I just don’t get it.
Candace Cameron seems to have found Jesus. I didn't know he was lost. Like many people who have suddenly become enlightened and have discovered what a piece of ... poo they really are, she seems to feel it is now her moral obligation to let everyone know that they also are mere poo. One of her more charming declarations brands anyone an idolater worthy of Hellfire who doesn't believe in a god who stands in judgment against his children, ready and waiting to cast them down to Hell. Her logic: since you are no longer worshipping the true God, you have set up for yourself an idol.
I don't understand how people can live like that: believing that they are a failure, such a miserable loser that they have no intrinsic value. Actually, I guess I do understand. I lived that way for a long time. I believed that happiness eluded me because I was intrinsically wicked, that my efforts at being righteous were not acceptable that there was always something more I had to be doing to find the promised rewards of peace and joy.
Turns out it was all a crock of ... you guessed it. Poo. It wasn't that I wasn't trying hard enough. It was the things I was reaching for were not going to make me happy in the long run. I had only ever learned one way to reach for God and when the time was right, when I was in a place that I could stand on my own two feet, He turned His back on me. I cannot tell you how that hurt. With no where else to turn I looked inward and found the strength to take my life in a different direction. After coming out, my outlook on life changed radically. Life was no longer a burden. I found peace and greater measure of happiness than I had ever known or believed was possible for me. That was when He turned back to me and said, "Now. Isn't that much better?"
It seems to me somewhat backwards to preach that the Good News is "You are little more than bug poo, but Jesus loves you anyway." Oh, great. Thanks. I feel much better now. If you ask me the real Good News should be "Christ thinks you are such an amazing person, so full of potential and beauty that he gave His life to Teflon coat your soul so that all the poo flying in this world doesn't stick."
I don't believe in a God of Vengeance. If I tell my child not to touch the hot stove or she will be burned, and that child touches the stove anyway, is her burned hand a result of my vengeance and wrath because she did not heed my advice? Hardly. In fact, "I told you so," would not be my response to her pain. I would have her hand in ice water so fast it would make her head spin. As mortals we seem to have to learn things the hard way. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Though it came a price, the knowledge that hot stoves cause pain, is hers now.
So, Candace, given your approach to religion, I'm sure in your mind I'm already damned to Hell for being gay. I may as well add a little idolatry to the mix. Can't see how it will hurt much. I will continue to believe in a God of Love who tries His best to teach his stubborn and pig-headed children how to get by in life. I will also continue to believe it is you who is worshiping a "false god" and you who is missing out.
Consequences
My mom is fond of saying, "You are free to choose. You are just not free to choose the consequences." It's interesting that people seem to only apply this to choices they feel are in error. Sin usually. It is, however, a sword that cuts both ways.
It seems that some pharmacists are refusing to dispense birth control pills, citing a conflict with their beliefs in the same way a doctor can refuse to perform an abortion. Apparently in some minds contraception is the same as having an abortion.
This is all fine and dandy. People are allowed to have beliefs. Acting on those beliefs is generally limited to boundaries set by society. They are free to choose their course. They are not, however, free to choose the consequences of that course. Three Eckerd pharmacists were fired in Denton, Texas when they would not fill a prescription for the morning after pill to a rape victim. Legislation is now before the Texas legislature that would protect their jobs from such choices. So pharmacists can choose which drugs they feel like dispensing, but Eckerd cannot choose to not employ selective pharmacists? Does that seem bassackwards and wrong to anyone else? If these pharmacists cannot fulfill their duties to their employer's satisfaction, they are free to find employment with a company who shares their views or find employment in another line of work.
Some may suggest that such a view is hypocritical when there has been some controversy over church run charities being allowed to hire and fire according to their religious principles. Such people haven't been paying attention. The issue has not been their hiring practices, it has been such charities receiving the benefits of public funds when the public would not be allowed equal access to the services those funds support. Big difference.
Our society is litigious enough as it is without legislatures creating laws to amend every perceived slight. The market is capable of resolving such issues on its own. Either people will patronize selective pharmacists in support of their beliefs or they will take their business elsewhere. As much talk as there has been recently about the people being allowed to decide for themselves and not have moral decisions forced on them, you would think politicians would favor such a course, allowing the people to directly express their will on the matter, leaving them to focus on more global matters such as taxes, education and health care. Apparently it's not the usurpation of the people's will that is the problem, but the restriction of the influence and power of the legislature.