A new response to a common pro-legalized abortion sound bite

I think most regulars here are familiar with how to respond to the common Pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born canard put forth by pro-legalized abortionists.  I’ve typically used a two part approach, as follows:

1. You don’t have to take ownership of a situation to be able to protest a moral evil.

2. Even so, pro-lifers do plenty to help women and children and need.

But a recent Stand to Reason Podcast brought up another good point that I hadn’t thought of.  Here’s an additional response to use:

3. Unless someone concedes to being truly pro-abortion (i.e., they expect women to always have abortions or raise the children with no help from the public), then the pro-choicers are obligated to adopt the children as well.  Either that, or give up espousing their pro-choice views.  After all, if you claim to be pro-choice and the women choose life, then the same care giving obligation falls on you.

Think about it.  It may seem subtle at first, but it is a completely consistent argument.  Pro-lifers don’t think it should be an option to kill the unborn, so pro-choicers use the false logic that we can’t complain about abortion if we won’t adopt all the kids and raise them to adulthood.  But if the woman decides to choose life, then the pro-choicer would have the same moral obligation to raise the kids. 

Here’s how I played this out in this comment thread:

Pro-legalized abortion commenter: Hard decisions belong between a pregnant woman and her caregivers, not “holier than thou” intruders, unless they personally are willing to raise, including medical care, education, and life care, all those fertilized eggs.

My response: Another canard.

Answer me this: Let’s say the government decides to solve the problem of homelessness by killing homeless people. Can you protest this without being willing to house them yourself?

You can also substitute other examples (Can you call the police if your neighbor is abusing his wife and children without having to marry her and adopt the kids?).

It is a simple question designed to point out the primary error of your argument: You don’t have to take ownership of a situation just because you protest a moral evil.

And even though I don’t have to raise those human beings (the ones you like to call fertilized eggs) just because I protest the evil of abortion, I actually do a lot with my own time and money via CareNet Pregnancy Center.

And by the way, unless you are truly pro-abortion, then you are obligated to help as well. After all, if you claim to be pro-choice and the women choose life, then the same caregiving obligation falls on you.

So that argument self-destructs in at least three ways.

Finally, consider if the child was outside the womb. Do the women and her caregivers get to decide if the toddler lives or dies? Of course not. So the only question is whether the unborn is a human being. Since it is a scientific fact that she is, then people shouldn’t get to decide whether to kill her. And Christians especially shouldn’t support anyone’s right to kill her.

Other commenter: BTW, half of fertilized eggs don’t implant in the uterus, so is it illegal for a woman to have mensus?

My response: Are you seriously claiming that you don’t see the difference between the following?

1. Human being dies of natural causes.

2. Human being is crushed and dismembered by another human being.

I think most people can see the difference, whether 1 and 2 occur inside or outside the womb.

I’ve heard all the pro-legalized abortion sound bites many times and will be glad to debunk more for you. I hope that you are intellectually honest and reconsider your position on this crucial issue.

0 thoughts on “A new response to a common pro-legalized abortion sound bite”

  1. I loveeeeeeeee this site. It is just full of pure reason. Sometimes I get stump on this issue but you laid out pretty good arguments. We must all be equip to battle this evil of abortion.

    Like

    1. Hi Mercedes,

      Thanks, I’m really glad you enjoy it! And kudos to you for working to get equipped to refute pro-legalized abortion arguments. It can be hard work but it is something anyone can do.

      Like

      1. It is but we perish without knowledge so I am trying to get it and understanding, lol. All these facts about abortions, especially in the black community is startling. I don’t know if you know this but there is a saying in the black community that there is no good black men out here. That always confuse me but I now I know. It is basically because they are all aborted. The black community is the only one that is actually decreasing. That is why the Hispanic community is now the largest minority.

        The spirit of Molech is very strange in this country and people really need to wake up. I don’t know why blacks overwhelming keep supporting the Democrats that consistently take positions for our extinction. Ironic but indeed sad.

        Like

      2. Amen, Mercedes. You nailed it with the “spirit of Molech” comment. What else could drive people to destroy their children?

        Like

      3. Well, we live in a very sensuous society. I remember that Burger King commercial where they used “Baby God Back” to sell Spongebob burgers or something. It is a god of sexual desires of flesh. Some of these people get abortions because it will interrupt their lives and money. As Obama said, “why make these people take punishments (kids). It is a sick generation. God is not happy with the killing of the innocents and you know how God responds to such these.

        Like

      4. Ok let’s try this again!

        The reason you have so many numbers for blacks recieving abortions is because they get them in locations where they are counted…Those who can afford abortions or that have insurance can QUIETLY go to their private doctor and QUIETLY get one.

        Mercedes you should pay closer attention to what is happening in the black community if you’re going to comment about it! It is more likely a black person will have their child and pass it off to a family member than have an abortion. WE CAN’T AFFORD THEM!!!

        If the black community is decreasing it is because all of their men are in prison or dead because of what’s happening in the STREETS. They haven’t been aborted. Black overwhelmingly supporting Democrats because conservatives show how DEEPLY out of touch they are with sweeping statements like this.

        I don’t know which is worse this obsession with Molech or Baal!! The killing of innocent children or sacrificing all sense for the all mighty dollar!

        Like

      5. Considering as I AM A BLACK WOMAN, I clearly can note what is happening in MY COMMUNITY. Abortion is a proven statistic that it is killing blacks far more than AIDS/HIV, (black on black crimes) and diseases such as diabetes and high blood pleasure. It is clear you are making sweeping remarks to me shows how clearly out of touch you are. White people by percentages have more private doctors than black ones. I can speak from experiences I don’t know alot of black people with insurance, let alone private doctors. You need to look up the history of Planned Parenthood to see the correlation of more minorities getting abortions than others, it is a targeted group.

        Also blacks should learn some personal accountability.
        I hate when conservatives make statements like because it sounds racist but it is still true. If one cannot afford children then one shouldn’t have them. It is simple logic, not that hard to do. The reason I talk about Americans being very sensuous is because I see things around me. Some of my fellow young people want to have all the sex and companionship and not think about the consequences. It is purely evil for people, such as myself, to grow up without a father because of my parents poor decisions. People use abortion as birth control, not a last resort and it is literally killing innocent people.

        Like

      6. Oh by the way, there are many racist Democrats. I hate how any white person that is Republican gets unfairly labeled as a racist. It ain’t like the Democrats is helping blacks much anyway. Unfortunately for the Republicans, since the first black (bi-racial) president is a Democrat, blacks will FAITHFULLY always lean towards that party, I believe.

        Like

      7. Well some of us are independant…for a reason. Aligning yourself with any group leads to utter disaster. I don’t believe Republicans are racist…just out of touch…at least the current definition of Republican anyway!

        Like

      8. And just because you’re a black woman doesn’t mean you are in touch with your community….many ‘come up’ and forget where they come from. I’m not saying that is you, but it is the case for a lot of us.

        Yes its true some of us have learned to hustle up enough cash to cover the cost of an abortion, but the decrease in the community is more likely from the number of us killed on the streets and the number of us in prison. I believe all of that falls under your point of personal accountability—we are severely lacking in that department!

        Like

      9. I am a 20 year old college student, I think I am kind of in touch. Anyway, why are you having selective tunnel vision on the abortion issue. Yes, there are many violent crimes that blacks fall under. You forgot AIDS, too. Yes, there are many blacks in prisons. However, those numbers still don’t measure up the the millions of black babies being killed every year. I am glad to see that you agree on the personal accountability part.

        Like

      10. @Mercedes:

        You seem to be big on personal responsibility, soe am I, however; we live in a society and there is a degree of responsibility the society has to the individual.

        Like

      11. Ok DJ. Soooooo…..what’s your point then? I think the government should not sanction killing of babies. ARe you talking about the government towards balack people aor something?

        Like

      12. @Mercedes:

        I am saying in regard to the sociological situations that make a person consider abortion. When a poor person white or black has a child, they need some help with somethings. My thing is, since I am against abortion, perhaps we should help with the alternative.

        Like

      13. @Mercedes:

        “I hate how any white person that is Republican gets unfairly labeled as a racist…”

        Well maybe you should suggest to the GOP to actually denounce racist demougary from people like Buchannon, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc., etc. OR perhaps they could just one time stop usuing code words to cover racist anti-black language?

        Like

      14. I’d like to see proof of these so-called “racist” “demougary” from these people you just slandered. What “anti-black” language have they used? I’ve never heard any.

        It is the Democrats who were the party of slavery, it was the Democrats who fought civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s. It is still the Democrats who enslave black people to the government by welfare and bean-counting programs.

        Like

      15. Thank you. I don’t see how blacks are so in love witht eh democrats. Both parties are bad. If Democrats are so good to us, why is the black community is in the worst state than any other race in this country? Do you know about the philly kids being kick out of the pool? Guess what, the owner of that club was a democrat. I wonder why Al Sharpton and Jesse wasn’t all over that case. The Pennsylvania Democrats are very racist. I live in South Carolina and nothing like that swim incident happen in decades. I guess only Repulubicans are racist.

        Like

      16. @mercedes:

        I don’t recall saying that there is no racism within the DNC, you seem to say someone is falsely accusing the RNC. Onus is on YOU to show such false accusations, since you seem so ready to admit that the DNC is “racist”.

        Like

      17. Glenn:

        Stop being intellectually fraudulent. We know that the Republican party today is not the party of Lincoln, hell it ain’t even the party of Eisenhower.

        You wrote:

        “It is still the Democrats who enslave black people to the government by welfare and bean-counting programs.”

        Welfare is for poor Americans not BLACK AMERICANS.

        And as for anti-Black language, if you don’t see it, I’m not going to educate you on it. All I can say is that I am NOT a democrat, but I damn sure will NOT be a republican because of that language you claim to not “hear”.

        Like

      18. I am not saying the Replubicans are innocent. I remember clearly the SC Repub talking about Michelle and gorillas. The funny thing about that statement is that if one beelieves in evolution, then what he said is not insulting. I can’t for the life of me ever become GOP. However, they have many stances of which I agree upon.

        Like

      19. DJ, I did not mention the Republican party, so I am not being intellectually dishonest as you claim. My point was only about the Democratic party. I am not a Republican either, however I will never vote for a Democrat because their party platform is against all that is holy – there is no way a Christian can justify voting for a party whose platform calls for abortion and the support of the homosexual agenda, just for starters. I will vote for Republicans because of their party platform. But I will also vote libertarian.

        Now, back to democrat policies. Welfare is for the poor, however the large percentage of our poor are the blacks and hispanics. Welfare programs have helped enslave the black community especially, and if you don’t understand that, I don’t have the space or time to educate you. Check with Thomas Sowell :oD

        The democrats have established and refuse to eliminate Affirmative action programs which just tell the black person they can’t get by on merit so we have to give you things based on color. It propagates victimhood. Republicans want to rid the country of this reverse discrimination. Discrimination is wrong no matter who is on the end of it.

        But again, give me proof of your “racist” charges against any of those men you mentioned.

        Like

      20. Glen:

        You wrote: “there is no way a Christian can justify voting for a party whose platform calls for abortion and the support of the homosexual agenda, just for starters. I will vote for Republicans because of their party platform. But I will also vote libertarian.

        Well Glen, Evil is as Evil does, and I’m sorry, I see no party better than the other in that regard, matter of perspectvie I guess. God destroyed Sodom because of its apathy to the poor, not homosexuality, so while I’ll admit the GOP and their conseervative base seem to understand how serious the sin of homosexual sex is, they seem to miss the boat on concern for the poor, their opposition to health care reform is tantamount of this.

        You wrote: “Now, back to democrat policies. Welfare is for the poor, however the large percentage of our poor are the blacks and hispanics.”

        Let me correct your statement, a larger percentage of Blacks are por than Whites, a large number of Whites make up the welfare roles than Blacks or Hispanics.

        As for how much this cripples a community, the answer is to have common sense socioal services, suppliment not create incomes, help folks with health care, child care and education, you’d have a heck of a lot less people on long term welfare roles, the GOP and the Democrats seem to fail on this issue.

        Like

      21. I am afraid I don’t know what that language is either. An if you don’t educate me, I don’t know who will.

        By the way, I don’t really believe in races at all. I don’t know anybody who is black or white, I am pretty much red myself. I don’t see why skin color in people makes anymore difference that fur color in cats.

        Like

      22. Ok Glenn stop…you were obviously around back then so you know BOTH parties are nothing like they were in 1960 let alone 1865…its a stretch! They jump sides all the time–Governor Rick Perry was a Democrat before he jumped ship.

        Like

      23. You’re right, Mz Clark. They are both worse! What used to be Demokrats are now socialists and what used to be Republicans are now Demokrats, so we need a new conservative party!

        But the undergirding philosophy of the Demokrats haven’t changed – they still keep the blacks as servants of the state!

        Like

      24. Planned Parenthood is where they get their numbers. Private doctors aren’t advertising that info! Black people don’t visit private doctors so their business is always in the street!

        Everyone makes poor decisions. White people have just as many single parent homes as the black ones so I don’t know where that is coming from.

        Like

      25. Numbers are mostly obtained from required reporting to state governments on all abortions (many states compile statistics). There may be a margin of error (since there are always reporting errors, etc), but the numbers on black abortions are pretty clear.

        There is a black genocide taking place. Planned Parenthood, since the days of Margaret Sanger, has actively sought to get rid of the undesirables and the lesser races. It’s why she spoke before the KKK and they loved her. She wanted to get rid of those gosh darn dark colored folks.

        Like

      26. Yes, but they are only reporting how many abortions are taking place, not who is recieving them. The only places that break numbers down by household demographic are clinics. Privacy goes out the window when you get it at a ‘discount’ or for free! They don’t know your name just that your POOR and what race you are. Why? Democrats are willing to give them more!

        I bet if we had an accurate count the numbers would be dead even!

        Like

      27. Mercedes:

        “If one cannot afford children then one shouldn’t have them.”

        So since you are against abortion, I would assume you are for programs that help young unwed mothers with Education, Health Care, Chidle Care and Food Stamps?

        Just asking…

        Like

      28. Of course because there are members in my family that have those services. This is what Neil is pointing out. Just because I am pro-life doesn’t mean I am against those programs. That is fraudulent thinking at worst. But I can still see how those people in my family make great choices. Like I stated before, I was raised without a father it it sucks. SO GUESS WHAT I AM GOING TO DO. That’s right, use better judgment and wait until marriage to have kids because if I truly loved my kids, I would try to make the best choices for them.

        And yeah, I know people make mistakes, we all do. But that doesn’t mean it gives you the right to harm innocent children and it doesn’t mean that those programs should be cut off. Better regulation and more funding is good. However, I am not that well versed in the operations of such.

        Like

      29. @Mercedes:

        You wrote: “This is what Neil is pointing out. Just because I am pro-life doesn’t mean I am against those programs. ”

        Correct, unfortunately the GOP in many cases IS against programs that help people with their children when they choose to NOT have abortions. I’d wager we could decrease abortions a lot more in POOR Commiunities (white or black) if we bolstered prorgrams that actually HELPED single mothers get jiob training and to become productive citizens.

        Like

      30. We’ve got those already. They’re called “the public school system”. In my incredibly affluent and filthy rich community where the average home cost about 20K in 1960, we were expected by our parents to study, work hard and be responsible for our actions. “Accidental” pregnancies were rare.

        It’s not welfare that people in any poor area needs, but character, honor and self-discipline with a smattering of respect for others and one’s self. This idea that we need federal programs to stem the tide of unwanted pregnancies is absolute bullsh*t. We need people of character, who, even when they succomb to their carnal urges will still do the right thing and put their own lives behind the lives they’ve invited into this world.

        So it’s not that the GOP is against these coveted programs of yours, DJ. It’s that they are in favor of encouraging better behaviors from the people that claim to need those programs. There has been no such program that has done a damned thing to reduce the numbers of poor, the unschooled, the unwanted pregnancy or any of it. What has been missing in these areas of our society, rich or poor, is higher expectations. Demand better from one’s kids and one’s communities and better will result. It’s as simple as that, believe it or not.

        Like

      31. @Marshall:

        You wrote: “It’s not welfare that people in any poor area needs, but character, honor and self-discipline with a smattering of respect for others and one’s self”

        False choice man. People need the things you said, that is certain, but undercutting programs that help provide food, shelter and medicne to the poor makes attaining anything else nigh impossible.

        Like

      32. Again, DJ, I disagree.

        Hand outs like free housing and free day care often end up hurting the poor, because it creates an economic incentive to stay poor. In Chicago, for example, once one receives housing assistance one is tied to an income threshold, if they go over that threshold they no longer get their assistance… yet the value of the benefits+income is much higher than the threshold. A person is literally punished for trying to work their way out of poverty.

        Which is precisely what was planned. Now we have a permenant democratic voter, who must keep voting democrat in ordert to keep getting benefits.

        Let’s be honest man, these ‘benefits’ are racist because they degrade black individuals and families and keep them trapped in poverty.

        Like

      33. Sorry, but all those programs have been CUT by the GOP!

        There is no more P.E., Art, and Music are rotated out during the semester. Job training is an elective you snooze you lose-even if you are having to take remedial math or english. Which brings us to reading–this is where you learn how to browse the classifieds, because you will be looking for your own job when you graduate.

        Ahem…I believe they had all that back in 1960 when this GOP didn’t exist!

        Like

  2. Great stuff.

    Neil, you’re also a lot calmer than I am. When the pro-abortion feminists bring this one forth, I usually just snark about horny frat boys and date rape, asking if they must be willing to put out for the jerk guys before protesting rape or sexual coercion.

    It’s not a great way to win friends and influence people – will have to try a few other examples. 🙂

    Like

  3. Thanks, Neil. (I love STR!)
    Also, good point about intellectual honesty. I think the reason so many prochoicers get upset when we try to prove the unborn are, you know, people–sometimes even if we simply say that in passing–is as Randy Alcorn said, “if the unborn are human, then that means I’m complicit in murder.” And no prochoice person, no matter how radical, wants to be an accessory to murder. (Especially of babies.)

    Also, thank you for the homeless people/battered wife argument. Those are great points. (Now, if only someone would debate me so I can use them…) 🙂

    Like

    1. I’m sure you’ll hear that argument soon and can politely work in the homeless people / battered woman example. I have even gotten the “pro-lifers need to adopt all the kids” bit from nominal pro-lifers. They’ve heard the sound bite so much from Whoopie-types that they feel they must parrot it.

      Like

  4. There is no “reply” spot for a response to DJ’s last, so I’m starting another comment string:

    DJ,
    We are getting sort of off the topic of the post, however we are discussing the same type of world view that promotes abortion.

    You failed to understand that the Democrat party platform – their whole agenda – supports and promotes abortion, homosexuality and sexual immorality in general. There is no way a Christian can biblically justify voting for a party that does this. The Republican party platform – their agenda – is anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality and anti sexual immorality in general. The fact that the GOP has a host of other problems still does not bring it down to the level of unbiblical government which the Demokrats have. In this regard, the GOP is much better than the Donkeys.

    Your revisionist deconstruction of the story of Sodom is typical of homosexuals and their supporters. In the favorite passage about the lack of hospitality, Ezekiel 16:48-50, the main sin is that they “committed abominations before Me.” The “abominations” was indeed the homosexuality rampant in Sodom. Of course this sin was not alone and was what led to their sins of neglecting the poor and needy.

    You seem to forget that there is nothing in the Constitution that permits government spending on “the poor and needy.” Supporting the poor is fine, but not by stealing from those who work to give to those who refuse to work. The truly needy are a very small minority and we could amend the Constitution to make that as something congress can pay for. BUT without the Constitutional authority, the gov’t has no right to force taxpayers to pay for welfare, let alone the boondoggle of a government health care program which has no way of being funded, especially when the government is already so far in debt they can’t pay the Constitutionally-authorized bills! I agree we need health-care reform, but not as a government entity. The first thing should be a law for tort reform – do you realize how much it costs the patient to pay for the malpractice insurance to cover frivolous lawsuits, and exorbitant punitive damages?

    Socialism is NOT the answer – every place it’s been tried it has failed. You can’t force workers to pay for the indigent – it is immoral to do so.

    Like

    1. Are you equating “the poor” with those who “refuse to work” and “the indignant”? You are hopefully out of touch. Sure there are overlaps, but you can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

      Supporting the poor is fine, but not by stealing from those who work

      You view any taxes as “stealing from those who work”, so what other source of money should be used to help the poor? The government has no other source of money. So do you support the abolishing of all welfare, social services, assistance for single mothers (who choose not to abort their babies), and pretty much any help for anyone?

      If you don’t help some people get back on their feet, they will find other means to support their families, and society will suffer. Poverty can turn good people into criminals due to necessity.

      Giving someone a helping hand can be a really good investment.

      Socialism is NOT the answer – every place it’s been tried it has failed.

      Really? Not too sure about that. I think that the best way to govern is with a small bit of socialism, like in Canada, and to a greater extent, Sweden, France, and some others. These places are by no means completely socialist, but they use the best of both worlds. If one were to look at them with an unbiased eye, one would conclude that they are all predominantly capitalist. If you want an example of which governments fail all the time, try the ones that inject religion into their societies.

      Like

      1. “so what other source of money should be used to help the poor? ”

        Charity.

        It’s my money, don’t take it from me. If there were less oppressive taxes there would be fewer people made poor by oppressive taxes.

        How has socialism worked in Europe and Canada? The leading doctors in Canada are pushing to privatize the health system because the current system is an abject failure. Economic growth across Europe has been hindered for years by socialist policies, causing many European countries to start moving away from it towards free market solutions.

        If you’re going to make an argument for having your hand held by the state, please at least get the facts correct. The european socialist experiments have been an economic disaster.

        Like

      2. Lots of jobs would not exist if it were not for tax-payer funded initiatives and subsidies. It may be your money, but a lot of it came from tax-payers, and in order to live in our societies you need to pay taxes. As a society, we decide together, via democratic process, how much those taxes will be, and what they will pay for. That portion of your paycheck, I’m afraid, is not your money.

        There are plenty of countries you can move to that will let you keep more of your money. That way, you can chose which of the poor people you feel are worthy of your charity, and which can die in the street. You can even make them beg for it, since it will be YOUR money.

        The leading doctors in Canada are pushing to privatize the health system

        I can attest from personal experience that you are dead wrong about that. By the way, which doctors are leading doctors? Canadian doctors overwhelmingly support single payer health care. I happen to know this as a fact.

        The european socialist experiments have been an economic disaster.

        I disagree, but you are the source of all correct information, so why argue.

        Like

      3. You link to a comment from a doctor I more or less agree with. He says there is a role for the private sector within the public system. I agree with that. We already have that in Canada, and it works pretty well. We have private clinics all over the place where people can pay for whatever service they like. I can go two blocks from my house and have a full body MRI done tomorrow morning if I like. These clinics sometimes need to jump through hoops to provide their services due to certain laws, and are not able to “directly” bill for certain services. The CMA just wants to make it easier for them to supplement the public system. I have no problem with this.

        He is in no way in favour of abolishing the public system, and is not looking to overhaul everything. Nice spin from Hot Air though, as usual.

        Like

      4. Again LCB: FALSE CHOICE.

        I pay TAXES that are supposed to be utilized for the general welfare of the citizens of this society I am apart of. If I needed help, I would EXPECT IT, because I have paid my share of taxes (not to mentioned served my country as a Marine and a member of the Air Force).

        Having health care available to those who cannot afford it, rather they be recently unemployed, laid off, or just regular ole poor is not SOCIALISM. HEALTH CARE is NOT something you “want” it is a NEED.

        I am never surprised by the lack of concern for the people OUTSIDE of the womb that the RIGHT has, while professing tons of concern for the unborn. Sure, let a unwed mother HAVE a baby, then deny the child and her health care until she can afford her own, simply amazing…

        Like

    2. Glenn:

      You can disagree all you want with my politics, but my exegesis is more than sound regarding Ezekiel and what GOD said to HIM regarding Sodom. You do are the one reconstructing as you attempt to minimize a very serious sin that can be shown with very little theological ease thematically all through out the Bible. If you disagree with what God is clearly saying to HIS prophet Ezekiel, than take it up with GOD or the Masores.

      See, that is why I have little tolerance for many so-called conservatives. You want to talk about sin when its Homosexuality but want to minimize it and ignore it when it is lack of concern for the POOR and the NEEDY (note LACK OF CONCERN FOR THE POOR not “lack of hospitality”).

      I don’t think I said homosexual sex wasn’t a sin, I just know it ain’t the one God took Sodom out for.

      Ezekiel 16.49 gives us the proper context in why Sodom was destroyed (from the New Revised Standard Version):

      “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.”

      Looking at scripture in CONTEXT WITH SCRIPTURE, we see that forgetting the “widow and the orphan” is detestable to the Lord our Father. This is a theme throughout the Old Testament.

      Look at Isaiah 58:10-11: “And if thou draw out thy soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul; then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness be as the noonday:
      And the LORD shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not.”

      Clearly blessings come by aiding the poor.

      1st John 3:17
      “But whoever has the world’s goods, and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?”

      If we love God, we take care of the needy.

      BUT more to the point, there are specific punishments and judgments that come from NOT helping the poor. Look at

      Malachi 3:5:

      “And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts.”

      Wow. Judgment, as He Judged Sodom (Ezekiel 16.49) for these things.

      This is much more serious than simply “bad manners” so call SIN what it is in all cases not just the cases that suit you.

      Like

      1. LCB:

        Does the hypocrisy of the right know any bounds? “I” am capitalizing on God when I exegetically make the argument that there are OTHER sins of a serious nature to God than homosexuality, such as APATHY?

        Then you talk about how much the Right gives to Charity? I would expect they do more by nature of the fact they pay tithes.

        Charities take care of specific problems, giving to charities cannot be mandated, as such we cannot depend on charities to take care of a SOCIETY of INDIVIDUALS. You all seem to get the “individual” part just not the SOCIETY Part.

        Check it LCB, I think that you all don’t like taxes going to help people and prefer charities because then you can CONTROL who gets the help not so much for controlling how much you give. Since we know the right seems to think America means “White Straight Protestants” I don’t trust they would have a charity to help gay atheist blacks / asians/ latinos, etc. with their AIDS medication prescriptions.

        Like

      2. It’s not about hypocrisy, it’s about the fact that posts with lots of caps are really hard to read.

        I’m serious, it’s difficult on the eyes. I just glance over the whole thing and don’t bother. Please don’t do it man.

        Like

      3. Firstly, find me one place in Scripture where God gave such destructive punishment for a lack of hospitality – failure to take care of the poor. But in Ezekiel He also mentions the “abominations” committed by Sodom – homosexual behavior and the fact that all the men of the town wanted to gang rape Lot’s guests. I prefer to listen to the teachings of James White and other biblical scholars who have written excellent commentaries, rather than an unknown on the internet. Your argument is not persuasive and is merely trying to force a social gospel message rather that acknowledge the abomination which is homosexual behavior.

        This does not mean I don’t agree with the importance of taking care of the poor and needy, but the problem is the Government’s way of doing so leads to massive waste and brings people into slavery to the government. And contrary to yours and other’s implications, I do not disagree with the need to tax, rather it is the abuse of the taxing privilege by the current administration, let alone the democrat platform in general, that I object to.

        Like

      4. @Glen:

        You wrote: “Firstly, find me one place in Scripture where God gave such destructive punishment for a lack of hospitality”

        Again, you would be best advised not to minimize the SIN of apathy as “lack of hospitality”.

        Read this again Glen, from the KJV this time: “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

        Notice the word “Iniquity” in the beginning of the verse? In that verse this is translated from the Hebrew word: “Avone” meaning: “perversity, depravity, iniquity, guilt or punishment of iniquity”

        Perversion, depravity….very STRONG language, so please save that “lack of hospitality” trip for someone who doesn’t READ their bible.

        Strengthening the hand of the poor and the needy does NOT translate to lacking hospitality.

        God calls this a perversion, if you have a problem with what HE said to HIS servant the prophet Ezekiel, like I said, take it up with God, Ezekiel or the Masores, but don’t try to minimize it, it looks pathetic.

        Like

      5. BTW, that Hebrew translation comes from the Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Hebrew #5753(my professors would frown upon me not mentioning that).

        Oh and Glenn, don’t talk to me about Bible Scholars or bible scholarship, what I told you doesn’t even get to the level of scholarship, it is mere BASIC READING COMPRHENISON that you should have learned in elementary school, the scripture I gave you was from a translation the average 7th grader could understand.

        Seriously, don’t hide behind that scholarship Glen, MAN UP, you want to minimize what God calls sin, own up to it. I will take any scholar to task that would minimize what God said to Ezekiel there.

        Like

      6. Okay, DJ, you want to play. “Hospitality” is the word the homosexual activists use to identify all that and it is their word I used. You say “apathy”. Whatever. The point is, these things were but a part of the reason Sodom was destroyed. You stopped at vs.49 but did not continue to vs. 50: “And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away was I saw good.” Read the ENTIRE context of the passage. That last verse sums it up with the abominations that were committed and therefore God destroyed them.

        As for scholarship, these people have done in-depth studies of the languages and total contexts and have determined from that standpoint what I just read for myself – that the abominations, i.e. the homosexual license, was the final straw that led to the destruction of Sodom. I am not minimizing sin, I am only pointing out WHICH sin was the abomination for which Sodom was ultimately destroyed, and it wasn’t the “apathy.”

        And I also have news for you: the average 7th grader has trouble reading period, let alone understanding KJV 1611 English. I don’t have any problem with it, but you apparently do since you keep stopping at vs. 49

        Like

      7. This section from Responding to Pro-Gay Theology is worth considering with respect to the Ezekiel passage:

        Pro-Gay Argument #3:

        The real sins of Sodom, according to Ezekiel 16:49, were that it was “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” These have nothing to do with homosexuality.

        Response:

        Again, the argument is partially true. When Sodom was destroyed, homosexuality was only a part-or symptom-of its wickedness. Romans Chapter One gives a similar illustration, describing the generally corrupt condition of humanity, while citing homosexuality as a symptom of that corruption. But Ezekiel also says of the Sodomites: “They were haughty and did detestable things before me” (16:50). The sexual nature of these “detestable” things is suggested in 2 Peter 2:6-7:

        If he [God] condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men…

        And again in Jude 7:

        In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

        Dr. Bruce Metzger of Princeton Theological Seminary mentions other references to Sodom’s sexual immorality in 3 Maccabees 2:5: “the people of Sodom who acted arrogantly, who were notorious for their vices.” And again in Jubilees 16:6: “the uncleanness of the Sodomites.”[79]

        The pro-gay interpretation of Sodom’s destruction has some merit: homosexual rape was attempted, and the Sodomites were certainly guilty of sins other than homosexuality. But in light of the number of men willing to join in the rape, and the many other references, both Biblical and extra-Biblical, to Sodom’s sexual sins, it is likely homosexuality was widely practiced among the Sodomites. It is also likely that the sin for which they are named was one of many reasons judgment finally fell on them.

        Like

      8. Neil:

        Not an either or, if homsexual sin is important enough for the Right to be concerned about, as they claim to be Biblical Christians in many cases, then so to should the DEPRAVITY that GOD stated to the prophet, that being APATHY to the POOR.

        Like

      9. DJBA,

        I don’t agree that we are apathetic to the poor. I know I’m not. I just know that many of the programs designed to help the poor are counterproductive.

        And regarding the homosexual issue, to make that analogy work you’d need to make the case that Republicans want to indoctrinate kids from kindergarten on up that helping the poor is bad (just as Dems are trying to indoctrinate kids that gay, lesbian, transgender, bi- and other behavior is good).

        Like

      10. How, precisely, are Conservative apathetic to the poor? I’ve already shown you how conservatives give more to charity.

        Like

      11. Glen:

        lol, you funny man. The first time I gave you that scripture, it was from the New Revised Standard Version, I used the KJV to exegete that scripture.

        I gave you the scripture in thematic context with the rest of the Old Testament and you act like giving me verse 50 is telling me or your something different than what I communicated to you.

        Let’s look at verse 50 from the KJV: “And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.”

        If your point was that Sodom committed abomination, and if you are positing that the abomination was sexual sin, I don’t see the point.

        Your mistake is assuming that I am trying to “defend” homosexual sex, so you broke out your cookie cutter anti-gay exegesis. My point is that there are other sins that facilitated that destruction of Sodom, other SINS that God finds as detestable as what you focus on, SINS you ignore. God called their apathy to the poor as Perversion, depravity….very STRONG language, so please save that “lack of hospitality” trip for someone who doesn’t READ their bible.

        Strengthening the hand of the poor and the needy does NOT translate to lacking hospitality.

        Like

      12. DJ, you started out by saying:
        “God destroyed Sodom because of its apathy to the poor, not homosexuality.” I pointed out that this is but the same hogwash as the homosexual activists use when they say Sodom was destroyed for their “lack of hospitality” – reading into the text what wasn’t there. This use of another reason has been part and parcel of the gay agenda to make homosexuality acceptable. I took your twisting of the reason – apathy to the poor – to be analogous to the gay agenda’s “inhospitality.” Neither is the reason.

        Whether you want to use NRSV, KJV, ESV, NIV or any of the other almost 30 English versions I have on my shelf, the answer is the same – VERSE 50. The sin noted as the conclusion on top of the other is “abomination” (KJV/NAS) “detestable things” (NIV) “abominable deeds” (NET), etc. These descriptions match the description of homosexual behavior from Leviticus and not any description of “apathy to the poor.”

        I NEVER stated apathy to the poor wasn’t a sin – I only maintained that it was not the sin which cause the Lord to destroy Sodom. And every commentator I read seems to be agreeing with me rather than you. They of course also mention the “apathy” but point out that it was a reflection of the overall immorality of the city. So what makes me such a “funny man” to be laughed at?

        You are the one who broke out the “cookie cutter” eisegesis of making Ezekiel say it wasn’t homosexuality that brought about Sodom’s demise, and I was merely nailing you with it. There are other passages you could have used to note God’s displeasure with “apathy to the poor,” but you chose that one because you were making a point against those who preach against homosexuality without preaching against “apathy to the poor.” But one does not require the other.

        Again, I find nowhere in scripture where God condemns “apathy to the poor” in as strong as language – including the punishment of execution – as He does for homosexual behavior. For you to say one is as detestable to God as the other is practicing eisegesis.

        Like

      13. Glen:

        Please stop, now you are truly embarrassing yourself.

        Let me enumerate what I communicated:

        1. God listed apathy to the poor in verse 49 of chapter 16 clearly as INEQUITY which I clearly showed you from the Hebrew definition to be Depravity in this case depraved indifference.

        2. That this was CLEARLY the primary predate given to prophet Ezekiel by God for Sodom’s judgement, abomination was then discussed in verse 50. However, you a performing eisegesis when you inject that “abomination” was “homosexuality” and presume this was the primary predicate for itt’s destruction. From what I gather, abomination covers a whole lot of ground

        3. With decent exegesis (which you have not even made the most meager attempts to apply) one could posit that the some of that abomination was sexual sin, looking at the Ezekiel in context with other scripture, however; I am not debating that, I was stating that in your lack of hospitality trip, you were downplaying something that God doesn’t downplay.

        4. Using the same level of exegesis one could should (as I did) thematically indifference and apathy to the poor (by EXAMPLE) is clearly shown to be detestable to God and an act that brings judgement from God,

        5. Looking at the Old Testament (and in particular the books of the Nevi’im or Prohpets) in light of the New Testament, Jesus’ teachings clearly supports this as ONE of the things Jesus is on record saying regarding not feeding the hungry is: Matthew 25.41-42: ” Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat:…”

        So again, stop minimizing what God clearly has a SERIOUS problem with.

        You Conservatives like, pardon the pun, busting the Homosexuals arses about sin, you need to bust your OWN. Seeing as some of your fellows here have a problem with things like Food Stamps and WIC…

        Glen, the problem here is, whereas I am exegetating my position predicated on actual scripture study, you are regurgitating whatever theologian / scholar who holds your cookie cutter argument for the “anti-homosexual” agenda.

        I don’t harp on homosexuality as much as YOU may, because its like beating a dead horse to me, my point was to show your clear INCONSISTENCY as you further demonstrate by just not accepting the fact that God looks at INDIFFERENCE and APATHY towards the POOR as SERIOUSLY as he looks at “sexual sin”. Guess its easier for you to POINT a finger and ignore the 3 fingers and thumb point back at you. Typical.

        Like

      14. However, DJ, like homosex enablers, you stop short with your Ezekiel passage. Verse 50 speaksof Sodom having done detestable things before the Lord. Too many like to pretend it was all about greed, ignoring the needy or inhospitality. But I don’t think that is what is being called “detestable”. My studies show the same language being used is the same as Lev 18:22. My point here is that Ezekiel 16:49 is only a portion of the reason for which Sodom was destroyed. Sexual depravity was also and every bit a factor in its destruction.

        Like

      15. Marshall:

        You wrote: “Sexual depravity was also and every bit a factor in its destruction.”

        And how does that change what I was asserting in regard to APATHY for the poor? NOT AT ALL. I am not either / or ing the situation, my point is don’t get all uppity with homosexuality and NOT look at the other sin involved, which again, I have shown contextually, God addresses very seriously throughout the Old Testament.

        Don’ take one and leave the other.

        Like

      16. Or heaven help us Lot’s daughter who was punished for feeding and giving water to a homeless man left to die in the town ‘bed’. They lathered her with honey and posted her in the town square. Execution by Bees! Book of Jasher chapter 19.

        It is not for the faint of heart…believe me!

        Like

    3. @Glenn:

      BTW, don’t try to trap me in your false dichotomy. I don’t recall using the word “SOCIALISM”, I actually know what the word means so please spare me the fear mongering techniques that the people who you choose to defend (Hannity, Buchannon, Beck, etc.) utilize.

      Only the most simple of people fall for that Capitalism or Socialism false argument you all make, it is a false choice.

      Sure there are things I disagree with President Obama on, but you all lose credibility when you weave and stand by this fictional fraudulent socialism argument, all the right has done with this is lost what LITTLE Respect I had for them.

      AND AS FAR AS ABORTION GOES, say what you say, the RIGHT is more full of it than a diaper Genie at a daycare center. You have had since Gingrich to do something about it, but the Right hasn’t, because they are all hot air when it comes to the so called MORAL issues they manipulate people like you with. They don’t care, that’s why nothing changed in the 8 years you all had.

      Whereas I am clear where I divide with the left, I am also clear that the GOP manipulates Christians and people who are pro-life with FALSE PROMISES.

      In other words, save it.

      Like

      1. They don’t care, that’s why nothing changed in the 8 years you all had.

        I disagree.

        The partial birth abortion ban was great.

        Two Supreme Court justices who actually know how to judge and interpret the Constitution were great.

        But we blew it! We were almost there! Now what judges will Obama appoint? More “empathetic” pro-abortionists like Sotomayar.

        Yes, some politicians pretend to cater to the pro-life crowd but don’t really do anything about it. But real gains were made but they are getting washed away by our current travesty of an administration.

        Like

  5. @Neil:

    I guess I am a bit more…weary of the motives of the GOP. I don’t think they (collectively) were doing anything but throwing bones at the Christian Right. I refuse to be manipulated by them as much as I do the Democratic party here in Chicago. I don’t trust either, and I do not think either reflects the will of God.

    Like

    1. There are countless reasons to be skeptical of politicians. As others have demonstrated, the Democratic party makes mocking God part of their foundation. When you focus on specific issues the Republicans are far better. Republicans have done a lousy job marketing to the black community, but their policies are far better for them IMO.

      Like

      1. @Neil:

        You wrote: “When you focus on specific issues the Republicans are far better. Republicans have done a lousy job marketing to the black community, but their policies are far better for them IMO.”

        I can agree with both those statements. I believe the problems faced by African Ameircans as a community could be addressed btter on many points by what the Republican partys “says” in regards to many issues.

        I was a actually a member of the Illinois Republican party for about 6 years, I probobly line up with more than 75% of the written platform, though I still vote for individual Republicans from time to time, the parties close association with people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc., is why I will remain an independent and vote for Democrats from time to time.

        Like

      2. “the parties close association with people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc.”

        How is the party closely associated with these figures? Do the leaders of the party do what these figures say, follow these figures advice?

        Rather, the common complaint from many is that the elected representatives aren’t close enough to these figures, that they don’t follow the political advice of these figures, etc.

        So, are you saying you don’t want to vote for candidates who also have voters who listen to radio shows you don’t like (and that you probably don’t listen to)?

        Like

      3. I have a few wildly liberal in-laws who act as if I listen to Rush daily. I can’t remember listening to his show more than once or twice in my whole life. Same thing for Hannity and Beck. I’m not saying they are bad or wrong. I don’t watch / listen enough to know. It is just amusing that everything assumes that we get our marching orders from them.

        Like

      4. It’s easier than actually understanding positions.

        Ridicule a person they don’t listen to as an excuse to dismiss all persons and ideas in a certain spectrum.

        The left does this frequently, such as the Village Atheists, “Look at the Jonesboro Baptists, therefore Christianity is false.”

        Unfortunately these are the consequences of allowing the left to hijack education. Individuals rarely think and often don’t know how to evaluate positions.

        Even a basic examination of Democratic policies reveals them to be racist, neo-eugenicist, and responsible for wrecking black families and black communities. Nationalizing things doesn’t solve problems, it gives us the problems that Venezuela and Zimbabwe have.

        It takes years of training to turn off critical thinking skills. And it’s no accident that the NEA dumps money into the democratic party while endorsing abortion and pro-sodomy teaching int he classroom.

        Voting for the party that wants to kill your children, then brainwash them after they are born, and keep you enslaved to the state is the ultimate act of voting against your self interest.

        Like

      5. Funny you can only see racism with the LEFT….funny….

        OH an BTW, Low Income Housing, Child Care assistance and Food stamps aren’t what holds the poor down, even if I agree that left wing policies aren’t the solution, programs that help the poor are not the problem, implementation is. IF the RIGHT were interested in more than fear mongering, they could perhaps help in that area.

        Like

      6. @LCB:

        How is the GOP assocaited with Rush Limbaugh? The same way that the Democratic Party is ascoiated with Bill Mhaer and Jesse jackson….shes didn’t Limbaugh CHECK the RNC Chairman?

        Like

      7. So Limbaugh is to the GOP as Maher and Jackson are to the Democratic party? Not official party speakers, having 0 impact on policy?

        Like

      8. Uh sorry Bill Maher is Libertarian. He just likes Obama.

        You should really check the show out. He’s fair with the more ‘in-touch’ GOP members, and sometimes devotes an entire show to them. LOVE Bill Maher!

        Like

      9. BTW, I listen to Hannity, Buchannon, Beck and Coultoure (and even as much as I can stand of Malkin), OFTEN, I like knowing what racist and their supporters thinks, hell I even read Stormfront’s website regularly.

        Like

      10. How, precisely, are they racist? How much, precisely, do you listen to them?

        Again, Stormfront speaks for the GOP in any fashion?

        One would think the defining feature of a group like Stormfront is precisely that they don’t speak for the GOP in any fashion, and they themselves would deny they speak for the GOP.

        Like

      11. LCB:

        I have been a Black man for 39 years, I have been around people whose racism was passive agressisve, agressives, moderate, extreme, etc. etc. I learned how to pick up on coded language a long time ago, if you can’t see it, you can’t see it, fortunately for me I don’t have to wait for YOU to see it for ME to respond to it. It is in my best interest to see anti-Black attitudes and hear that language, YOU seem to be able to call it in the DNC you just refuse to see it in the right.

        I think Hannity, Buchannon, Beck, Coulture, Malkin, and yes even STORMFRONT speak to your parties base much more than Colin Powell does….

        Like

      12. I’m sorry, DJ. That’s not even close to good enough. So far, all I can tell is that you see racism around every corner. This suggests a problem within you. I won’t deny you’ve had race related struggles in your life, but that might be the cause of your knee-jerk responses to all things as being racist. I would like to see how you explain your position that the GOP is racist or a promoter of racist policies. I have NEVER heard anything racist from Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Beck or most other conservative commentators (I don’t much listen or read much of Buchanon, but I’d wager you’re seeing things there, too).

        You seem to have it all covered with this:

        “I have been around people whose racism was passive agressisve, agressives, moderate, extreme, etc. etc. I learned how to pick up on coded language a long time ago, if you can’t see it, you can’t see it…”

        Well. How can anyone NOT be racist if you say he is. You’ve set the bar incredibly high. I’d bet you’d figure a way to label a guy in a coma as racist. “Coded language” my ass. I find this attitude, if you’re explaining yourself accurately, to be both unChristian and unAmerican in its judgemental nature.

        Perhaps you could present two or three examples of “coded language” from any of the people you’ve listed, or even from any Republican politician or party position, and then explain why they’re racist. That would help my understanding immensely.

        Like

      13. Marshall:

        I don’t see racism around every corne, I see it in the GOP and the Conservatvie Right. Not hard to see. Why is it, if I point out anti-Black actions in the LEFT and why Blacks shouldn’t blindly support the DNC you guys are o.k., when I point it out in the RNC or the RIGHt you guys get all goofey?

        Like

      14. Because we agree that the left is racist and is impleneting policies that are genocidal to blacks.

        The GOP isn’t implementing a black genocide and isn’t making race based decisions. Saying “let’s not make race based decisions” isn’t racist, it’s fulfilling Dr. King’s dream of looking past race.

        Like

      15. LCB:

        You wrote: “Because we agree that the left is racist and is impleneting policies that are genocidal to blacks.

        The GOP isn’t implementing a black genocide and isn’t making race based decisions. Saying “let’s not make race based decisions” isn’t racist, it’s fulfilling Dr. King’s dream of looking past race.”

        LCB, we are not going to agree on this. I understand that we are going to have to respectfully dividie on this issue, I do not trust to motives of the Left any more or less than I do of the Right.

        Nova Scotia, I’m coming soon…

        Like

      16. DJ,
        I think you are excessively paranoid about racism where it doesn’t exist. You maintain a victim mentality with everyone being either passive or aggressive racists with secret code language.

        When I was 12 my parents divorced and by the age of 13 I was living in Federal housing projects where my younger brother and I were the only whites. Don’t tell me about racism; we got beat up virtually daily for just being white boys. (one advantage – I learned to run alot and by the time I was 16 I was running the mile in 4 1/2 minutes!). From the time I was a senior in high school, through 5 years in the Army, until now – 39 years later – I have seen 20 times as many racist black people as I have ever seen from whites.

        The Republican party doe NOT promote or condone racism, so get off your victimology high horse and own up to your paranoia. It is the Democrats who have always promoted racism, even racism against whites – look at Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright and tell me THEY aren’t racists!

        I’m of the opinion there are no such thing as races – we are all one human race.

        Like

      17. Glen:

        You wrote: “I think you are excessively paranoid about racism where it doesn’t exist. You maintain a victim mentality with everyone being either passive or aggressive racists with secret code language.”

        Glen, I think you might want to pump your brakes and ask a question before you start assuming.

        I don’t see racism everywhere just where it is. I don’t see White people as enemies, I see people as people. BUT as conservative as my positions maybe (and they are in many cases) I will not support a party that had people like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond as their poster children, a party that uses fear tactics often at the expense of people who share my ethnicity. Now if you can’t or won’t see that, THAT is NOT my concern.

        You write: “When I was 12 my parents divorced and by the age of 13 I was living in Federal housing projects where my younger brother and I were the only whites. Don’t tell me about racism; we got beat up virtually daily for just being white boys.”

        Sorry to hear that, unfortunately Black people get beat up all the time in the projects, so, you get as much sympathy from me as they do. In fact, it is more dangerous statistically for ME as a Black Man in the projects for than for you. To make it worst, I have top worry about the militia guys you conservative enable wanting to take my head off if I happen to go down the wrong road. You go on with:

        “From the time I was a senior in high school, through 5 years in the Army, until now – 39 years later – I have seen 20 times as many racist black people as I have ever seen from whites.”

        First off, I won’t comment on you being in the A.in’t R.eady to be M.arines Y.et, and I will be the first to admit that RACISM is present in all groups, but we aren’t talking about generic Racism, we are talking about (and let this be clear) This country’s clear White Superiority and Privilege mentality that has existed since slavery and there by mutual implication Black inferiority. Sure it has gotten better, I definitely see that, BUT the RIGHT is holding on to that mentality for dear life, Hannity, Beck, Buchannon, etc., ALL are stirring up that pot with there demagoguery. If you can’t or won’t see that, not my problem, I can’t let you wilful ignorance make me not see it.

        You go on with: “The Republican party doe NOT promote or condone racism…”

        Matter of perspective, just because you say so, I ain’t buying.

        You go on with: so get off your victimology high horse and own up to your paranoia…

        Glen, I am a Marine, I am nobody’s victim, I acknowledge the obstacle that racism sometimes presents, now I don’t know about you ARMY fellas, but MARINES Adapt, overcome and Improvise, we don’t allow obstacles to get in our way. That includes other people racism, I don’t allow that to stop me from objectives, but I will not support a party that allows for that perception even if it isn’t the reality. I don’t support the democrats here in Chicago because many of their ACTIONS are anti-Black, I don’t support the GOP for the same reason.

        You wrote: “It is the Democrats who have always promoted racism, even racism against whites – look at Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright and tell me THEY aren’t racists!”

        Did I mention Farrakhan, Jackson or Sharpton? Did I mention Jeremiah Wright?

        You conclude with: “I’m of the opinion there are no such thing as races – we are all one human race”

        If that is your conclusion, then there we can agree.

        Like

      18. Ah, DJ,

        I’m not “assuming”; your harping about “code words” and that all the conservative radio pundits are racists, are examples that you are indeed paranoid about racism where it doesn’t exist. I have NEVER, EVER heard any of those radio personalities ever say anything that even hinted of racism.

        I was not implying blacks in projects don’t get beat up – I was just pointing out that I am very, personally familiar with racism. Then you go into this tripe: “I have top worry about the militia guys you conservative enable wanting to take my head off if I happen to go down the wrong road.” I’ve never known any conservatives who enabled these clowns – I certainly never would. I also never heard of the GOP enabling them.

        By the way, Jarhead, I wasn’t just any Army straightleg, I was a rompin’ stompin dancing’ romancing super dooper U.S. paratrooper! While you Marines had to wash your hands after pottying, we made sure we didn’t potty on our hands! :oD

        So much for the humor. Then you go off with this bit of nonsense: “This country’s clear White Superiority and Privilege mentality that has existed since slavery and there by mutual implication Black inferiority.” HAH! That is only from the Democrats who think people with darker skin are inferior and therefore must have “affirmative action” to get them places because they can’t do it on merit. You then further go paranoid with this bald faced propaganda straight out of the Black Panthers’ playbook: “BUT the RIGHT is holding on to that mentality for dear life, Hannity, Beck, Buchannon, etc.” Yeah, it’s the RIGHT who is putting the black man down. Give me a break; if it wasn’t for the RIGHT there would have been no civil rights act to force the Democrat southern states into equal treatment regardless of skin color. And again, you’ve given no proof – no example – of your charges against Hannity, Beck, etc.

        Your next line is: “You go on with: ‘The Republican party doe NOT promote or condone racism…’ Matter of perspective, just because you say so, I ain’t buying.” My challenge is to prove otherwise.

        You then say, “Now I don’t know about you ARMY fellas, but MARINES Adapt, overcome and Improvise, we don’t allow obstacles to get in our way.” Well, lad, about us Airborne guys, I left home as soon as I graduated high school to get in the Army and came out ready to be above all that, which is why I spent 30 years as an Air Traffic Controller – including 10 years as a front line supervisor – and now instruct new controllers, all the while giving my family a better life than I ever knew, and teaching them the gospel (which I learned in the Army) and how to be productive citizens without expecting the government to give them handouts. And to be especially concerned for those who are not as fortunate and do whatever we can to help. I don’t need the gov’t stealing from me to work with the homeless and the lost of all sorts; I use my own money (or should I say, the money the Lord has provided?)

        So then, lad, what actions do the GOP do that are “anti-black”? You keep saying stuff like that but never give examples.

        I didn’t imply you mentioned any of those black racist men I named – I was pointing out that these top supposed representatives of black people are black, racist Democrats!

        Like

      19. Side note: I really appreciate how some of my favorite commenters can be bold and clear without getting personal. It takes a lot of effort to do that, so kudos to all of you.

        Like

      20. 1st off, I don’t know but its been said, Army wings are made of lead, I don’t know but its been told, Marine Corps wings are made of GOLD. Seriously, you Airborne types are hard chargers, I’ll give you that.

        That being said. Affirmative action happened because White people weren’t hiring QUALIFIED black people (or qualified women for that matter) for jobs they were QUALIFED for nor were they letting Black people in schools they QUALIFED to be in, just because it got hijacked into quota systems doesn’t negate the whole cause, that being WHITE MEN Discriminating against non-whites.

        Second off, the RHETORIC of the RIGHT does embolden these wacko Stormfront types, and has been since the civil rights movement. You got these clowns thinking they can show up and protest the President of the United States on “health care reform” GUN IN HAND. And the sycophants at FOX report this crap like its supposed to be o.k.? Oy veh.

        IF the Black Panthers had people showing up with GUNS to protest BUSH, they butts would have been under the jail (rightfully so).

        I think and fully believe Limbaugh, Buchannan, Hannity and Beck are RACIST WHITE SUPREMACIST. Can I pull out a copy of their KKK Card? Nope, BUT I don’t need to. I am not debating the issue, I just would avoid them and their listening audience as much as possible.

        Why you keep bringing up Jesse Jackson and Co I don’t get, I don’t give them any passes neither. I am no fan of Jackson, and I think he is clearly helping keep African Americans locked in this status quo supporting a Democratic party that doesn’t give a damn about them.

        Were you and I divide, is you can see that, what you can’t and refuse to see is how the Right is being run by, what I would call a vocal minority, of wing nut race baiters and fear mongers.

        Now, you can disagree, I am not about to outline the specifics of why I feel this way, as I believe it is an exercise in futility, I don’t think you are purposely ignoring the reality I am presenting, I just think it is far beyond your personal ability to experience and you are sociologically not able to apprehend what am positing.

        Here is an example: Rush Limbaugh: “I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.”

        Now, you may not find that statement racist and anti-black, I do. As for the others, sure they are slick enough to not get caught saying the N-word, but that’s about it. They hide behind saying they are about personal responsibility, they say a whole lot of things that on the surface I agree with, BUT, my perception of them is that if this was 1890, they would be card carrying Klan members.

        Sure, I could be wrong, but I sincerely doubt it and have seen nothing to suggest I am.

        Like

  6. LCB:

    You asked: “but does one have a party platform that is clearly opposed to God’s will?”

    From my vantage point, both are opposed to God’s will for different (and in some cases the same) reasons.

    You will of course disagree, and I feel no need to intrude on your perceptions, no matter how wrong I think they are.

    Like

    1. Party platforms are written documents.

      It states what the party stands for. What, precisely, in the Republican platform is clearly opposed to God’s will as revealed in Holy Scripture?

      And then, is there anything in the Democratic platform that is clearly opposed to God’s will as revealed in Holy Scripture?

      Like

  7. LCB:

    Party platforms are written out, like Geneva convention rules, what is written and what actually happens are two different things.

    If you want to go by the “letter” of the GOP so-called platform, that’s your choice to believe it if you so choose.

    Like

    1. DJ,

      When people get together and write down what they believe, I tend to take them at their word.

      So when people of a certain party do that, and their platform consists of things that are against God’s expressed will, like killing babies, corrupting children, and encouraging sodomy… well, when we join that party and/or support that party we are supporting things that are expressly against God’s will.

      I try not to oppose His will.

      Like

      1. Well, I consider their actions to be much more indicative of their motives than some party platform designed for the sole purpose of getting elected.

        Could you also point me to the sodomy portion of the democratic platform? Do they say to commit as much sodomy as possible, or do they just suggest it once in a while?

        Your “corrupting children” might be my “not lying to children”.

        Like

      2. What does your “gay agenda” have to do with the democratic party? I’m sure they voted for the democrats, but I’m also sure that white supremacists vote for the Republicans.

        The fact is that Obama, and the democrats would be considered to the right of the Conservative Party in Canada. Just because they are the most “left” of the two parties in the US does not make them liberal. They’ve done nothing for gay marriage or gay rights.

        You’ve also never answered a question I believe I’ve asked you before. What lies will be told to children. As far as I’ve understood the policy of school curriculum, it is to teach children that homosexuality exists, and that all people, regardless of sexual preference should be treated with respect. It’s not anal sex lessons, as you would have us all believe.

        Like

      3. Read the link I provided. You can see what they’ve already done, and you can see that they are far short of their goal of what they want to do.

        Gay rights are in the Democratic mission. White supremacists’ views are not in the Republican mission. Case closed.

        Obama doing nothing about gay rights? Hardly — http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/crisis-obama-administration-fi les-court-papers-against-the-defense-of-marriage-act/ (Comment there, not here — you are beyond education on this matter.)

        Like

      4. @Neil:

        You wrote: “White supremacists’ views are not in the Republican mission. Case closed.”

        Just because the GOP doesn’t spell it out, their silence to me is implied consent. When you have people in the GOP calling the firt lady a gorilla, and having to “apologize IF” they offeneded anyone, please.

        Until th eGOP denounces anti-Black rhetoric unequvically, I will be an independent.

        Like

      5. As I said earlier, your subjective judgments of people’s actions is being biased by your preconceptions. Your bias will always favor those you like and go against those you dislike.

        Which is why we need to go by concrete things like what people write down, what they say, and how they vote.

        Like

      6. DJ,

        How, precisely, is the GOP racist?

        I can point to things with the Democratic party, like perpetuating a black genocide. I can’t find the GOP doing that.

        Like

      7. White supremacists want gay marriage banned. The GOP want’s gay marriage banned. Is that not the very same ideological connection that you outlined between gays and the democratic party? They agree on this particular issue. That’s the only connection.

        Like

      8. That’s not a connection. That’s slightly overlapping Venn diagrams. Using that logic you just need to find one thing that a bad group agrees with Dems or Repubs on and you can demonize either one.

        Pointless.

        Like

      9. If you think Obama’s actually going to do anything about DOMA, you are likely mistaken. This is a political maneuver the democrats commonly employ: bait gay people and pro-gay organizations with the promise of finally getting the rights they ought to be entitled to already, effectively playing on their desperation for equality. I find this a sickening practice, but it serves to get the democrats a temporary boost in approval, which is what they need for all this healthcare business.

        This is why, as a rule, the gay community dislikes democrats just as much as the loony-bin neo-cons.

        Like

      10. They don’t just teach children that homosexuality exists, the lie they tell is that homosexual behavior is normal and okay and just another way of life, and that same-sex marriages are acceptable, etc, etc.

        Besides, why should we even be discussing homosexuality with children – why do they have to know about it? Do we teach them bestiality, necrophilia or prostitution? It is inappropriate to teach it at all.

        Like

      11. You’re a sick man. To you, homosexuality really is the same as necrophilia, bestiality and prostitution isn’t it?

        Like

      12. What is it that makes me “sick”? I didn’t say they were the same, did I? That is a common strawman that the homosexual activists use when those terms are collected together as examples of sexual immorality. No, they are not the same. However, they all are the same in THIS respect— they are unnatural, perverse, immoral and abominable distortions of human sexuality, and all detestable to the Lord.

        Like

      13. It’s not their fault that they were born that way.

        Those things are perfectly natural and biological.

        Like

      14. If I were to show the recent comments made by you guys to the Christians I know, they would be disgusted. These intolerant views completely devoid of love and compassion are everything that is wrong with religion.

        “Of all religions the Christian is without doubt the one which should inspire tolerance most, although up to now the Christians have been the most intolerant of all men” -Voltaire

        Like

      15. What, precisely, do you mean by intolerance?

        Jesus did not say “It’s okay to be a prostitute, as long as it affirms you.”

        What you think Christianity teaches, and what Christianity actually teaches, are two different things.

        There are sexual sins. You just don’t like to acknowledge that.

        Like

      16. @LCB:

        You wrote: “Jesus did not say “It’s okay to be a prostitute, as long as it affirms you.”

        From Mr. don’t Judge huh? lol

        Jesus di say NONE ARE WITHOUT SIN and WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE….in other words, put your rock down and look in the mirror and see what you need to correct so that YOU can be a BETTER example of HIM.

        Like

      17. It’s tough to take your other scriptural arguments seriously, DJ, when you advance such a bad one.

        I’m sure Neil has written a post on that quote that he can link you to.

        It means don’t judge people, it doesn’t mean suspend all moral judgment.

        Like

      18. LCB:

        Come now, you are the one that went there. Of course no one is saying that we should approve of a prostitutes choice of business, BUT a Christians we should be concerned most with showing Christ to people regardless of their lifestyle.

        Like

      19. What, precisely, do you mean by intolerance.

        Lack of acceptance of a lifestyle that is as natural as the one you lead. Pushing legislation that denies certain privileges afforded you, to others with different views. When you couple this with the fact that the others with different views are not harming anyone, including themselves, any more than other people with lifestyles you fully support, nor are they committing any crime, we have intolerance.

        But I’m sure you will educate me as to your correct definition.

        What you think Christianity teaches, and what Christianity actually teaches, are two different things.

        I’m beginning to see that.

        Like

      20. “Lack of acceptance of a lifestyle that is as natural as the one you lead. ”

        Again, you presume what you seek to prove.

        I do not concede the point.

        Should Christianity be banned, or forced to change their beliefs under penalty of law since they are intolerant and as such harming others by their hate and intolerance?

        If not, why not?

        Like

      21. No, Christianity should not be banned. Intolerance is not illegal. You can think or love or hate whatever or whomever you chose. But when we come together to create our laws and decide on the way our society will work, you can leave your intolerance at home.

        I do not concede the point.

        Have you ever?

        Again, you presume what you seek to prove.

        Says he who tries to prove there is a god.

        Like

      22. I assume you’re talking to me there…

        I’m really offended to hear that. Name one thing that you would like to do in your life that I would work to prevent you from doing. I’m for freedom of religion, speech and expression in every way. You do and say whatever you like with your life. I’ll engage you in discussion about those things for as long as I’m welcome here, but I’ll never prevent you from doing anything.

        You are as entitled to your views as much as I am. How am I intolerant?

        Like

      23. You are intolarant by your made-up definition of intolerance.

        In the classic sense, I wouldn’t say you were intolerant at all. I’d just say we have different views and are debating with our own reasons.

        But when you play the revised definition of tolerance card, which is most passive-aggressive, I’ll simply point out that it applies to you as well.

        Like

      24. More specifically, your advancement of oxymorons like “same sex marriage” will inevitably curtail religioius freedoms. That may not have been your motive, but it is the logical conclusion.

        On the other hand, nothing we’re advancing will encroach on your right to free speech.

        Like

      25. What wordsmanship. Right out of the propoganda playbook.

        Lack of acceptance of a lifestyle that is as natural as the one you lead

        1. It isn’t natural. It is the opposite of natural.

        2. In what way don’t I accept them? I get along fine with gays. Name one thing I’ve ever done or said to deny them having relationships with each other.

        Pushing legislation that denies certain privileges afforded you, to others with different views.

        Gee, what might those privileges be? An oxymoron?

        When you couple this with the fact that the others with different views are not harming anyone, including themselves

        Not true.

        Like

  8. @LCB:

    You wrote “When people get together and write down what they believe, I tend to take them at their word.”

    I tend to believe more of what I see people DO Than what the SAY. BUT, that;s me…

    Like

    1. Judging what people do is subjective, and usually ends up being “I judge what the people who I like in a favorable way and those I dislike in an unfavorable way.”

      Actions are important when it comes to things like votes on legislation, but the most valuable resource you can have is someone’s written positions.

      This is where things like judging by emotion vs. judging by reason come into play. One party is pro corrupting children, pro sodomy, and pro free abortions for everyone. Those are things that are clearly against God’s will.

      Like

      1. O.K, so we shouldn’t judge what people “DO”, so people at a pro-choice rally, we should assume or judge are “pro choice”? Unless they write down a statement? Come on…

        Like

    1. Hey, anyone who serves in the armed forces deserves to brag all they like about their branch.

      Side note: My family talked me into doing some chin-ups at a little contest the Marines were having at a street festival where my daughter just moved to. The girls (competitive as they are) tried to see how long they could hold a chin-up position. I knocked out 20 and won a t-shirt. It had cool Marine slogans on it. I couldn’t wear it in good conscience, so I mailed it to my Father-in-law, who was a real live Marine. It made his day.

      Like

    1. It is a logical next step and has been observed throughout the world, including Brazil, Australia, England and Canada. Once the gov’t gives Civil Rights status to sexual preferences then critizing those makes you an enemy of the state. The pro-gay lobby knows that. They hate religion — specifically Christianity. They infiltrate churches via false teachers and ignorant people. They want to use the gov’t to silence religion and force churches to hire and marry gays. They are even intolerant of Focus on the Family’s Love Won Out conferences.

      Like

      1. I would probably hate religion too if religious people told me that everything I feel is unnatural and an abomination to God.

        Criticism falls under free speech legislation, which is even stronger in the US than it is in the other countries you mentioned. You can continue to criticize the gay lifestyle all you wish. Keep in mind that as a Christian, you too are covered under Civil Rights rules

        Gays are trying to infiltrate churches? Well, the Christian ones are I guess, but that makes them one of you doesn’t it? Same goes for those that want to get married in church.

        The Catholic church across the street from my house still will not marry anyone who has been divorced. They can marry or not marry anyone they wish.

        They are even intolerant of Focus on the Family’s Love Won Out conferences

        Anyone is entitled to speak out against a conference. You may speak out against pride parades. These same laws protect both groups equally.

        Like

      2. I would probably hate religion too if religious people told me that everything I feel is unnatural and an abomination to God.

        To say “everything” seems like a deliberate exaggeration. Who said that everything they feel is unnatural and an abomination to God? I concede that countless things I feel are abominations to God. That doesn’t make me hate religion. It makes me very, very thankful that Jesus paid the penalty for a sinner like me.

        Anyone is entitled to speak out against a conference. You may speak out against pride parades. These same laws protect both groups equally.

        I’m not talking about criticisms. That comes with the territory. I’m talking about creating so much noise as to disrupt the conferences and meetings. I’ll post a link the next time I come across one.

        Like

      3. It was a poor choice of words, you’re right. But the feelings in questions relate to with whom they want to share their life, and I think you’ll agree that’s quite an important feeling. Just imagine if the predominant religion of your country, and perhaps that of your family, told you girls were icky and you needed to find a male partner, or be celibate.

        If a political group disrupts a legal conference, then there are laws that should deal with them. I’ve dealt with this first hand in my city (and you should be proud of me for being on the relative “right wing” of a protest) where we are preparing for the Olympics, and are dealing with protests. It can be extremely difficult to find the the fine line between freedom of speech and illegal protests. You don’t need to post the link – I’m very familiar with the tactics, and have been shot at with paintball guns. Every city has a small group of “professional protesters” that seem to always be “not at work” when a protest is underway.

        Like

      4. I would certainly not favour such a charge against this pastor, and it appears that the Swedish courts agree with us.

        The pastor was acquitted on appeal, and the court specifically said that such rules violate European conventions on human rights.

        Like

      5. Oh, you and your sexual perversions card. I swear, if I had a dollar for every time I heard that…

        By the way, this whole “arrested for saying something mean about minority x” thing? It’s not exactly a new trend, and is not exclusive simply to the radical side of the gay movement.

        Like

      6. That case isn’t the precedent, it was an example to illustrate the point. I could put out dozens, like people being arrested on the streets for reading the bible aloud for ‘hate crimes’ in multiple countries including America.

        One example proves the point.

        Like

      7. It actually is a precedent, legally. This is a victory for free speech.

        I could put out dozens, like people being arrested on the streets for reading the bible aloud for ‘hate crimes’ in multiple countries including America

        I don’t believe you could.

        One example proves the point.

        Maybe if your point is simply that there are examples of the misuse of a law. There are about a half billion people in the countries you listed. Sure there will be misuse of laws. The best way to find out how each country interprets their laws are the decisions from the higher courts, not from individual arrests. People get arrested all the time for being nothing more than unruly, drunk, or simply in the wrong place. Find me a high court decision from any of those countries that demonstrates that religious people are being prevented from practicing their faith due to homosexual civil rights.

        Like

      8. And for the record, if you can point out cases where religious freedom is being trampled on, I will be at the rally fighting with you for changes to that law.

        Like

      9. Let’s see, I recall a wedding photographer in New Mexico, I think, who turned down a request to photo a same-sex perv-union. Lawsuit brought financial hardships and, if I recall correctly, a mandatory attendance at diversity training was required. Then there were the fertility doctors in California who didn’t want to impregnate a lesbian, also sued for big money, also required to ge indoctrinated.

        Both were exercising their Christian faith but the homosexual agenda trumped their faith.

        Like

      10. Point 1: What wedding photographer ever needs to give a reason for turning down a job? You can say you don’t like the lighting, or you don’t have an assistant available that day.

        Point 2: What part of Christian faith says you can’t take photographs of people? You are participating in the ceremony. You are taking pictures. It’s no different than a jeweler refusing to sell a wedding ring to a homosexual couple.

        As for fertility doctors, what is a Christian doctor doing using IVF anyways? That technique involves either destroying embryos or creating high risk pregnancies (Like Octo-mom). Sounds like he likes to pick and chose his Bible passages anyways.

        Like

      11. Re. point 1: The fact that your first recommendation is for us to break one commandment (don’t lie) to avoid participating in a sinful ceremony speaks volumes.

        Like

      12. Come on now, you don’t have to lie. You just need to say that you can’t take the job. You’re under no obligation to say why. Freelancers do not need to accept any job. Heck, you can give them an outrageously high quote, and if they still accept it, donate the excess to Focus on the Family.

        No freedoms are being trampled on here. That’s my point. It’s still a free market.

        Like

      13. I don’t know why you’d want to tell the truth anyway, since doing so would generate extremely negative press regarding your establishment, which is bad for business.

        Just sayin’.

        Like

      14. Fox,
        Let’s see, you claimed there was no rights being trampled on, that it was free market and no free lancer can be forced to take a job. Obviously you are saying the incident about the photographer was a lie? And whether or not it is “free lance” or working with a medical facility, the individual rights to not violating their conscience was indeed violated.

        As for “negative press,” that depends on your viewpoint. It might be “negative” for the gays but most people cheer those who stand up for their rights! If I turn down a “perv-union” I’d like to let the world know it so that they too will have the courage to tell the gay world that we don’t have to bend over for them!

        The fun part is, I learned this week by communicating with my state rep about my friend’s experience, that Iowa is an “at will” state and NO ONE can be forced accept jobs and no lawsuits can be filed for not doing so. I love it!!!!

        Like

      15. First off, I’m pretty sure you’re confusing some of Ryan’s earlier posts with mine.

        Secondly,

        As for “negative press,” that depends on your viewpoint. It might be “negative” for the gays but most people cheer those who stand up for their rights!

        No, they don’t, because you don’t have to be gay to support the movement. And believe it or not, there are an abundance of heterosexual men and women in America who wouldn’t give a business like the one in New Mexico a second look after hearing that they don’t “do” gay weddings.

        If I turn down a “perv-union” I’d like to let the world know it so that they too will have the courage to tell the gay world that we don’t have to bend over for them!

        Should that ever come to pass, I hope you enjoy your hatemail (which I personally think you’d deserve after doing something like that, but that’s just me).

        Like

      16. 1. The photographer preferred not to lie. My friend – another bagpiper – was asked to play for a same-sex “wedding” and ended up going against his judgment because he didn’t want a lawsuit. I told him I would have risked it.

        2. Taking photos of a same-sex “wedding” says you are sanctioning it, for one. For two, you are then forced to witness something extremely offensive – the abuse of marriage and human sexuality. I will not play for weddings, funerals or anything else for cultists or Freemasons because the appearance would be my approval.

        I also believe that Christians shouldn’t be involved with fertility or IVF treatments, but their conscience allowed it. That doesn’t mean they should be forced to provide this elective service to just anyone, especially when they even recommended another doctor to provide the service!

        But it sounds like you support the forcing of these people to provide a service against their Christian beliefs. Typical of the homosexual agenda.

        Like

      17. Glenn,

        So do you just play at the funeral of “non-sinners”? Funerals are for the family, not the deceased. I’m not sure if I’ve met someone as judgmental as you, if you really do avoid withhold your services from such a large group of people.

        Like

      18. So, calling something “gay marriage” is rational? There is nothing rational about that oxymoron. I think “perv-unions” describes it much better. They are unions of two perverts.

        Like

      19. Call it what you want, but it would be deeply appreciated if you wouldn’t revert to ad hominems in doing so. (As a rule, people who aren’t perverts don’t like being referred to as perverts).

        Like

      20. You picked lousy examples Glenn.

        The case in NM she got herself in trouble by the language she used, and the fact that NM bases its law on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Its a stretch, I agree, but still against the law none the less.

        The doctor in California needed her license snatched for unfair business practices. She was willing to take their money for consultation and procedures to see if the woman could get pregnant, but unwilling to implant. The case in California was about a doctor using her religious beliefs to take advantage of patients.

        She should have refused her as a patient PERIOD and she probably would have been fine.

        Like

      21. It is an absolute disgrace for the homosexuals to try to piggy back on the civil rights act. A total disrespect of what my mother and her mother before went trhough. . Gays are not an oppressed group of people. Eww.

        Like

      22. Absolutely right, Mercedes. I can’t believe that some folks let the gays get away with co-opting Civil Rights language. Skin color is morally neutral, sexual behavior is not.

        Like

      23. It is insulting indeed. They try to act like we all are equal but when they use language like this, it makes it seem that black people are so far on the totem pole, that we can’t ever possibly criticize them or something.

        Like

      24. I see what you are saying, and definately saw that after that how prop thing in Cali. the “gay” community seemed to respond with a serious “how dare you” to the African American community out there, and some of that was definitly more than “I disagree with your religion”, there was a bit of…dare I say…racist overtones in that.

        Now lets see how many Righties here ask me to provide proof of what clearly is my PERCEPTION. lol

        Like

      25. I will tell it like it is, it was definitely alot of racist slurs during that whole thing as I heard from blacks in California. You know there is a homosexual male that frequents Real Time with Bill Maher, I forgot his name, that coins “Gay is the New Black”. Totally insulting. The homosexual agenda reeks of white privilege actually.

        Even black homosexuals speak of the discrimination they face and not equal representation in that movement. Do you ever wonder why there is no black homosexual face or leader in the movement? The homosexual lobbies can kiss tail over that foolish agenda. They aren’t fooling me with the “we an oppressed minority group”. Very insulting. If anyone wants to confront me on that bit you better come with cold hard facts.

        Like

      26. Even if you believe that sexual activity between same sex couples is morally wrong, that is besides the point. People are being discriminated against because they ARE gay. Not because of their sexual practices. I’ve seen people discriminated against because they APPEAR gay.

        This is cool with you?

        Like

      27. Good point Ruan, I think everyone here would agree that people should not be discrimantated against because of their sexual orientation or even if they believe the sex is morally wrong, imagine if there was discrimintation angainst fornicators? adulterers?

        The question is, if saying that a definition for marriage should not be EXPANDED to include same sex couplings, multi-partener cuplings, polymory etc (all between consenting adults) is discirmination?

        Like

      28. Good point Ryan. I think everyone here would agree that people should not be discrimated against because of their sexual activty as adults with adults. The question is, if not expanding the legeal definition of marriage to include same sex couplins, multi-partner couplings (between consenting adults) is in fact “discrimination”?

        Like

      29. The question is, if not expanding the legeal definition of marriage to include same sex couplins, multi-partner couplings (between consenting adults) is in fact “discrimination”?

        I’m not sure if I would call this classic discrimination, since many of the people against gay marriage are genuinely worried about changing the definition of marriage, and I think that is their main concern. And then there are some that just think gays are disgusting, and would cross the street if they saw two men holding hands.

        I’m going to challenge the grouping of polygamy into the same discussion. Polygamy is very different, and I am very much against it. I think that marriage is a 50-50 partnership, and key to that partnership is that both parties must have exactly 50% control. Anything less than 50% and your best interests can be overruled. Even in an equal three way marriage, any party can be overruled by the other two. Polygamous marriages almost always have one man in charge of a bunch of woman. That’s no partnership.

        Like

      30. Mz Clark,

        Those were NOT “lousy examples.” Firstly, what difference does it make that the photographer used particular language?! What did she call them, “queer”? “faggot”? How does that alter the fact that she should have the right to deny photographing a deviant farce pretending to be a wedding? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has absolutely no application, but the gay activists keep trying to force it to apply. There is no civil right to engage in same-sex “marriage.”

        Your opinion as to whether or not the doctor in California had an “unfair business practice” is just that – your opinion. How did she take advantage of them!!!!!! So, if she provided services up to the point of implantation, she should then be forced to do the implantation? What if she was disturbed the whole time and finally decided she couldn’t do any more of it? What if she didn’t know it was a lesbian to begin with?

        In your logic, if a man seduces a woman and she gives him everything right up to intercourse and then her conscience bothers her and she says “no further,” then she should be forced to go all the way?

        You, ma’am, are being totally ridiculous.

        Like

  9. Fox,
    It’s getting crowded up there so I’ll respond to you comment about my use of “perverts.” How is it an “ad hominem” attack to accurately describe someone? If I call a bank robber a thief, is that an ad hominem? If I call someone who is having an affair with another’s spouse an adulterer, is that ad hominem? Homosexual relations are perverted whether you feel like they are or not. Same-sex unions are unnatural and condemned by God – and if you are an evolutionist the are an evolutionary dead end. Perverse is what homosexual behavior is, so if I call someone who practices perverse sexual behavior a pervert, how is that “ad hominem”?

    I, and I submit most people, would have no respect for anyone who avoided a business which refused to do kowtow to the homosexual agenda. And the sort of people who would then avoid said business are a minority, I can guarantee! So nothing lost there.

    As for “hate mail,” I have received lots of that due to the many letters to the editor and guest columns I have written for my local newspaper condemning the whole idea of same-sex “marriage” or special rights based on sexual behavior. Like water off a duck’s back. It just demonstrates the “hate mail” writer can’t give the same “tolerance” to my viewpoint that they demand for theirs, which is again par for the course with the gays.

    Like

    1. Please excuse the interjection, but as the 4Simpsons Blog staff evolutionist, I must object to your assertion that homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end. Homosexuality has been shown to do quite a bit to promote certain genes in a population, and can be considered an “evolved” trait. There are multiple hypotheses related to this in several species.

      Carry on.

      Like

      1. The “homosexuality came from evolution and helps it along” bit is probably the funniest tautology they offer. The only one more pathetic is when they rationalize that abortion fits right in with the evolutionary scheme. As always, both fictions require tortured logic to explain things that are transparently in opposition to the evolutionary worldview and tehy beg the question and assume a universal good of perpetuating the species. They sneak that in the back door, of course.

        Enough on that and back to the topic of the post, please.

        Like

      2. Abortion no more fits with evolution than golf. Who claimed that? The homosexuality thing is science. It’s not rock solid, and some disagree, but there is evidence. Don’t dismiss it because it doesn’t fit with your current beliefs.

        Like

      3. Glad to hear you say that about golf / abortion. I’ll provide a link to the evolutionist / abortion rationale the next time I come across it. I have pointed out that any consistent evolutionist should be pro-life all the way

        Like

      4. That’s weird, I emailed my comment via WordPress but it only posted part of it. ??!!??!!

        Here’s the rest:

        http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/pro-abortion-macro-evolutionists/

        I also addressed it in a post this way:

        Evolution is a tautology, where no matter what you see you claim that it evolved that way. It had to have done that, because nothingness to molecules to living cells to human evolution is true, right?

        It reminds me of when evolutionists try to rationalize why homosexual behavior and abortion are natural and moral in an evolutionary worldview. They point to exceptions with some animals and rationalize how it helps perpetutate the species (question begging). It seems to me that these behaviors get in the way of perpetuating the species (the alleged moral good snuck in the back door as the foundation for their morality), so even in an evolutionary worldview they would be immoral.

        Even if certain behaviors are observable in some animals, that hardly seems like a good standard for humans to abide by. Some dogs will attempt to procreate with anything in sight: Opposite sex dogs, same sex dogs, your leg, your coffee table, etc.

        But what is amusing is their certainty. It is as if the situation were reversed and humans never had abortions or exhibited homosexual behavior that the evolutionists would be asking, “Hey, where are all the gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people? Why aren’t thousands of human beings destroyed in the womb each day? We expected it to be here because of A, B and C. We know those actions aren’t immoral, so why haven’t humans figured it out?

        Don’t dismiss it because it doesn’t fit with your current beliefs.

        Straw man.

        2nd reminder: Back to the post.

        Like

    2. Oh, thanks for bringing up that one point, Ryan, saves me the effort of doing so. (Which is my way of saying I completely forgot about that research until reading your post).

      Perverse is what homosexual behavior is, so if I call someone who practices perverse sexual behavior a pervert, how is that “ad hominem”?

      Ah. “Sexual behavior,” eh? You seem to indicate that homosexuality is defined only as what members of the same sex do with each other in bed. If that’s the case, you uh, have a lot to learn.

      It just demonstrates the “hate mail” writer can’t give the same “tolerance” to my viewpoint that they demand for theirs, which is again par for the course with the gays.

      Considering you advocate that a generally benign minority should be kept down, legally, on the basis of their “perversions,” I can kind of understand why they don’t feel any kind of urge to be tolerant of your beliefs. Just saying, when you wrongfully start throwing around words like pervert, you’re never really going to see eye-to-eye with the opposition.

      Like

  10. For Ryan,

    Explain to me what “judgmental” means in your context of my not playing for services of sorts or those I noted.

    I was hired to play a graveside service once for a supposedly Christian service. As the group arrived and the woman “pastor” began talking I discovered they were Unitarians. Since I was there I did not walk off, but since that time I get better information. The point is that they wanted me to play “Amazing Grace.” Unitarians are not Christians and don’t understand the meaning of the song so it was played in vain. However, it gave sanction to the service as being Christian, which, for appearnces, would say that I approved of that identification. Had they wanted me to play something like “Auld Lang Syne” with no supposed Christian overtones, I would have had no problem. My problem is playing for services of any sort that reflect a supposed Christian message when in fact it is not, but my performing would give the appearance of my being in agreement. I have played for pagan weddings, but never using Christians music. That is the difference. I can approve of any marriage between a man and a woman and can play music that is not giving the appearance of Christianity to a non-Christian setting (such as a Mormon wedding – I will not play for them if they want Christian music).

    So is it judgmental to determine not to participate in a service that pretends to be Christian but isn’t? My conscience tells me it is not. I make a discernment about what I can give my approval to. If I am there, performing, it says I am approving of what I am supporting by my performance.

    Perhaps you have no conscience and will do anything for anyone?

    By the way, I get a lot of business precisely because of my Christian message; I’ve been called the “Guy who plays hymns.”

    Like

    1. I think its hysterical business ‘owners’ are so discriminatory when it comes to providing their goods and service to the public, but notice none of them advertise it do they?

      Wedding Photography- Weddings between Men and Women only…sorry!

      Yeah right…you want to cry about them decieving you, but you want to put your business out there like you will serve anyone!

      Like

    2. Did you ever think that they wanted you to play Amazing Grace because the sound of that song on the bagpipes is comforting? Im man enough to say that it practically brings me to tears. 🙂

      I had a piper at my wedding, and he played lots of songs that had Christian origins. Does one need to agree with you about the message of the song for you to play it? With all due respect, you’re the entertainment. It’s a big part of the wedding, but nobody assumes you are endorsing the marriage.

      If your that concerned, advertise your services as a Christian bagpiper, and accept whatever gigs you like. I have no problem with that.

      Like

      1. Ryan,
        And why should a song about something they know nothing about give them comfort? No, they just want the religious feel of it. If you want the pipes to bring you to tears at a non-Christian event, then chose another tune.

        With all due respect, I’m not just “entertainment.” Any performer is giving tacit approval by participating in said celebration. If I am asked to be fraudulent – -playing Christian music for non-Christian pretense – then my ethics tell me I cannot support the fraud.

        By the way, my card has three Bible verses on it – that should pretty much say I’m a Christian piper!

        Like

  11. He is correct in using pervert to refer to homosexuality as an abnormality, because in the strictest sense of the word, homosexuality is not normal. Dictionary.com tells me that normal means:

    conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

    Obviously, homosexuality is not the standard, what with only three to five percent of the world being gay and all.

    However, that is the only sense in which Glenn is right. Homosexuality is perverse only in that gay people do not make up a majority. That is it.

    Like

    1. I see what you’re saying Fox, but red hair isn’t normal either, but cannot be considered unnatural, and it occurs less frequently than homosexuality in most populations. In Glenn’s sense, left-handedness is also perverse (or sinister), which was believed to be the case as late as 50 years ago. My Dad used to have his left hand beaten by his teachers to force him to write with his right.

      Like

      1. Yeah, it’s a shaky statement, but it’s the only semi-rational way you can apply the word perverse to homosexuality.

        Like

  12. Okay, Ryan and Fox,

    This is my last word on this as it has evolved into a foolish and stupid argument totally off the original topic.

    Just because foolish people thought there was something wrong with left-handedness, that doesn’t alter the truth that there is nothing wrong with it. (“sinister, by the way, is Latin for left, like “dexter” is for right. The belief that left-handedness was somehow evil is how “sinister” entered English. Ambidextrous means two-right hands). Left-handedness has no moral value one way or another, while sexual behavior always has a moral connection.

    Yes, homosexuality is defined by what you do in bed, since the word by definition is about sexual behavior. No one IS homosexual (although the gays like to cop that word), homosexual describes the sexual attraction and behavior. Taking it as noun is part of the agenda for victim hood.

    No one is trying to legally keep down a “benign” minority – we are trying to keep a very evil, pernicious behavior from being forced upon us to sanction in every way, and prevent punishment for being against it.

    I did not wrongfully use the word pervert. A pervert is one who practices perversion and everyone knows that the absolute truth is that homosexual behavior is a perversion of what the human body was designed for, a total misuse of human sexuality. You are lying to yourself if you claim otherwise.

    There is no science about homosexuality being genetic. Only a few weeks ago the APA came out and admitted that. And if it was genetic, it would be a genetic defect. You cannot propagate homosexuality because man/man or woman/woman can’t reproduce. There is no evolutionary benefit behind homosexual behavior.

    It is the behavior we discriminate against, not the person. No one would know a person was gay if he didn’t say so. I don’t go around saying, “hey, I’m heterosexual.” An adulterer usually doesn’t go around saying, “hey, I commit adultery.” But gays always have to identify themselves by their sexual behavior – why? Why do we want to know what your sexual habit are?!!? Don’t tell us, don’t force us to accept it as normal. It is abhorrent and disgusting and you know it. It is medically and psychologically destructive as has been proven in study after study. Besides, we also discriminate against pedophilia and prostitution! Discrimination is not wrong all the time. We discriminate against all bad behavior. DUH!

    Now, how about getting back to the original subject of the post – the heinous, murderous act of abortion!

    Like

    1. sinister, by the way, is Latin for left, like “dexter” is for right.

      Yeah, that’s why I said sinister.

      No one IS homosexual (although the gays like to cop that word)

      Homosexuality refers to attraction as well as sex acts. Look it up in Websters.

      No one would know a person was gay if he didn’t say so.

      That’s true for some, not not most, and you know it.

      There is no science about homosexuality being genetic. Only a few weeks ago the APA came out and admitted that. And if it was genetic, it would be a genetic defect. You cannot propagate homosexuality because man/man or woman/woman can’t reproduce. There is no evolutionary benefit behind homosexual behavior.

      Their report simply states that there is no scientific consensus on the exact cause of homosexuality. It also states that few people experience any choice about their orientation, and that “Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality.”

      You don’t completely understand evolution if you think that genes that could make a person gay would die out. Genes are not always blueprints for a certain trait. They also contain tendencies for certain traits. A family that has in their genes a tendency for homosexuality might have three heterosexual sons and two homosexual sons. Only the heterosexual ones will have children, leaving the other two to assist the whole family in other ways, benefiting everybody, and giving the gene for homosexuality, which also lives on in the offspring of the other brothers a chance to live on. The current evidence for this is that homosexual behavior occurs more often in species where family groups tend to stay together. It’s just a hypothesis, but it has evidence behind it. There are several other ideas as well, which I would outline if I though you were interested.

      But gays always have to identify themselves by their sexual behavior – why?

      I’ve never had anyone “identify themselves” to me as a gay person.

      It is medically and psychologically destructive as has been proven in study after study.

      Can you say that with a straight face? It’s just not true. Far more destructive is maintaining that homosexuality is wrong and immoral. But I guess the more gay kids that commit suicide, the less gay your streets will be.

      Like

  13. “Even so, pro-lifers do plenty to help women and children and need.
    That’s not sufficient for many pro-choicers Neil. What they really mean when they talk about helping the unborn is “vote Democrat.”

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s