Category: Opinions

Every week Gillette puts up a new devotional in the shower for their residents to read. I look forward to these devotionals and am encouraged to hear a new tone in the writings. Last year I was beginning to see common trends in the devotionals that I found somewhat disheartening.  The basic framework to the majority of these devotionals consisted of negative self-talk and God as remedy to this negativity. The devotions, more often than not, understood God as a source of alleviation from day-to-day struggles and pains and saw Him as a reminder to live, think and act more positively. These thoughts or concepts are not wrong, in fact they can be very good, but the commonality of understanding God this way points to a deeper issue.

This cycle, although not as evident on campus (so far) is a common way people tend to express their relationship to God. I find this troubling, because it means that people most commonly relate to God not in the spirit of love, but insecurity. This is bound to happen to some degree. We are finite beings and God is infinite, it is only natural and good to go to Him for refuge. That being said, spiritualizing these insecurities and remaining hyper-sensitive to the pains of existence can deeply shape how one interacts with God.  One may deeply love God, but reflection on His truths will be tainted by a desire to feel relieved of frustrating grievances.  

I am deeply skeptical that this kind of reflection brings lasting peace. God undoubtedly involves human beings in His affairs. The Bible is filled with narratives in which God works through men and women to accomplish His purposes. Emotion is also a part of worship and relationship. The Bible contains writings where individuals, such as David, Jeremiah and Habbukuk, communicate to God using their emotional faculties. The problem does not rest purely in emotion, but the tendency to resort to emotionalism. The problem arises when one’s definition of God is inextricably linked to their emotional experiences. When this definition is used as a starting point the God of the universe is reduced to a being whose prime purpose is to supplement His creation’s emotional health. God becomes a coping mechanism and the art of theology and the pursuit to understand God as an independent and perfect identity is polluted.

It is incredibly easy to spiritualize emotionalism and yet the Christian faith encourages us to look outside ourselves. The Christian faith understands God as a personal and loving parent-figure. The bible has no problem acknowledging that God is our helper in the times of need– and yet God is much more. The modern tendency to construe God as a being inside a subjective reality, as a feel-good experience, is not a role that the Christian God wants to fill. Rather, Christ wants objective authority and He invites His followers to worship His divinity with this sense of reverence.  

As followers of Christ we do not relate to God on the basis of our insecurity or personal dilemma, but on the knowledge that He is God. This act of knowing God is what opens us to the faculties of personal and perfect love and it is the knowledge of perfect love that erodes the fear and anxieties that so deeply entrench our personal conflicts and lives.  I am incredibly encouraged by Luke Rosamilia’s opinion piece last week and the Gillette shower devotions thus far, because I see it as evidence of Houghton students who recognize the temptation to interpret God purely through their emotions and are choosing to have a holistic concept of who God is to us and who God is in His being– and I’m confident that this type of reflection will bring peace.

Let’s get uncomfortable for a minute. Pornography. Wikipedia defines it as “the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual arousal”, and (though it’s Wikipedia) that’s clear enough for me. With the widespread reach of the internet, pornography has become incredibly pervasive. If you’ve never seen it, you’re in the American minority. 9/10 boys and 6/10 girls have seen porn before they turn 18. With the knowledge that so many Americans have seen (and regularly watch) porn, it is insane that I never hear anyone talking about it! Pornography is hugely widespread and problematic in many ways, and we need to speak up.

Arguably the most important problem that needs to be addressed is this: porn is a multi-billion dollar industry that profits by exploiting men and women worldwide and it is largely an industry made up of human trafficking. In the United States, the primary cause of human trafficking is for sex, including pornography acting. In many cases, porn actors have no escape from their sexual career, largely because of the economic and social difficulties of moving on. Even in cases where actors and actresses intentionally choose to join the industry, they are often horribly mistreated by those they work for and act with. People are treated like objects that can be assigned worth and sold as visual pieces to a viewer’s sexual fulfillment puzzle. Among actors and actresses in the industry, there is an incredibly high rate of substance abuse and sexually transmitted diseases. The way people are treated in the pornography industry is unacceptable, and needs to stop.

Another huge issue related to porn is addiction. Regular exposure to sexually explicit imagery changes the brain in ways similar to hardcore drugs, not to mention the many ways it confuses viewers and causes them to forget or misunderstand normal sexual interaction and healthy intimacy. Porn distorts sexuality, damages relationships, and confuses one’s understanding of healthy gender interactions, all the while setting up chemical pathways in the brain that draw viewers back for more.  It is amazing that we stay so quiet about this, especially given the probability that there are many among us addicted to porn. Among Christians who are willing to answer questions about their histories with porn, 64% of men reported that they view porn at least once a month, along with 15% of women. If we as a church want to help those around us to be free from this harmful addiction, we need to model that freedom first.

In case nobody has told you yet: porn use is a form of sexual immorality. Galatians 5 tells us, “Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality… I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” Our hope in Christ is a hope of righteousness and purity, and we cannot neglect sexual purity along the way.

It is clear that pornography is an issue of mental health, human rights, economic justice, and moral purity. And yet, porn addiction is hidden and kept secret. Occasionally, when it is talked about, it is often normalized. But pornography is not normal or okay, no matter how many people use it.

Church, please talk about it. Houghton, please talk about it. Christians, rise up about it! This problem will not go away with silence. Let’s start with ourselves. James 5 says, “Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.” Let’s begin with healing each other, and then let the world know the freedom they can have in Christ.

There is freedom for sexual slaves, who are separated from anyone who loves them, and who are treated like dirt. There is freedom for addicts, whose minds, bodies, and relationships are broken. There is freedom to be a part of the Kingdom of God, but only if we address this, and do it in Jesus’ name.

All statistics and research are from Covenant Eyes. If you’re addicted to porn, check out Fight the New Drug’s “Fortify Program”, an online pornography addiction recovery program.

The future is not what it used to be. Many of us mourn the fact that we might just be too late in addressing the disruptive and destructive future outcomes of the environmental and industrial decisions we have been making. The ice caps are melting and the time to act just may have been 50 years ago. Nothing we can do now will reverse this process. All we can do is hold on and watch to see just how bad this is going to be. Like the bumper sticker says “at least the WAR on the environment is going well”.

I attended the Town meeting held on September 16th in the CFTA recital hall, a venue way too large for the few who attended. This meeting was for the town and campus–the “community”–to weigh in with concerns over the college’s intention to harvest trees from the college’s wooded property. The presentation was made under the description of Stewardship of our natural resources.  The opening slide used a Bible verse to set the proper tone of just how caregiving this task force was inspired to be as they thoughtfully and prayerfully consider the best way to manage this important natural resource of the school. “Proper care of the forest today will help a future forest to better prosper”.  

I stated  publically that although I understood the explanation, I doubted that this alone was our reason for wanting to turn trees into lumber…I suspect that the real reason is  money… “there is money in them thar trees and we are foolish to let them die before we get the profit.”  It was explained by the professional forester we hired that we have before us a situation of future devastation. The trees in our forest have too much common age. The canopy is too dense and the younger trees trying to grow to displace the older growth are being destroyed by more aggressive “undesirable growth”.  The deer are too manifold and eating the tender good trees.  

But the money side of the evening continues to bother me. At the meeting,  I kept thinking why this issue? There are so many resources at the college that need attention. It cost money to hire a consultant. The college has very tight resources. There is just no way we are going to address this issue if there is not some immediate payoff  for the investment.  All the arguments for the future might have some truth to them, but I still feel the real reason we are looking to our forest is for its value as lumber money, not as an inherently valuable natural  resource.

I am not hypocritical enough to try and pass myself off as a purist on these issues. I buy lumber for art projects. I live in home partly carved out the very forest I treasure. Line up the observations and you will find me two-faced on them all. But I do want to make the case that the damage that is going to be done to our most beautiful natural resource will come at a cost to us in the present. When I pointed out the recent logging done by the Western District of the Wesleyan church of the part of the forest that runs along the edge of the college property, the forester emphasized that this was done not by a forester, but by a logger. “Don’t confuse forestry with logging”. Ok…but that sounds a little like a barber saying “It’s not me that cuts the hair, it’s the scissors”. Loggers cut trees marked by foresters. Yes, there are terrible loggers and there are environmentally responsible loggers. My hunch is that there is also a cost differential here that I doubt will be persuasive enough when cut comes to chopping that we will choose  wisely.  

It looks to me like there is not any way to change the mind of the college about this proposal. Thus, I am asking the students, faculty, and staff who care about the college forest to do the following:

Weigh in on this proposal. Insist that the people making these decisions do so with the least disruptive and most responsible means possible. Perhaps this will mean hiring the Amish to use horses rather than huge ground-destroying equipment to get the lumber.

Insist that we also hire an outside agency that is not trained only to look upon forest as lumber farms, but to see them in other environmentally focused terms. With an aesthetic eye and not one that describes lumber-lacking growth as junk trees but sees other ways in which the woods might be fine if left to go its own evolutionary direction…whatever that might be.

That a promise is made to carefully guard against harvesting trees on the borders of property other than the college and that those parts of the woods used now for recreation be the least harvested-meaning the ropes course, the paths and trails, and those parts most visible as we walk, run and recreate in this great natural resource.

That the harvesting happens in winter so that the noise and disruption will be least impactful on the forest use- leave ski trails open and safe.

That we also take into account the damage that might occur to other sensitive environmental habitats. That tree values be weighed against the value of salamanders, woodpeckers, and biodiversity.

Have the college only  hire people that will promise this in writing and make it legally binding to not walk away from the woods once the trees are gone and to not leave it like a forest looks after artillery shells have devastated an enemy embankment.

I will feel better if more people have a chance to consider what was proposed at the town hall meeting.  I am, by my own public admission, a tree hugger. I also believe that the arguments about taking care of the forest today for a future tomorrow are valid.
If we decide to still do this (I wish we would not) …how we do it is critical.  The mature trees that are surely going to die out need middle growth and younger trees to be healthy and have a future.

A Responsibility, Not a Suggestion

For many of us at Houghton College, the Faith & Justice Symposium is an annual reminder of the reality of the injustices that are present in the world we live in. This Wednesday, Reverend Tafue Lusama shared his powerful story of how climate change and sea level rise is affecting his home: the island nation of Tuvalu in the South Pacific. And yet his story is not limited to the South Pacific Island nations. The climate crisis that the citizens of Tuvalu are facing is the same crisis that members of every nation across the globe are facing: our world is changing and we must change with it, for better or for worse.

I could list overwhelming amounts of scientific explanations of how climate change is negatively affecting humankind, but the data, numbers, and jargon probably won’t change your life; those things didn’t change mine.

What changed my life? Experiencing reality changed my life. In the past two years I have seen how climate change has affected people’s livelihoods from the mountains of Tanzania to the Alaskan coast.  From climate scientist, Katharine Hayhoe, to my homestay parents in Tanzania, I have heard stories of climate change affecting individuals’ lives.

Climate change, I realized, is an injustice that has social, economic, and physical ramifications. And the greatest injustice of climate change is the reality that those who are affected the most have contributed the least to the problem. Once I connected these dots, I had a decision to make: do something or do nothing. There is no middle ground. I am – we all are – called to loving action, no ifs-ands-or-buts about it.

This call to action became real to me when I had the opportunity to lobby Representative Tom Reed’s staffer, Drew Wayne, to support the PREPARE Act (a bill  designed to help communities prepare for the dangerous effects of extreme weather) in Washington D.C. this summer. I was in the capitol for ten days to be trained as an Advocacy Corps Organizer for the Friends Committee of National Legislation Headquarters – one of eighteen young adults from across the country who joined together with the goal of bringing climate issues to the forefront of our Senators’ and Representatives’ attention.

My life has been changed by the stories I have heard on climate change, and I have realized that my voice, MY story, has  the potential to influence change. This is where you step in. You also have a voice.  When you see an injustice in the world that strikes you at the core of your being, it is not a suggestion, but a responsibility to respond.

Before you stop me and say that you don’t want to get involved in politics, I remind you that our government is designed for its people, regardless of what cynics may say. As I found out this summer, as a constituent of a district, you have a legal right to lobby your congressperson. Scheduling a visit may be challenging because of time constraints, but it is free. While you have to go through security to enter any of the House or Senate Office buildings, you can enter at any time. The only thing stopping you from talking to your congressperson or their legislative staff is you.

And here is where I lay it on thick: Reverend Lusama is here on a speaking tour of the United States to talk about how climate change is affecting his country, in an effort to encourage American people to act. Because even though his nation may be physically destroyed by rising sea levels, he does not have the ability to change American policy on climate change. Who does? Our Congress does. Who can talk to Congress? Citizens of the USA. What are you? A Citizen of the USA.
You have the ability to communicate the need for bipartisan action on climate change to Congress. Your voice, your story, your passion has the potential to make a difference, if you use it. Don’t waste your voice. I refuse to waste mine.

I love animals. Future plans of mine include living on a small farm, raising my own animals, and growing my own food. I loved animals so much in highschool I was vegetarian for two years, despite the health problems that arose due to a lack of protein.

In today’s culture there is a black and white answer in response to the cruelty animals endure within the meat packing industry: if you care, you’re vegetarian or vegan. If you eat meat, however, you must not care about what happens to animals before they end up on your plate. I bought into this way of thinking for years eating chicken with a guilty conscious, feeling a tug on my heart as I bit into a hamburger. It wasn’t until recently after watching a documentary, The Ghosts in Our Machines, that I realized that while God gave us animals to eat, He didn’t give us animals to mistreat.

The documentary aims to expose how horribly unjust the living conditions and the treatment of animals truly are within lab testing and industries such as meat packing, dairy farming, and fur trading. While it does indeed prove the horrific conditions and treatment of these it, also proves how much society needs these animals. Our society depends on these creatures, these God-given creatures, for nourishment and sustenance, yet we don’t bat an eye when they’re caged, beaten, and lined up for slaughter in a way that imitates the conveyor belt in the dining hall on which we line our used dishes. We treat these animals like dirty dishes. We objectify them.

Instead of seeing them as living, breathing creatures that are capable of feeling, we look at animals and see dinner. I’m not going to address the whole ‘do animals have a soul’ debate, but one thing is a given: animals feel. They feel physical pain just like you and I do. Pigs feel the pain in their legs from being caged and unable to move. Chickens feel the pain of fellow birds pecking them until they’re raw and bloody due to lack of space. Cows feel the pain of being branded with a hot iron, or metal clips in their ears. Animals feel pain.

My job at a small Christian camp this summer  gave me the opportunity to care for domestic farm animals such as pigs, chickens, goats, calves, and even ducks. Caring for these animals every day for two months led me to form a bond with these creatures, along with a strengthened sense of love and respect for animals in general. At the end of the summer my pigs, Harry and Lewis, were slaughtered. They were three weeks old when they arrived at camp, still small and shy. I played with them, fed them, loved them, petted them, and watched them grow, all while knowing they’d soon die.

Morbid? Slightly, but these animals were given everything they needed and wanted. They were loved, respected, and adored. This is the way God intended us to treat animals, not in a way takes away any connect or bond, replacing it with a production line. We have domesticated farm animals. They are dependent on us to nurture them, care for them, and feed them. However, when they turn to us for help meeting these needs, we slaughter them without a second thought. Much like the planet, we are called to watch over and care for the animals God has placed before us.  We can’t treat some animals we encounter (i.e. dogs and cats) with respect, and disregard the others. If we’re going to utilize them as a food source, which we have so readily done for centuries, we need to be able to respect and appreciate the role they play in life. People today care so much for the environment, and are actively taking steps to improve our way of living through creating and utilizing alternative energy sources. Aren’t animals part of this environment we care so much for? Shouldn’t we be fighting for both the humans and creatures of this planet?
I realize it’s difficult for us, as students, to afford farm raised ground beef, that’s not my challenge for you today, nor is it to stop eating meat all together. I’m challenging you  to be aware. Do your research, know that cage free doesn’t mean cruelty free, know which companies are committed to the humane treatment of animals. Take one day of the week and abstain from eating meat in a way of honoring the sacrifice and the treatment of the animals that have given you sustenance. As you bite into that hamburger, drink a glass of milk, or nibble on an egg, think of the animal that gave their life for you to be able to eat.  Say a prayer of thanks to God for providing us with ways to nourish ourselves, then pray that the senseless, inhumane killings of animals one day may cease. My wish is that one day you will be able to look at a cow and see, not a steak, but the beautiful, durable, complex creature that God gifted us with.

Before beginning my freshman year at Houghton I spent the summer working as a counselor at Northern Frontier Camp, a Christian ministry in the Adirondacks. Whether the sun was shining or the rain was pouring, every Saturday one of the directors would lead the entire camp in singing, “It’s a beautiful day, and I thank God for the weather. It’s a beautiful day, and I’m living it for my Lord. It’s a beautiful day, and things are gonna get better. Why? Cause I’m living each day by the promises of God’s word.” I looked forward to this moment every Saturday; however, during my fifth week at camp that simple song took on new meaning for me.

That Friday, I received a call from my mom informing me that her father was in the hospital having developed a severe cardiac condition. The next morning, I received another call and I learned that his surgery had not gone well and they weren’t sure how much longer he had to live. My immediate family had never suffered the loss of a grandparent before, and I could sense the deep pain in my mom’s voice as she told me this news. We cried together, and at that moment everything in me wanted to be home supporting my family. But I was at camp, and it was Saturday.

Before lunch started, everyone in the dining hall began to sing “It’s a beautiful day,” and I immediately experienced an intense feeling of anger; what right did these people have to naively sing about what a beautiful day it was when my grandfather and family were undergoing such acute distress? As I continued to sing through my tears however, I was convicted of something else. What right had I to so thoroughly enjoy this song every other Saturday, only to reject it when it no longer conformed to my emotional state and external circumstances? I was profoundly impacted by the unchanging truth of that song’s lyrics, even as I continued to experience the feelings of hurt and anger arising from my family’s situation.

This is just one experience out of several which have shaped my view of worship over the past three years. I believe that worship must be valued primarily as an expression of faith. Furthermore, I understand faith to be not an emotion, but rather a firm belief in something. Thus, expressing faith in something can be seen as an essentially cognitive act which does not require emotional confirmation in order to be authentic. Often when I worship, the lyrics or melody may not deeply resonate with me on an emotional level. Nevertheless, I still genuinely understand and believe in the truth of God’s glory as portrayed in the lyrics I sing. For me, worship consists of my deliberate decision to express that belief through song, regardless of how I may feel at the time.

The temptation to overemphasize the emotional dimension of worship is strong, especially since many contemporary worship songs are extremely effective at invoking a specific emotional response. This emotional aspect of worship is in no way wrong in and of itself; when the gospel choir performs in chapel, the feelings of joy and excitement which they so often inspire are a wonderful blessing. The danger lies in our tendency to associate a specific emotional response with an “authentic” worship experience, and then experience disappointment or guilt when such emotions are absent. Instead, God invites us to bring all of our emotions before Him, both the positive and the negative, while deciding to focus on what we believe to be true.
For an individual who attends a church service or Koinonia while struggling through the unthinkable, the sense of euphoric bliss toward which modern worship so often seems to strive may appear completely inaccessible. And that’s okay. In our broken world, the act of worship should not be expected to purge from its participants the emotions of fear, anger, and loneliness. Rather, God is glorified through our deliberate declaration of praise even when the words we speak come nowhere close to expressing the doubt or pain which we may feel in our hearts.

News outlets are currently flooded with information regarding the Syrian refugees. Millions face war in Syria, hatred and racism in Turkey, abject poverty in Lebanon and Jordan, and often without the means to relocate.

Even as I write, Western states such as Austria, Germany, and Hungary are bringing troops and police to tighten border control against the growing waves of migrants. Everywhere the influx of refugees goes, it seems they are received with animosity, or at best with cold regard. Consider the stun grenades in Macedonia, riot shields and beatings at Hungary’s Serbian border, or the EU’s plan, approved earlier this week, to seize and divert ships smuggling migrants across the Aegean Sea. Despite such obstacles, between eight hundred thousand and one million refugees are expected in Germany by the end of 2015.

It should not surprise us that the human heart is always and everywhere prone to sins, such as bigotry. (Yes, even a Westerner’s heart.) From regions such as the Balkans or Middle East we might be accustomed to reports of rampant nationalism and violence. But is it harder to hear of Europeans treating the migrants as threats to their economy, or perhaps even to racial or religious comfort?

Sadly, this crisis reflects no better on America than on Turkey or Hungary. In fact, the Turks, Hungarians, and others have done far more for the Syrians than we. Roughly two million refugees have fled to Turkey, while the U.S. has admitted some fifteen hundred. On Sunday 13 September, Austria permitted fourteen thousand to enter from Hungary. Smaller, less capable nations are willing to allow some refugees in at their border. Our border has been effectively shut. The Turks are in no way fond of them, but our government promised earlier this year to accept close to half those the UN is looking to resettle. Nations not so willing at first have now reflected Matthew 21:29, and done what is right, while we have reflected the disobedience in 21:30.

Why has our government, one of the world’s most capable and well-funded, balked at the idea of accepting even 10,000 refugees next year, while Germany has accepted  450,000 so far this year? The main reasons given are fear of ISIS operatives posing as refugees, and a desire to care for the most pressing needs, such as food and medical aid.

Yet, is this reasonable? We must note that the U.S. has sent over $4 billion to the response efforts, according to the National Security Council cited in the BBC. But giving our brother a fish is not the same as teaching. Money is not lasting security in the face of civil war and terrorism; somewhere, refugees need new homes altogether. Granted, food, water, and shelter for the immediate future requires funding. But to do no more amounts to little, similar to the foolish faith described in James 2:15-17. According to the International Business Times, applications to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program normally take up to two years; but this year the program

has in large part been indefinitely suspended. Given the exigency of the Syrian situation, this effectively says “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat your fill”, while we do nothing for their fear, hunger, and danger.

The U.S. is accepting a meagre handful of fewer than two thousand souls. Our former promise to take sixty-five thousand this year, out of one hundred thirty thousand the U.N. wishes to relocate, is reduced to ten thousand in 2016. How must this impact our credibility, that we conveniently adjust our help for other nations? President Obama promised we would be the leading nation in allaying the crisis. Yet that hard-won monicker belongs to Germany, and Britain and France, too, have promised more than double our offer. Worse than any ramifications in our relations with Europe, however, is the faithlessness we have shown to the refugees themselves. I pray that we will turn and serve the destitute, that through us the nations might be blessed.

On the 26th of June history was made. The United States Supreme Court decided that same-sex couples would be allowed to get married regardless of the state in which they live. The Supreme Court made marriage equality the law of the land. The decision of course was faced with disagreement from people who do not feel as though same-sex couples should be allowed to wed. Kim Davis, a county clerk in Rowan County Kentucky, was one such person. I believe, of course, that people have the right to disagree, especially if a changed law now conflicts with an individual’s job. Yet, I believe it is up to the conflicted individual to find a path that follows both one’s faith and the law.

As a county clerk Davis was legally required to issue marriage licenses to anyone who lived in her jurisdiction, but due to Davis’ “Oneness Pentecostal” beliefs, she felt as though she could not morally issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis decided to no longer issue marriage licenses to anyone who came to her office, including heterosexual sexual couples as well. When this story began to be picked up by the media, many people, including Davis, claimed freedom of religion as the reason she was no longer doing her job of issuing marriage licenses to those individuals who the Constitution legally permitted to be wed.

Freedom of religion is the right to choose a religion or deny religion without interference from the government. This means that you can choose to practice your religion without fear of being jailed or persecuted. You are free to practice your religion, whatever that religion might be, so long as it does not violate the law that has been put in place by the constitution of the United States of America. Davis went on for weeks denying both heterosexual and homosexual couples marriage licenses which eventually led to several legal battles that went all the way to the Supreme Court. U.S. Supreme Court Judge Bunning ordered Davis to issues marriage licenses or she would be in contempt of court. On September Davis was arrested by U.S. Marshalls and was taken to Carter County Detention Center for not upholding the oath she had taken, one that stated she would obey the U.S. Constitution and do her job accordingly. Although I feel as though the arrest of Davis was a little excessive, she was in fact in violation of her job and the law put forth by the government.

Davis’ arrest occurred because her religious beliefs caused her to violate Constitutional laws put in place.  However, Davis was not sent to jail because of her religious beliefs. Davis was arrested and jailed due to violating the United States Constitution, which is the law of the land. Many, including Davis herself, have claimed her stance to be that of martyr, however being prosecuted for not following governmental laws does not make Davis a martyr for her religious beliefs. If she was truly affected by her convictions, she had the opportunity to step down from this job in order to follow her religious beliefs.

On a personal level, as a member of the LBGT community, I firmly believe that Kim Davis had every right to feel that she should not administer marriage licenses to the homosexual community.  After all, many Christians hold firm to the belief that homosexuality is wrong and this fact will not be altered anytime soon.  Though I believe Davis’ religious beliefs were tolerable, I cannot tolerate the fact that she stayed in her legal position knowing full well that she was disobeying the laws this nation has chosen to cling to.  If Davis resigned for her religious beliefs, that would make her story more desirable than the hurtful mess that she caused against the homosexual community by deliberately breaking the law.

Overall what Kim Davis did was illegal and does not in any way make her a martyr for her faith. In fact, if anything she violated God’s greatest commandment: love one another.
A correction to last week’s opinion piece, A Ring of Fire: Living in the Midst, should be noted. The article stated “5.6 million acres [of forest] burned in the past ten years- combined.” However, the yearly average, not total, of burned forest acreage is 5.6 million over the past decade.