good apologist for post-Christianity and its fuzzy and illogical thinking:

Walking away from godlessness

Read more here:


Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Let me be the first comment on the illogical suggestions or down right hypocritical suggestions of the good Rev. Hinshaw. Wasn't it dissenters working in his Protestant sect, the United Methodist Church, who changed Sacred Teachings from within rather than leave? And would he not applaud them? The same for the Episcopal Church, wasn't it disgruntled Episcopalians who changed things from with in and challenged the status quo of the Church and successfully?????

And he doesn't want government employees to do this, but rather quit when their consciences are trampled upon by their employer, the government?

And to say that the government of the USA is religion neutral is to laugh! It is a government that now embraces a pagan religion and tries to shove it down the throats of all Americans especially those who work for it--godless secularism.

But let's encourage government workers to stay who are trying to change the government from within and legally! We don't need fewer faithful Christians in government but more, like a dragnet!

Anonymous said...

Creede Hinshaw...LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOL!!!!! (Gut-slamming, rolling on floor, slapping table, laughter)

Anonymous said...

Regarding Hinshaw: some of the most important First Amendment decisions in our history--ones that resulted in protection of free exercise--came when state employees sued the government over some aspect of their job. One of the most importance is Sherbert v. Verner, in which the Court held that South Carolina couldn't penalize a Seventh-Day Adventist employee for refusing, for religious reasons, to work on Saturday. That case continues to shape basic free exercise law today. Hinshaw simply didn't do any research or think about the ramifications of what he was saying.

Re Sweatt: I've seen and read scholarly commentary that seriously argues that, while the Constitution mandates the legality of same-sex marriage, it doesn't likewise mandate the legality of polygamy. The crux of their argument is that American society has so enshrined (for reasons of interest to the state) monogamous marriage that polygamy, flying in the face of this fact, cannot be a constitutional right. They are seriously arguing this. Really. Perhaps I'm not very bright, but I cannot see how monogamy in marriage has been enshrined, heretofore, to any greater degree than heterosexuality in marriage. Looking not just at American society but world history and anthropology, polygamy--or at least polygyny--has a far, far longer and stronger pedigree than same-sex marriage (which has no pedigree at all, in fact).

This isn't legal thinking any more than Kennedy's opinion was. This is hypocrisy, pure and simple.

Jusadbellum said...

How does sanctuary cities - refusal to obey federal law - not grant locals the same right to refuse to acknowledge a Supreme Court decision that was rejected by the people? If some citizens are allowed to ignore federal immigration or drug laws to the praise and rejoicing of some fellow Americans, why can't others refuse to obey this gay-mandate?

In other words, the moment the feds crack down on the sanctuary cities we can talk about Christians unilaterally resigning their posts rather than be complicit in evil.

Anonymous said...

The Methodists may be close to schism too on the same-sex marriage question, the divide (no surprise here!) between the more liberal conferences (what we would call dioceses in the Anglican, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faiths) in the far West and up North versus the Southern ones. I think the Atlanta (North Georgia) Conference is the largest in the country. Some Methodist congregations in the more liberal Midtown and inner city parts of Atlanta would like to follow the Episcopal Church into that wayward theology (blessing such unions), but are held in check by more moderate to conservative ones like in Buckhead and the Atlanta suburbs.

Interesting how the liberals never acknowledge the obvious: the more liberal their denominations get, the more members they lose. I challenge anyone to name any mainline Protestant denomination which has more members today than 50 years ago.

George said...

All the responses so far are very good.

A couple of months ago the Supreme Court ruled for a Muslim woman who did not get hired after she showed up to a job interview with clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch wearing a headscarf.

The justices in their opinion said that employers generally have to accommodate job applicants and employees with religious needs if the employer at least has an idea that such accommodation is necessary.

I don't know how this might apply to the clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue a marriage license for same-sex couple. She did take an oath, but does that mean she must do something that violates her religious convictions? Her circumstance is different than if same-sex marriage had been the law when she took the oath. That may not matter when this case comes to court.

The government should be accomodating to the clerk and her religious beliefs by providing the couple another avenue to get their license.

Dialogue said...

"I find myself flummoxed by some government employees..." How would he have felt about an army officer in Nazi Germany who refused to execute unarmed civilians?

rcg said...

I am reluctant to comment on this mainly because this person is explaining his position and, one would assume, guidance to someone with similar values. I am not sure that I can contradict him in that context. It is obvious, however, that he is advocating a form of fascism by excluding differing views from the workings of a democratic republic.

John Nolan said...

The Church of England may not celebrate same-sex 'marriages' since the law only applies to civil marriages and the Established Church conducts marriages in its own right without reference to the State. Ironically, the Catholic Church in England can legally do so, since someone who marries outside the CofE must first satisfy the requirements of civil marriage. Larger Catholic churches are registered for marriage which means that the registrar need not be present.

However, the Canon Law of the Catholic Church cannot be overridden by Parliament. The Canon Law of the Established Church is in the last resort subject to the Queen in Parliament, HM being the Supreme Governor.

The idea of an 'Anglican Communion' is a nonsense since there is no Magisterium or central authority. ECUSA can make up its own rules. Benedict XVI said that accommodation with Anglicans was hampered by this very fact. Hence the Ordinariate, which along with Summorum Pontificum mark the defining acts of his papacy.