Two of the [incestuous] couple’s children are disabled, and it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities.
But the Ethics Council dismissed that argument, on the basis that other genetically affected couples are not banned from having children.
There's the issue according to that "Ethics Council." How do you address that? That Council is saying:
“Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo,” the German Ethics Council said in a statement. “The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family.”
The council commits many errors in both logic and ethics.
The problem of incest producing serious genetic and other problems is deemed a "social taboo" rather than proven harm.
They say "sexual self-determination" is more important than protecting offspring from huge risks, including getting the wrong idea that such self-determination is more important than avoiding inbreeding generation after generation after generation, which inbreeding leads to absolutely nothing good for humanity, only degradation, damage, harm, suffering.
The higher the development of the brain, the more important it is to avoid offspring the result of incest. It is clearly demonstrated by research. It is not an unknown. It is not speculation or unsubstantiated belief.
What of the seeming hypocrisy "that other genetically affected couples are not banned from having children"?
The issue is a variant of forced eugenics. Eugenics is the improvement of the breed; however, the ban on incest can be seen as the prevention of the degradation of the species.
What collective rules do we want to live by? What is the guide. Should there be a coercive state?
These are serious questions for humanity.
Do we head for secular anarchy, as the Council appears to want, or do we head toward something else?
Secular anarchy is actually ruleless. Appeals to anarchists to conform to any level of care concerning others would be met with the Councils ultimate so-called ethical standard: "self-determination." It's Aleister Crowley's motto: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." If one wants to murder others, then that's that person's law; and no one else has any right above that. Of course, someone else's law might be to kill the murderers. Someone else's law might be to banned together under rules and form a state for the protection of the innocent from Crowley Satanic-types. So we come full circle.
In contrast, there is no coercion in authentic Christianity. The state is the state of mind and heart following the dictates (rules) laid down by Jesus as given us in the Gospels. It is not the secular anarchy proposed by the logical conclusion of the false premises of the German "Ethics Council."
It is for this reason that I choose Christianity over any secular state. It is for this reason that I'm outside secular states even though I comment on their policies and practices and do say what they ought to do (turn to Christianity). It is for this reason that I do not vote for secular office holders, as voting for such always runs contrary to Christianity (the lesser of evils is never Christian) and will never result in the right system, as the right system already exists: authentic Christianity (the ethics of Jesus).
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)