Response to Mr. Wilson: Our Founding Fathers & Homosexuality

Jeffwilson28.gmail.com

I would like to e-mail you personally about many questions I have on your ideas. I am a born again Christian and find your writings odd and uninformative. When reading your comment on Huckabee’s speech you right of freedom and liberty as though you understand what the founding fathers where talking about. The founding fathers of this great nation where born again believers in Jesus Christ and didn’t want a king because we have one king which is Christ Jesus. The Bible has a stands on homosexuality and it says that it is an abomination unto the Lord. Even the fact that the first public schools where created to learn how to read the Bible would give me some idea that they believed that the Holy word of God was just that. They in no doubt used the words freedom and liberty in the political sense which would also be liberty of a nation. Which means the liberty of a nation against another nations influence. If they didn’t want marriage to be one man and one woman the law would have been written in another way, why would they write it that way if they didn’t have homosexuals in there day and age.


9th of January 2008

Hello Mr. Wilson and thank you for reading my blogs and for your questions. I will gladly speak with you and you may reach me at Blog@TMDobson.com.

As for your account of our nation’s history, I believe you have a very slanted view of our history. The original colonization of the Americas was established by Sir Richard Grenville in 1585, Sir Walter Raleigh and Sir Frances Drake who all acted under charter to discover and claim for the Crown by Queen Elizabeth and later King James I.

The colonist originally found favor with the local Indians upon the establishment of each colony, however, in each instance of the original colonies in the Roanoke Islands (Virginia, taking its name in homage to the Queen of England), Jamestown, Raleigh and even several of the Plymouth colonies were so tyrannical in their force that the Indian’s adopt their religious fervor, that it was one of the major factors in the Indian’s eventual revolt. While the people were settling colonies for England, their motivation was partially based in religious freedoms. Outside of the original explorers; Grenville, Raleigh and Drake who were all acting in part for England and in part for their own personal gain of new found fortunes; the original Colonist were motivated largely by the encouragement that they would be able to establish their own religious organizations (Puritans in New England, Middle Colonist were Quakers, Catholics, Lutherans, Jews & others and Southern Colonist were Baptist & Anglicans) and were not dictated to practice the religion forced by the crown, which was Catholicism.

I might also add that the Colonist were far more belligerent than King or Queen ever were. If you lived in a colony and missed a Sunday or Wednesday service you were punished. The punishment varied by colony, but ranged from the stockades, lashes and later during the Witch Hunts, death. As I indicated before it became one of the major problems between the colonist and the local Indians as well. If the local tribes refused to adopt the settlement’s religious focus, they were dealt with as savages with no intelligence. That philosophy eventually turned the relationships between the colonies and the local Indian tribes towards very poor and later to fights with in all cases devastating consequences. The significance of this point is to note that all Christian religions were so tyrannical that it devastated many lives. You can only force and oppress people for a period of time. Eventually they will revolt and it will all have been for nothing. The religious and non-religious as well as the many verities can cohabitate with rarely the need for force or oppression.

Later the establishment of the thirteen colonies with local governments that were all reporting back to Governors that were appointed by the King of England started to weigh on our colonist who wanted a more active participation in governing themselves. The King (King George III) would not release control of the colonies to their local governments and starting in 1763 took evasive actions against the colonist without representation in England. The Proclamation of 1763 prohibited settlements west of the Appalachian Mountains and pushed all settlements currently in existence to return east. 1764 brought about the Sugar Act passed to offset the cost of the French and Indian War by increasing duties on imported goods and textiles. The English Parliament also passed measures to better enforce trades between the colonies and Britain. The Currency Act prohibited colonist from issuing any legal tender and effectively destabilized the economies of the colonies. It was in May of 1764 when in Boston James Otis raised the concerns of taxation without representation and from that meeting later published “The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved”. March of 1765 brought the response from the English Parliament with the Stamp Act imposing a direct tax on the American colonies to offset the high costs of the British military in America, which was a tax to be paid from each colonist directly to England by passing the local governments. There were many more suffrages cast on to the colonist by King George III and the English Parliament bringing the colonist and the British military to an active state when in February of 1768 Samuel Adams wrote a Circular Letter opposing taxation without representation and calling all colonist to unite against the British government and King George III.

On March 5th, 1770 a mob harass a British soldier who refused to pay for his hair cut and shave turned into the Boston Massacre where three were killed instantly, two died later and six others were injured. In May of 1773 the Tea Act takes effect increasing the strife between the colonist and the crown for disallowing representation in the British Parliament by a colonist elected official. The residual act came swiftly by the colonist on the 16th of December of 1773 with the occurrence of the Boston Tea Party. Many secret meetings took place where the colonist started building structure to their governance by electing leaders and taking divisive action against British rule. This was brought to a boiling point when on the 14th of April 1775 Governor Gage told British military to enforce the Coercive Acts giving way on the 18th of April of 1775 releasing Paul Revere and Williams Dawes to warn the colonist the British were coming. Skip ahead to June 7th of 1776, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, presents a formal resolution calling for the declaration of independence from Britain. On the 11th of June, Congress appoints a committee to draft the first draft of the declaration and on the 4th of July 1776, Congress formally endorsed our Constitution.

Our founding fathers did not excise King George III of England and the English Parliament for religious freedoms. As history states and I made sure I wasn’t missing any major factual time line was that our founding fathers conspicuously wanted the rights to govern themselves and religious freedoms was but one of the many privileges they desired. As I stated in my long dissertation of the facts, pointed out that the original colonies used several religious philosophies to practice their faith including Judaism. Your assertions that all of our founding fathers were “born again believers in Jesus Christ” does not bode well for those who did not believe that you must be born again or even the ones who did not believe in Jesus Christ. As I have noted in many of my previous blogs, your interpretation of the Bible is a very narrow view of it and one depicted by Religious Zealots who wish to only interpret the Bible to strike fear and hate in to the hearts and the minds of their congregations. I know every passage and verse that you can say to me as a quote from the Bible espousing homosexuality is wrong and in every case if you read the full text and understand the full meaning of each verse and chapter, you will know that there is not one word in the Bible that is actually meant to condemn homosexuality.

I would make a suggestion of a good book to read if I received any inclination that you were a person with an opened mind. I find your comment to be rather hastily pointed and without respect for my beliefs, while I am forced to hear from many people of yours. I can understand how you might come to your knowledge and understanding of the Bible because many Christians listen to the religious leaders without really garnering for themselves what the word of GOD really does mean. Most people refuse to use those very words within the very pages telling everyone that “All MEN are Fallible” and also that the Bible is written by man. So even the men who contributed to the gathering of these chapters and verses could have been wrong with what they wrote, to add insult to injury, the Bible was decided on by a group of politicians and religious leaders in the “Council of Nicia” presided over by Roman Emperor Constantine. It was this group of politicians and religious leaders that decided what the Bible recounts and even in reshaping the words within chapters giving even greater proof that the Bible is a reference guide and not the club that many Christians use it as. Jesus would never have agreed to compose a book that would be used against any person for any reason, he rather would have challenged people to Love, Honor and Respect each other instead of verbally and physically abuse others because they don’t measure up to your standards.

I am unable to argue if the first public schools were brought about in order to teach reading so that the pupils could read the Bible, however, if this is as contrived as the rest of your statements, I will assume that may not be an absolute either. I will however, give credence to it as a suggestible thought for me to learn more about later. There is a reason our founding fathers saw fit to separate church and government. They understood more like Jesus himself did, that the two are both very highly emotional topics that needed segregation so they are both held properly in perspective.

I can tell you with great conviction that the words Freedom and Liberty were absolutely used in their proper context by our founding fathers. If you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, our founding fathers knew more of the challenges we would face then we did. They wanted to ensure that in the end all Americans were known to be free. It is our bigotry and racism that requires us to continue defining what our great fore fathers intended us to learn from the very onset.

As for your final statement; not one of our federally constructed documents defines Marriage between one man and one woman. There are a number of states that have passed DOMA bills re-defining marriage to that racist and hateful manner, but mark my words, they will each be repealed and changed back in the great future to come.

In the end, there is no place in this world for the hate that some people cling too. It is a sign of a weak mind and a poor example of what truly makes a good Christian…someone who can honestly say they walk with GOD would never judge another of his creations. Release your fear and hate that swells inside you and replace it with something truly powerful – LOVE. It is truly the most amazing grace GOD or Jesus could ever share with us and it is there for all of us to bask in with his blessings.

I truly wish that your soul be filled with peace and your heart filled with love.

Your Humble Servant – Todd M. Dobson
Blog@TMDobson.com