RSS

Tag Archives: discrimination

Unlikely activist: Early civil rights protester stands out for conservative views – Winston-Salem Journal: Local News

From journalist Jennifer Young of the Winston-Salem Journal:

Clarence Henderson

The time was the late 1940s, the place Greensboro. A mother had sent her two young sons to the neighborhood grocery. A gang of local toughs waited just outside the store. One came at the older brother from the front, one from the back and the third went for the money in the boy’s pocket.

The younger brother, who was only 6, stood back while his sibling managed to fight off the young would-be robbers. The little fellow took it all in, though, and came away with some very important life lessons: Be prepared to defend yourself. Show no fear.

Those were lessons that Clarence Henderson carried with him years later, on Feb. 2, 1960, when he walked through the door of 132 S. Elm St. in Greensboro and sat down to his place in his town’s –- and his nation’s – history.

And they’re lessons he remembers today as he proclaims a philosophy that sometimes raises eyebrows, even among those who consider him a hero for what he did 53 years ago. 

To continue reading click the link below:

Unlikely activist: Early civil rights protester stands out for conservative views – Winston-Salem Journal: Local News.

Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 10, 2013 in Featured Guest blogs, Politics

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Walter Myers’ Brilliant 5 Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage

Image

Christan Conservative blogger Walter Myers III of http://www.scientiamedia.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once in a while another conservative blogger writes something so brilliant and thought provoking on a topic that I just have to feature it on my blog. My great friend and fellow Christian Conservative Walter Myers III is such an exceptional writer. We are both Christians who are classically trained philosophers who also feature political & social commentary on each of our own personal blogs as well as our joint Facebook fanpage Conservative BFF’s. In his recently released blog he explains five cogent, valid arguments against same sex marriage which are very difficult to refute effectively.

My first argument is that the traditional definition of marriage is not discriminatory. Marriage, as defined traditionally between a man and a woman, is simply a description (and no more) of the natural union between a man and a woman who are in love and want to commit to a lifetime together. This is the only union that can naturally produce the fundamental unit of all societies since the dawn of civilization: the family. This is in accord with natural law in that it is a readily and naturally apprehensible concept, as it is marriage and the family that provides the underpinnings of any society. Families build communities. Communities build cities. Cities make up states. States make up a nation. Regardless of whether one accepts the traditional definition of marriage, they must acknowledge the historical role of the family and the fact that this has always been the natural order and always will be the natural order until such a time that homosexual sex can produce children naturally. From my understanding of the design of the human body, I don’t see that happening any time in the near or far-flung future.

Second, advocates of same-sex marriage desire this definition change in a discriminatory manner, which I think is the most powerful argument against as currently proposed. I believe same-sex marriage advocates have a low view of marriage and the family, because they see it as some type of exclusive club that allows a specific group to join while rejecting those who don’t fittheir definition. Specifically, same-sex marriage advocates believe that marriage is just about coupling. In other words, it is about two people coming together in a loving, committed relationship. Yet they don’t seem to feel that these same relational attributes should also apply when the committed parties are greater than two in number. If they are willing to redefine the definition of marriage beyond its natural description, then shouldn’t any arrangement be acceptable as long as the arrangement is declared to be a loving, committed relationship, regardless of the number of parties involved? To willfully exclude three or more people of any gender combination from participating in the marriage bond is inherently discriminatory, and should not be accepted if traditional marriage is deemed discriminatory itself…

To continue reading the other three reasons (remainder of his blog) please click HERE.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on June 7, 2012 in Featured Guest blogs, Politics, Religion

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: