Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, January 01, 2007
Dr. Elizabeth Kantor :: Townhall.com Columnist
Warnings about Christians are what is intolerant
by Dr. Elizabeth Kantor
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
What would you rather watch?

Our civil liberties are under siege. From the religious right, right?

That’s the impression you’d get from quite a number of books published in 2006. In Theocons, Damon Linker warns of “secular America under siege.” American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips sounds the alarm about “the peril and politics of radical religion.” In The Baptizing of America we can learn from James Rudin about “the religious right’s plans for the rest of us.” In Thy Kingdom Come, Randall Balmer laments “how the religious right distorts the faith and threatens America.”

And then there’s Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation. As Harris explains, “The truth is that many who claim to be transformed by Christ’s love are deeply, even murderously, intolerant of criticism.”

Are “Christianists”—Andrew Sullivan’s newly coined word for Christians who, like Islamists, want to use the power of the law to impose their religious principles on others—poised to seize control and strip us of our fundamental freedoms?

Well, let’s turn from books published this year to some hard news about freedom of speech around the world in 2006. Or at least around the Anglosphere, where cultural heirs to the English common law are generally supposed to enjoy religious liberty and freedom of speech.

On December 14, a Court of Appeal in Australia set aside a ruling of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) and ordered a retrial in the case of two Christian pastors. The VCAT had ruled that Daniel Scot and Daniel Nalliah’s statements critical of Islam were likely to incite hatred and ordered them to apologize. On April 13, the highest court in Saskatchewan province ruled that Hugh Owens would not, after all, have to pay $1,500 Canadian to three men offended by his newspaper ad citing Bible verses against sodomy. And in the U.K. on May 5, 74-year-old Edward Atkinson was sent to jail for sending graphic pictures of aborted fetuses to a hospital in King’s Lynn, Norfolk.

There was better news for free speech in the United States in 2006. The same month as Atkinson was sentenced to jail (and, for good measure, taken off the National Health Service hip replacement waiting list), a federal district court judge in Pennsylvania was agreeing with an earlier jury verdict when he upheld the right of Pastor Jim Grove to speak against homosexuality to participants arriving at a PrideFest in Harrisburg. And a whole crop of religious-liberty cases around Christmas—the school bus driver on Long Island forbidden to wear a Santa Claus hat, the Seattle airport authority that responded to a rabbi’s request for a menorah by taking down their Christmas trees, the first-grader told he couldn’t sing a Christmas song at show-and-tell—seem to have been resolved in favor of free speech and religious liberty by public outcry, appeals to common sense or, at worst, a letter from the First Amendment lawyers at the Alliance Defense Fund.

It doesn’t seem like it’s Christians who are “intolerant of criticism,” does it?

Whatever happened to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”? That Voltairean principle, it seems, may not survive the thorough secularization of Western societies.

Isn’t it odd that intolerant Christians are defending free speech rights in court? While the presumably more enlightened and tolerant folks who don’t like what the Christians say are resorting to the law to shut them up?

As a matter of fact, it’s not a historical anomaly for the Christians to be on the side of civil liberties. If you know more about the history of free speech than the notion that the Enlightenment freed us from religious oppression—or the popular story about how Europeans, exhausted by the Wars of Religion, decided for tolerance because they realized that the establishment of religious truth wasn’t worth all that bloodletting—then you may know about John Milton’s Areopagitica.

The Areopagitica is an early high water mark in the history of the free press. It’s a pamphlet written by a Puritan urging the Puritan Parliament of England to allow unlicensed printing. The Areopagitica predates not only the Enlightenment but even the end of the war over religion in England. And its argument for freedom of the press rests on explicitly Christian grounds. Religious truth, Milton urged, is so important that truth-seekers need all the light that even bad books might shed on that truth.

Christianity played a crucial role in the establishment of the civil liberties we enjoy. And Christians are on the front lines defending those liberties today. These are important facts to remember, when evaluating warnings about “Christianists” and “theocracy.”

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Elizabeth Kantor is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature. She earned her M.A. and Ph.D. in English from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an M.A. in philosophy from Catholic University in Washington, D.C. Dr. Kantor is the editor of the Conservative Book Club, writes for Human Events, and blogs at www.conservativebookclub.com.

Be the first to read Elizabeth Kantor's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

And don't forget the islamists they
support, pitbull.

Everyone please watch and fight against conyer's H.Res 288, the pro-jihadist, anti-Christian hate-speech legislation.

I am also surprised the anti-Christian crowd hasn't piled onto this one yet. Well, will be too busy on New Year's day to read tripe and drivel, so... Happy New Year! to all those who give a dam n about our freedoms.

Damon?
Wasn't that the name of the kid in "The Omen?"


Speaking for myself,
I sit in church almost every Sunday and I've never heard of this "plan" we Christians have to oppress the non-believers. I receive personal fulfillment and inspiration for my own salvation. The standing "marching orders" are to go forth and let His light shine from inside me so others may see and desire it for themselves.

Then for the rest of the week I walk among those who refer to us as "flat earth" people or believers in magic and fairy tales. Why does my faith and reverence for God create such fear and loathing? Are there secret re-education camps set up somewhere that I'm not aware of?

Personal responsibility, a major Christian value, is to the secular-progressives as wolfbane and garlic are to werewolves and vampires. If your beliefs are that there is no right or wrong and no higher power than one's self, I suppose a humble Christian is a threat.

At least we've stood up for ourselves recently and attempted to counter the hysteria whipped up by the enemedia and haters like Rosie O'Doughnuts and Goofy Ted Turner.

We have the most powerful weapon on our side; we pray for them.

culture war
As part of the theocray that has been in existence since 1776, I am sorry the sp's do not find the existence of "faith" in this country to be tolerable any longer. Thanks to good ol Roger Williams, the Baptist preacher of colonial times, we have a society that is "free" to believe what you want, but still retains laws that are based on morality of the Judeao-Christian persuasion. Of course when people don't agree with that morality, and they have "bucks" to mobilize, ie G. Soros, we have war. I agree wtih the last writer, prayer is there, but my momma always said, God won't do for you, what you can do for yourselves. It's time to speak out and inform "traditional" America, and get the facts and truth out there. Truth is always truth, whether of belief, ignorance, or, who brings it! Also, read O'Riellys latest.

Seriously
Get off the cross, y'all---the rest of us could use the wood!

If you feel it is your religious obligation to annoy gay people, goldfish enthusiasts, or new-series Galactica fans, that's fine. Think of *your* favorite hobby, and imagine some guy standing in front of your favorite gathering place calling you disgusting perverts, evil sinners, and that Starbuck is a MAN, dammit!----and swear on a stack of Bibles the thought would never cross your mind to shut that guy up!----I bet you can't.

And a math problem: If 90 percent of all Americans are Christians, and being an overwhelming religious majority often gives some folks even more confidence to cross the line ("They'd never convict me, all the judges go to my church!"), exactly what percent of religious discrimination and harassment cases filed against Christians are out of proportion?

Yes, banning "Merry Christmas" and Santa hats---that's stupid. And funny thing, the higher you appeal, the more likely the silly stuff is to be overridden.

What laws?
>still retains laws that are based on morality of the Judeao-Christian persuasion.<

What laws are these, specifically?

One of the 10 commandments
Let me see "thou shalt not steal", that one still overall remains., and oh, "thou shalt not kill,"oops, unless you haven't broken out of the womb. I guess its still wrong to "bear false witness", unless you are a former president, depending on what the definition of is is, or perjurey, or whatever. You're right what "what morality"? The New York Times, is now the standard bearer ,for the old morality, those nasty ten, are being done away with, so I guess you're right, relativism is the standard, oops, there can't be a fixed standard of right and wrong, so I guess even relativism doesn't qualify!

Utah
Don't steal, don't lie, don't murder.

Our liberties are in danger
everyplace controlled by liberals. Think of college speech codes, public education and the MSM--with Dan Rather. He's just 1 pathetic example of their "right" to make things up and not be called on it by their brothers. It is happening with the press in the Middle East. Honest journalists should be appalled at this behavior and struggle against it instead of just wanting to sound cool to their fellow travelers. Just as honest Muslims should be protesting the actions of the radicals whose deeds in the name of Muhammed and Allah should humiliate them. To liberals, squashing ideas that they didn't invent or agree with is their "right". There is no right of free speech that doesn't agree with them and they will do their all to silence critics. They should spend their time supporting their own ideas--mostly indefensible--and encourage a healthy dialogue so all ideas are heard. Educators and the Media should be ashamed.

goblue
GOOOOOO BLUE!!!! They should be palying the Rose Bowl...the only time I would pull for the Buckeyes....
Hypocrisy abounds...and it is a shame. This is right on.

sekhmet
Our Bible teaches us that gay and lesbian "love" is abhorrent to God and a sin, as is other sexual situations, as in incest. We cannot condone either, but you people don't really want equality anyway. You want approval. I have never been a person that harasses gays. I had a gay friend in high school all those many years ago. I prayed for him. That was the extent of my disapproval. But this in your face movement of gays and lesbians has had a profound effect on me. I think it crystallized when my 11 year old grandson was flipping through channels and found Logo. The channel for gays and lesbians that direct TV beamed into my satellite without my knowledge or permission. The scene was 2 men making love, my TV set, my living room. Children in puberty are very impressionable, and I think that's the whole idea of Logo. Direct TV wouldn't remove the channel, even though it wasn't there when I contracted with them. I no longer have satellite TV. If my grandson grows up to be gay I'll love him anyway, but I will do everything in my power to see that it doesn't happen.

The Real Enemy
"Finally, be strong in the Lord and in His mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after your have done everything, to stand. Stand firm..." (Ephesians 6:10-14). The rest of this passage is also rich.

Free Speech and Debate
Free speech was never about a shouting match. Free speech was never about speaking in such a vulgar tone, profane manner, or obscenity as to inflict personal insults. Free speech was never about imposing what you had to say on others. Those who would be listeners are free to direct their attentions elsewhere. Proper respect should keep things in check between both the speaker and the listener.

When this nation was being established calling someone a "rascal" was a serious offense. Enough so, one could be challenged to a duel for such behavior.

Pure discussion and debate refrains from personal attacks. It focuses strictly on the subject at hand; not the person.

Has anyone of this present generation ever heard a pure debate? Whatever has happened to Affirmatives, Negatives, Rebuttals, and Rejoinders? Is two to four hours per evening over the course of three to five evenings asking too much of this present generation to endure over a single important issue?

Question and answer sessions alone are not enough to provide a fair and reasonable examination of positions. Five, ten, and thirty minute discussions are insufficient.

Until the lecterns are properly manned by informed and able speakers, and the halls filled with ready ears and minds to discern the information dispensed, free speech will snarl and lunge like a rabid dog on a leash.

Free speech is meek and meekness is not weakness. It is great strength controlled.

GEM





What laws?

The ones that come to mind are:

Thou shalt not murder.
Thou shalt not steal.

Not exclusive
Don't steal, lie or murder aren't exclusive Judeo-Christian principles.

They are standard with almost every civil society since the beginning of recorded history.

As far as the 10 commandments, this nation was based completely opposite of the first one, which commands that there be no other God recognized but the Judeo-Christian version.

Nanarae
If you didn't go in front of a GLBT gathering and scream at them, you don't deserve attempts to silence you, and you are not part of the problem. The people cited in the article went out of their way to bug gay people, and professed shock, SHOCK I tell you when the gays had the temerity to be offended. This is IMHO no different than some nutcase Old School Galactica fans riotously protesting a con with Katee Sackhoff as the featured speaker. Lawsuits would fly in that completely non-religious situation as in the ones cited in the article.

It doesn't matter why one acts disruptively and refuses to leave when asked, legal action is not unexpected in such situations.

As for the ghey pr0n your kid found, that stinks. Couldn't you block the channel? Heck, we are getting satellite ourselves soon, and my husband and I plan to block inappropriate channels for our kids.

Utahnotmormon
You asked which rules, numerous people answered.
You choose to discount their view, anyway.

Most laws are based on the idea of certain behavior being wrong.

Final in criminal law course I took had several questions that said. 1 define the following terms, murder, burglary, etc. 2. Explain why this is a crime in terms of morality and society.

True the prohibition against murder is not solely Judeo-Christian, but they were the majority when our laws were being written. I don't remember any Buddhists or Moslems in the legislatures of the 1700-1800's

What really happened . . .
Sweet Pastor Jim Grove was arrested for disrupting a Halloween parade

http://www.fullquivermission.com/York_VictoryF.htm

He carried large graphic pictures of butchered babies before a crowd that included children. He were quite properly (my opinion) arrested for disturbing the peace.

Another funny incident is reported in

http://www.repentamerica.com/pr_lebianofficer.html

The Christianist writer is outraged that good Christians were arrested by a Lesbian. They were astonished that said Lesbian would be angry at their homophobic rantings. It's sort of like shouting racial epithets at a black cop and expecting him to smile and tip his hat back a you.

The idea that observant Christians in America somehow are discriminated against because of their beliefs is laughable. It's a sign of the times that TH Christianist wingnuts have to gall to say so.

Bigotry & oppression run both ways
As a non-Christian non-theist who opposes much of what the "Religious Right" supports, I fully recognize that there is such a thing as anti-Christian bigotry and oppression. It is unfair to suggest that all or most Christians are greedy hypocrites, or ignoramuses, or scheming theocrats trying to impose their religious beliefs by force on America. There do exist real examples in America and other Western countries of attempts to suppress expression of Christian belief and practice by force in the name of "political correctness". And worldwide there are many real examples, especially in the Islamic world, of serious anti-Christian persecution.

However, the flaw in Dr. Kantor's logic is to suggest that bigotry and oppression can only run one way; that if Christians are victims of bigotry and oppression, they cannot also, sometimes, be perpetrators of it. There do exist would-be Christian theocrats who would like to impose a "Christian nation" by force; I don't think they are a majority of Christians, or a majority even of fundamentalist Christians, but they exist and create some grounds for legitimate concern. And more moderate Christians do sometimes support policies that are well-meaning but nonetheless entangle government too closely with religion. They also express a kind of bigotry toward non-Christians in suggesting that Christianity or "Judeo-Christianity" form the sole foundation of "American values" and that non-Christians cannot be trusted to behave morally or as "real Americans".

Perhaps a useful analogy would be to compare religious intolerance and oppression to a disease, which varies in its severity. The kind of intolerance and oppression practiced by many Muslims would be then comparable to a case of life-threatening double pneumonia, while the sort of intolerance and oppression practiced by some Christians would be comparable to a mild case of the sniffles. On the one hand, it is foolish to go into a panic and treat all questionable "Religious Right" activities as if they were comparable to the worst Islamic excesses (for instance, by calling U.S. religious rightists the "American Taliban"). On the other hand, a case of the sniffles may eventually develop into double pneumonia if ignored and left to worsen. Christians in politics shouldn't be criticized unfairly or suppressed by force, but they also shouldn't be able to deflect all legitimate criticism or political opposition by calling it "anti-Christian bigotry".





Lessons from Mr. Rutherford…

‘Christ, the prophets, and the apostles of our Lord, went to heaven with the note of traitors, seditious men, and such as turned the world upside down...’ -Samuel Rutherford from Lex Rex (1644)

The men of this world have always got it wrong regarding Christ. Why should we expect anything different today? Christ explains why men are opposed to truth and are quick to fall into deception, ‘Men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil.’

Christ is the great divider of men. The forces of darkness rage, but the reign of sin and death has given way to the reign of grace in righteousness and life for those in Christ. Yes, we would see a return to radical Christianity; the type that exposes sin and loves truth; the type that opposes tyranny by freely giving out the gospel to all men that all men might experience freedom from their slavery in sin.

We want a return to Constitutional government, but we are accused of promoting a Mosaic theocracy. The Founders rejected the so called ‘Enlightenment’ that promoted autonomous human wisdom and resulted in the tyranny of guillotine justice. They favored reason subject to divine revelation and instituted the rule of law and a free church.

The Founders’ practice of Christianity was radical compared to our day. Their ideas of human government instituted to secure the God given rights of all men and to subdue the fallen nature of men are anathema to the Left. The Left opposes a return to limited government; they oppose a return to morality; they oppose the Founders. They attack that which opposes them. They are the threat to freedom and the enemy of liberty. They offer us a return to tyranny.

It is Christians who understand the origins of liberty, and it was Christians that gave us a Constitution that empowers free men to govern themselves; the things of freedom were instituted into law. It is liberalism that is threatening the foundations of liberty by perverting the law. They reap the fruit of lawlessness by using the law to tear down the law.

‘Calumnies of treason to Caesar were an ingredient in Christ’s cup, and therefore the author is the more willing to drink of that cup that touched his lip, who is our glorious Forerunner: what, if conscience toward God, and credit with men, cannot both go to heaven with the saints, the author is satisfied with the former companion, and is willing to dismiss the other. Truth to Christ cannot be treason to Caesar, and for his choice he judges truth to have a nearer relation to Christ Jesus, than the transcendent and boundless power of a mortal prince.’ –Samuel Rutherford from Lex Rex

The power that the elites are after is what Rutherford refers to as the ‘[unlimited] power of a mortal prince.’ Make no mistake their goal is to rule over us, having subverted the rule of law. Our weapon against them is the sword of truth, the same sword wielded by Christ and His apostles and the same sword wielded by all those who have gone before us in the gospel to battle against tyranny.

‘Who is worthy to open the book? …the Root of David has overcome…worthy art Thou to take the book and to break its seals…’ [Revelation 5]


Perhaps it's just coincidence.....
that biblical prophesies fall into place the way they do when it comes to the persecution of Judaism and Chistianity.
What is extremely interesting however, is to compare the behavior of those who revile these two religions, to their treatment of islam.
Those same sectors that despise the Judeo-Christian God and His teachings (rationalizing their contempt, citing hypocricy and a host of other shortcomings in the character of the faith-driven), fully embrace and defend the character of islam that is revealed daily around us.
The Rosie O'Donnells, Elton Johns, Planned Parenthood, ACLU,and others predominately on the left, vent their desire to see Christianity and Judaism eradicated as a threat to today's "progressive" secularism. Their's is a loathing spelled out in scripture and to which they are totally unaware.
But none of these same brave souls will speak out against a religion that would hunt them down and mutilate them for Allah. Personally, I think their cowardice, combined with an irresistable hatred of God, is proven.

How come secularists don't hold the...
guilty parties responsible? It always floors me when SPs take the side of a pedofile who victimized a helpless child to defending a dictator who murders his own people by the thousands.

When they say that Christians are trying to take away their rights, it becomes absurd. I really don't care what some folks SAY Thomas Jefferson was saying when he wrote to the Danbury Baptists. I wish he could speak directly to the SPs today because I think he would be outraged at the abuse the SPs are putting the Constitution through. Reading between the lines and finding rights that don't exist.

When men become so in love with themselves, they believe that their own intelligence is all they need. They try to take God out of the equation by convincing themselves that their creator, even if he does exist, doesn't have control of their fate. What they don't want to see is that even though they take God out of their lives and consiousness, they can't take Him out of their business, that being whether they spend eternity with their maker or not.

The very first humans were duped by the spirit of the devil that God wasn't necessary, that if they ate the forbidden fruit they would be God's equal and have no obligation to obey God. We don't recognize the devils work in our lives because he appears not as evil but as whatever we consider beautiful and benign, something that could not possibly be wrong or bad for us.

We all make our own choice of who to serve, but it is impossible to serve evil and good at the same time. Humans are spiritual beings and we give our allegience freely either to God or the devil.


liberalgoodman
The thing that gets me about your examples is that no matter how many times mainstream Christians decry the actions of those people, secularists throw them back in Christians faces as if to reconfirm that they are the norm. THEY ARE NOT!

However, I realize that these denunciations will again fall on deaf ears.

Gary
You make the point very well about the lack of debating skills, much less the lack of civility and respect. We have two sides trying to out scream the other, intransigent and deaf as a doorknob to a differing view. Our greatest obstacle to a dialogue is that one side bases their argument on sophistical or fallacious opinion. How can we get to a middle ground if SP's start with delusive, illusive or deceiptful "facts." The truth is always the truth, unless you're mentally unstable.

Years ago, I found some old 7th and 8th grade English gammer textbooks in my Uncle's stuff, probably printed in the 20's or 30's. In amongst the chapters about punctuation, sentence structure, past, present and future tense, etc, etc, was a long chapter on speech and how to recognize the various types, such as jingoism, propaganda, idealism, populism, the characteristics of each and how they're used by the other ism"s, socialism and communism, to persuade.

These books were more comprehensive than the good English books I studied from in the 60's and far superior to the textbooks in use today. In the last 50 years, the left has mananged to dumb down our children's education and indoctrinate them in the socialist uptopian dogma until they're woefully inept at debating except from their PC and touchy/feely imbuement.

This epidemic of ignorance is rampant in our university system and is producing leftists at such a rate, they're actually threatening our society by their utter lack of knowledge about and prejudice toward history, traditional values and truth.

I gave the books to my cousin who lives in NW Washington state (poor thing) and is home schooling her son, away from the horrible schools they have there. Even at age 7, he was being rediculed by his little classmates for his conservative Christian beliefs. What a world we are incubating!

It is far more than hypocrisy
In 1968 in a science class our professor was gave us a lecture on the wonders of Communism, especially the positive attributes of the Soviet Union. When several of us objected that since we were in a science course and paying for it out of our own pockets we should be receiving science not political history, the professor threaten to throw us out of her class. Everyone who objected suffered in their final grade. When we objected to the department head he proclaimed our professor's lecture to be free speech. He stated it was good for us to learn such a lesson. Half of those objecting to the professor's lecture that day were Vietnam veterans.

If one goes back and reads the Federalists and Anti-Federalist papers then one would understand how enlightend our forefathers were when writing the Constitution. While Tom Jefferson believe that their should be "a wall between government and religion" neither he nor the other founding fathers ever suggested that God, a higher moral authority, be excluded from government or political thought. In their recent historical memories they understood the dangers of government mandated religions. Yet neither did that wish to exclude any religion from the public discussion or allow the perscution of any religious beliefs. They never would have imagined that secular aethists, now designated by the U.S. Supreme Court in modern history as a religion, should demand the exclusion of all other religions from government and the public square.

Of course if ones returns to the document setting forth the philosophical nature of our republic it was quite clear that our founding fathers considered God to be extremely important and that his importance was most obvious to all of them.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator--------"

It seems quite obvious that they believed that "the blessings of liberty" were "endowed" on "ourselves and our Posterity" by God.

Please don't mention loathing
>a religion that would hunt them down and mutilate them for Allah.<

This type of rhetoric is no different than Hitler in the 1930s. There are roughly 25 million Muslims in this country, and you're saying each one wants to hunt down and mutilate non-Muslims. How incredibly elitist and evil.

To those Who Loathe Christianity
I always find comfort in the fact that there will be a final day of accountability…we will all stand before and be judged by our Creator, and as long as you are comfortable that He is your Heavenly Father, and believe that He died for your sins to set you free, do not worry about what all the other non-believers do. They are “knitting their own sweaters” and will have to wear them for eternity. Just be firm and stand up for what you believe in a Christian and loving way, and let the liberals, agnostics, atheists and cultists rave on about their convictions…they are howling into the wind. In that final day God will say “I never knew you.” Those four words will prevent much of humanity from entering into God’s Eternal Heaven.

For anyone who thinks that homosexuals lead a normal life, just an alternate life style, look at the statistics of AIDS and related illnesses, the cost to you and me for their medical care, the high death rates, and the promiscuity. What they do is unnatural and is abominable not only in the sight of God, but all people who are free from perversion. Homosexuals are not happy people…they have diminished life spans, they swim upstream for their entire lives, never find peace, and are constantly defending the indefensible. They are always angry and confrontational. They are obsessed and addicted just like drug addicts and alcoholics…are we to the point in this age where we look at alcoholism and drug addiction as normal ways of life, just an alternate life style? Do we go to extraordinary lengths to protect, defend, and politically and financially enable their addictions? I think not.

Reason and logic fly out the window when sacred cows and politically correct “conditions” are discussed with liberals and left-wingers…and yes, homosexuals need to have labels so we can recognize them and condemn them for their actions. Discussion ad nauseum cannot change what is wrong to make it right. God loves the sinner, but hates the sin. And so do I.

To the contrary
rather than Christians trying to impose their beliefs through law, I feel that it is the exact opposite. The ACLU and other secularists are trying through law to impose their thinking on a nation that is majority christian. It appears that to the secularists christianity is on par with masturbation and must be done in private.

They?
There's no "they" when it comes to homosexuals. There are individuals who are divergent and represent the entire spectrum of society.

While it's easy to single out the most vocal and aggressive, similar to Muslims, it must also be realized that a huge number of homosexuals live relatively normal, unassuming lives, bothering no one and minding their own business.
This country is better served by recognizing the homosexual agenda that is obsessed with special minority rights than collectively condemning people, who, in many cases, are productive and peaceful members of society.

WRH Bill and Sekhmet
Well said. If you get up in someones' face, then you can't be surprised if they get back in yours. Hatred and bigotry do go both ways, although most of the violence seems to be directed against GLBT people rather then the other way around.


Sekhmet: The new series of Battlestar Galactica is outstanding! Those fanboyz for the previous series can go back to their dvd's and do whatever. The writing is widely considered to be the best in television today. From the blog of Ron Moore, the show's creator...

"Since I last blogged, the show received the George Foster Peabody Award for Excellence in Broadcasting at a ceremony in New York. The entire writing staff attended as well as myself, David Eick, and several members of the cast and a good time was had by all. Terry and I (Mrs.Ron to those of you in the know) did a series of podcasts from the event and they'll be available for download at some point.

Personally, I can tell you that being in that ballroom, alongside of the other recipients of the award was a truly humbling experience. We were watching clips of documentaries dealing with fake pharmaceuticals in Asia, coverage of Katrina, exposes on Army recruiting practices, AIDS issues -- it was an extraordinary gathering of talent and material and to even be considered in the same breath with most of the work on display was a jaw-dropping experience that I'll cherish the rest of my life. It was truly one of the highpoints of my career and I'm grateful to continue to be allowed to do this show with this incredible group of people."

Save your energies
There are cases where governments, companies, and individuals have gone too far and have tipped over into anti-Christian bigotry. Here's a novel idea: Save your campaigning and letter-writing for those cases, instead of whinging every time some Fred Phelps wannabee gets tossed out of a gay pride parade.

Don't stand up for bad behavior simply because you agree with the bad actor's principles. It only makes it look as if you are demanding a double standard in the law for people who agree with you.

What's more alarming
Whether you agree or disagree on the abortion issue, what should alarm you most and what is missing from the discussion on this column is the impact of a single payer government run health care system on our basic rights and freedoms. I checked the part about 74-year-old Edward Atkinson out. On 9 May, BBC reported, “The hospital said Atkinson had been banned from treatment for anything other than life-threatening conditions.”

Keep this in mind as the Demos seek to bring Hilliary care back to the floor..

Don't Lose Your Sense of Humor
I know Pat Buchanan may not be every ones favorite conservative BUT I think his public presence, especially on TV, is spot on.

While making his points he can be very passionate and ardent but he can also find humor and show himself friendly, even to his adversaries. He can genuinely laugh. He seems comfortable around people; even those whose views are opposite his own.

He doesn't budge from his opinion, but he doesn't force in down his opponents throat; e.g. Paul Bagala.

I really think the media, both conservative and liberal, understand the ratings games -- and know a good brawl gets people to watch their network. Much more so than watching C-Span where a political wonk will spell out a complicated bill before Congress. I think the networks have created a monster that has helped exacerbate the political divide in our country by featuring so many strong personalities and shows that glory in conflict and debate. Yes, they are informative but the information is often found "within" debate and not in a context that promotes consideration and reflection but passions and strong emotions.

I think Christians are being cajoled and snookered into areas where we compete in the arena of conflict where out attention becomes divided. We do our best work in helping the disadvantaged and bringing people hope. I know many Christians are not distracted and they are the ones doing the work of the gospel while everyone else is in contest of lung capacity.

Sekhmet

I agree with your comment about "Don't stand up for bad behavior simply because you agree with the bad actor's principles. It only makes it look as if you are demanding a double standard in the law for people who agree with you."

Now if we can convince people to quit automatically refering to Hitler's rhetoric as the rhetoric of a group of people some of whom fought against Fascism. No one likes having a view point counter to their crammed down their throat. Convincing beats coertion.

Czechian Wiew.... Part 1: Lexx
Before I start - I must say, that I smiled a lot, reading comment from Lexx777...

Mostly about Homosexuals... Nice fairy tales...

Lexx, do you know, where is HIV most spreading...?
Between orthodox Christians... Because it's sin to use any anticonception, including preservatives and because in same time those are the most hypocritical so they have high rate of promiscuity... Of course, mostly against non-believers...
But I agree, I never believed before experienced it myself... I still remember I was once nearly raped by Czechian quite orthodox katolician virgin who knowed me about 4 hours as I gone to a trip with local religion community I was once a member(even as non-believer)... Luckily, I'm quite good speeker... Not so good as Darren Brown, but enought...

And Lexx - do you know what force even heterosexuals tooccasional homo-behave...?
Circumcision... Because losing of contact-excitability of their "tool" (because it's going to be more standart-skin-like - rought and with less nerve connections) and than lack ofeuphory from sex, create a need for them to find some more contact-incendiary activities...
...of course - only before it cause impotency and/or asexualism in age of 30-40 and more
Well, man's circumscision is a Judeao-Christian relict...

And Lexx - Can you tell me - why should be medical expenses on Homo-citizens higher...? I really wonder...
...also high death rate cannot be caused by sex orientation or any alternative life-style - maybe by suicides...
- but I tell you - we, people of high intelect are quite rare, so across snowball method, we know nearly each other - and as far as I seen it, our death rate is enormous... Experiments, suicides...

"What they do is unnatural and is abominable not only in the sight of God, but all people who are free from perversion. Homosexuals are not happy people…they have diminished life spans, they swim upstream for their entire lives, never find peace, and are constantly defending the indefensible. They are always angry and confrontational. They are obsessed and addicted just like drug addicts and alcoholics…are we to the point in this age where we look at alcoholism and drug addiction as normal ways of life, just an alternate life style? Do we go to extraordinary lengths to protect, defend, and politically and financially enable their addictions?"

What they do is unnatural and is abominable not only in the sight of science, but all people who are free from that Fairy-Bible-Tale perversion. Religious are not happy people…they have diminished life spans, they swim upstream for their entire lives, never find peace, and are constantly defending the indefensible. They are always angry and confrontational. They are obsessed and addicted just like drug addicts and alcoholics…are we to the point in this age where we look at alcoholism and drug addiction as normal ways of life, just an alternate life style? Do we go to extraordinary lengths to protect, defend, and politically and financially enable their addictions?

How You like that...? In basic, It's true... In fact it's only empty text... One can get inside any abstract lifestyle...
...such texts are in class o propaganda or demagogism...

After all - where is a difference between Christians, Communists and Imperialists...?
They all want ppl uniform, without differences from "only-acceptable" prototype of human in some form of totality...

In fact - I have nothing about any god-believers - but they should care ONLY about themselves in the ways of religion...
...case, when girlfriend(In meaning of love-partner) of my friend was physically attacked by clasmates in one US school when advocating right to go interruption, sounds for me as unacceptable...

End of Part1

Freedom of religioius expression
This was a very good article. I would like to add that if one believes in freedom of speech he must also believe in freedom of religous expression--no matter who might be offended. In fact we should throw out the whole "I'm offended" baloney. Who cares if you are offended? Gay marriage offends me, but I don't think it will be stopped just because I'm offended.

Simply put--there is no such thing as the constitutional right not to be offended,so why do we bother listening to such complaints? The same thing goes with the "I think that was insensitive" crowd.
It's all a big con and nothing more than a cloak for the coming censorship that is waiting just around the corner.

utahnotmormon
..."This type of rhetoric is no different than Hitler in the 1930s. There are roughly 25 million Muslims in this country, and you're saying each one wants to hunt down and mutilate non-Muslims. How incredibly elitist and evil."

I'm not sure I said EACH ONE but I will say that I see no dissention in the moslem ranks against the brutality and murder perpetrated by a huge number of your protectorate. The population of savage islam is huge if we can believe what we see and hear. If you find the time, view the massive demonstrations of moslems around the world screaming "Death to America!", "Death to Israel!", as they slaughter those with even minor differences within their own religion. Pick up a copy of the Obsession DVD if you care to take the blinders off.

The big lie.
I am reading a book by a man named James H. Hansen. The title is "Radical Road Maps", with a sub-title, "Untangling the Web of Connections Among Far-Left Groups in America". It is a frightening book.


It gives the history of the covert war on America that had its beginnings in the intelligence services of the USSR. Mr. Hansen has been an operations officer and analyst for the CIA for over thirty years, and was also an official in the Defense Intelligence Agency, in its counterintelligence office.


It was eye opening for me to see how closely the leftists in America and around the world worked with, and under the direction of, the Soviet Union. That relationship continues to this day, in spite of the fact that the Soviet Union went belly up after the wall came down. It is obvious that Vladimire Putin, a former KGB officer, is reconstructing that totalitarian, murderous and still anti-American empire.


I have known for decades that the left inside this country has always been supportive of the enemies of America. That includes the Soviet Union, Mao's China, North Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and any other nation that is hostile to the United States.


What I didn't know about was the intention to destroy America that motivated a lot of these groups. Not to change it, as many of them claim, but to destroy it. Their names have no relatioship to their malevolent purpose. Names like Americans Coming Together (ACT), America First Committee (AFC), People for the American Way (PFAW).


There were many groups I had never heard of. Pastors for Peace (PFP) was one. This group is dedicated to the support of the Castro regime. It collects food, medicines, Bibles and other things to send to Cuba. Nothing wrong with that,right?


Perhaps not, but consider the fact that the Reverend Lucius Walker Jr. gave a speech stating his organization's willingness to join Cuba in its struggle against U.S. terrorism. PFP wants to stop America's "hypocritical lies and distortions" about Cuba's human rights record. Never mind reality.


The fact is that leftist organizations right here in America have close ties to foreign groups that are implacable enemies of this nation. I am always disgusted when I see the posts of the lefties on this site. I recognize that they are probably no more than the "useful idiots" referred to by some Commie leader so many years ago.


Hansen's book seems a welcome counter to the sudden flurry of anti-Christian, anti-American howling of the left. I believe that the one way to counter the evil of the fools and the demons of the left is for people to understand them.


Even though I have committed myself to resist and expose them for as long as I live, when I considered the forces working against my country, I had begun to despair. It has just occured to me that there is still hope.


I am ashamed that I have allowed myself to forget that God remains in charge. Satan is powerful, and he never rests. He controls the demons of the left as well as the Godless, irrational fools of the left, some of whom post on this site.


I fall far short as a Christian. I do feel revulsion, and even hatred for the enemy. I have expressed my hatred and contempt for them on Town Hall. I would like to say that I will not hate these people because the Scripture tells me that I should love my enemies.


That is hard to do. Since it is New Years I am saying that I will try.

I disagree with the article
I'm a Christian who would have no problem taking away most of what others regard as "Civil Liberties". The fact that those "Civil Liberties" are not being taken away is just proof that Christians are not in charge. Heck, Christians aren't even in charge of a lot of churches these days.

I do think it's a good sign that the heathens have warmed so kindly to Islam, though. Intellectual consistency would have make them a worthier adversary.

utahmoron, your numbers on muslims
are off by over 500%.

Czechian Wiew.... Part 2
Well, I agree with Gary and partly with roadmaster..

Problem with debating skills is global - even there in europe is "Argumentum et hominem" major part of most texts...

But - what about in context with religion...?

There's little problematic, because many ppl are blinded by their own religion and they see ad things but they never realize, it's same what they do too... Or even sometimes erase differences between "tradition" and "religion"

I suppose, there are mostly Baptist Christians (Did you know we call them Blood Christians, due to major percentage in religonity of US soldiers in US Invasion Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, speading faith with bullets...?) as it's main church in US, so I'll put in an example of somethink from Arabian world...

So... For example - veiling... In many countries it's an old tradition, somewhere even adopted by local Islam...
...so many people think is coming from Islam and they're blind than in Asia, there are Moslem girls dressed nearly in nothing...
(In fact - it came from desert nations - veiling is only way how to survive in desert without health problems...)

And on the other side - there we have biblic Eden... Adam and Eva without any clothes...

...and christians in Europe who forced their girls to be weiled so only face could be seen...
...and it vanished very slowly as long as in 20th century...

...and now - it's in USA immoral to wear low-rise jeans - it seems that in some areas (Luisiana) even soon illegal...
(Firstly as strike against see-able underwear)
Guess how it was advocated a moment later - of course, more or less by religion...
( Hey Lexx - tell us what You think about it..? :-D )

And that was only an example...

In fact, we in Europe are often talking abut USA as about country with "Iranian model of society" (same as Poland)

In fact - I think, that faith - whatever it is - should be practised personally, without active affecting others by some suggestive speeches, demonstration of power or some oversized prezetation in society...
...as soon as leeving own house, one should "forgot" his religion or (in USA) politics and start thinking like You want others to behave to You...

Post-it
"I do think it's a good sign that the heathens have warmed so kindly to Islam, though. Intellectual consistency would have make them a worthier adversary."

Your consistent "worthier adversary" carries a long blade.
Be careful not to offend him.

Otter
I stand corrected, the number is closer to 10 million.

But thanks for prefacing your post with a personal insult, showing what a good Christian you are.

Okay, Paper, I'll bite
"Your consistent worthier adversary carries a long blade. Be careful not to offend him".
____________________

Care to elaborate on that little word-fart? Sound like a quote from Comodor W. Falkon.

Post-it
Perhaps I misunderstood your closing statement to which I issued my "little word-fart".
Who is the worthier adversary for whom and who are the intellectually consistent?





Give Yourself an Intellectual Enima
I had to suffer thru a Public education, so I was completely brainwashed.
Luckily I was able to give myself multiple Intellectual Enimas.

What idiotic ideas did I clean out?

1. You can't know accurate History (due to writer bias). aka "the Winners write History". This lame slogan fantasizes that the "winners" write history and "slant" it their way.

Well if that's true, then the New Testament is true. How do we know? Because the writers were killed/murdered (i.e. losers).

2. There is no absoute Right and Wrong.
This is a great one, because the ding-bat crew commits a double-whammy. First they say the Christians murdered during the Crusades (here they break their rule, and claim that Christians actually did something that was "wrong"). The bonus is that they actually claim that we can know accurate history about these "wrongs".

Mark Cleaned Out PosterPerson

Sekhmet
Direct tv wouldn't block it. I could block r rated and that would keep it off but that would block even the news, (rated r for violence). And I was really angry. I didn't buy that channel. They just surprised me with it, adding it to my package without any notice. I figured if they added it, they could then subtract it. They declined to do that so I'm no longer a customer.
This was 3 years ago so there may have been some changes to the company policy. I won't pay for satellite again because the vast majority of programing is reruns. In less than a month you can watch everything new they have to offer and then you are stuck with reruns. Then there are the comercials. I remember when pay tv first came on the scene. People paid for what they could get free because there would never be commercials and they promised more interesting programming.
Now the average program is 10 minutes of program, 5 minutes of commercials. Repeat.
And in the night(I'm an insominiac) there is only paid programming. 30 minute commercials! One after the other, on most channels, all night long. Now since I already paid for that time to entertain me, it makes me livid that someone else is paying for that same time to try to sell me something. In effect, I'm paying them to try to take my money for some useless piece of junk.
Finding that Logo channel was just the last straw, and when they wouldn't remove it, didn't even understand why I was so upset, I baled. Watch how it goes with xm radio.

Oh, Okay.
I should have elaborated before I insulted. I apologize.

My comment on the adversary wasn't so much a comparison between the 'intellectual consistency' of the two groups. My point was more that the Secularists' strength is the appearance of rationality when compared to the anti-scientific aspects of faith. So a Secularist who holds to the irrational becomes the discredited hypocrite along the lines of a pervert priest, and becomes a less worthy adversary. Once a Christian makes peace with Science, Secularists are all but impotent.

Beyond that, lets just say I don't fear the Secularists' selfless devotion to any higher cause, which is why the reference to the blade threw me. If my opinion of a "Secular Soldier" is correct, the blade would be turned inward.


What WRH Bill said!

"Bigotry and Oppression Run Both Ways", that is. Dr. Kantor presents some valid examples of left-wing intolerance and attempts at oppression of free speech. I don't the existence of this tendency among many of my fellow leftists. And I do find it more embarrassing when a supposedly tolerant, live-and-let-live Liberal type behaves this way than I am offended when a Right-Winger does. It's the same thought of thing that makes Rep Foley's behavior more outrageous than it'd be if he was a Liberal Democrat.

I do wonder though, about the appropriateness of defending Michael Marcavage's right to loudly and conspicuously plead with attendees at Gay Pride events to repent and pray for forgiveness lest they burn eternally in hellfire. There are some kinds of speech that the courts have determined cross the line, like that decision that KKK types can't wave swastikas among communities of holocaust survivors. It seems to me that what Marcavage does kind of in that ballpark. It's sort of like how it would be if a bunch of Gay people dressed up in scanty leather at some outdoor family Christian gathering and loudly proclaimed and demonstrated their affection for one another.


Post-it
Can I ask, why I was cited in reaction giving me into some relation to someone with different point of wiew...
...after all in meaning as argumentum et hominem...?

...while in same time, you post there mothing relevant, nothing than some plain ideas which are not enought complex even for 15- year child...

Do You disagree with me...?
Ok... In which point...?

Why that offence, playing with unknown cards...?
Are there no cards...?
Or I hit your weak point...?

Tomorrow, I'm going to download some materials from JSTORE - I'll be probably finish after 12:00 GMT...
Than I can set up a discussion with every oponent that would be interested...
Somewhere in neutral space...

Como
Don't take it so hard. We're having a hard time understanding you because English is not your first language, but that fact also makes what you have to say more interesting to us.

Another Sign of Intolerance
I was thinking this evening and another "proof" of this intolerance hit me.

We understand a professional athlete who will train for hours and hours to put their body at its peak shape. No problem

We understand a business person who will work and sacrifice his life to build a huge corporation. No problem

We understand a musician to give him the benefit on some rather eccentric ways to perfect his art and bring us beauty. No problem

We understand a scientist who will sacrifice his entire life for the advancement of knowledge. No problem

But a person who devotes their life to know the Divine. A person who seeks to know God's will for their life. A person dedicated to prayer. Or, for the Christian -- one who seeks Christ and loves Him. All of a sudden dedication is looked upon a a mental derangement. Giving ones life to the pursuit of money is understood but giving ones life to the pursuit of God is odd. This is certainly a sign of spiritual poverty and of the reason for the spiritual intolerance we find in American society today.

There's a BIG difference
The person who devotes their life to know the Divine by running the local Salvation Army, running soup kitchens to feed the poor and homeless is usually respected and embraced by the community, both religious and secular.

Those who devote thier lives to the Divine by televising their wonderful works in Africa, which are a masquerade for dirty diamond mining deals with murderous dictators, deserve to be villified as the businessmen and political pundits they really are.

Gay marriage
MERRY GO BOY

Try looking at it this way. I would like to play third base for the Boston Red Sox. But--I am too old and not good enough anyway (according to the Red Sox). I then claim that the Sox are denying me my civil rights by not letting me play and that the bigots are also discriminating against me because of my age.

Kind of stupid, right? Since I am not better than their present third baseman the issue should be closed. I have no civil right to do what I cannot physically do. Hence, major league baseball does not have to pass a rule saying guys in their 70s cannot play big league baseball.

Since two men cannot physically function like a normal married couple they have no legal right to any standing that puts them on the same legal level as a heterosexual married couple.

Therefore, I am against gay marriage, and I feel it is a shame that our society has to even consider a constitutional amendment on an issue that should have been laughed out of court at its first mention.

to UtahNotMormon
I can take your point and accept it; but I don't think it invalidates my point. Jesus was loved for his help to the poor. And yes, imposters are always in our midst. Yet the Christian must discern the Peters from the Judas'.

To reiterate my point was that those dedicated to a truly spiritual life which is sustained by seeking the Divine is looked upon by society as peculiar and odd but those who dedicate their like to the pursuit of money or fame are much more readily understood. This lack of understanding is another demonstration of the intolerance given to religion and/or religious people.

Natural Law Against Homosexuality
QUOTE - Therefore, I am against gay marriage, and I feel it is a shame that our society has to even consider a constitutional amendment on an issue that should have been laughed out of court at its first mention. END QUOTE

Dr. North,

I think another approach that can be effective against gay marriage is to oppose it through natural law theory. Natural law theory says that the nature of things needs to be taken into account in the creation of just law. One aspect of the nature of all living things is their nature to survive through propagation. Nature has made it that survival in impossible without reproduction. This can only be accomplished through the union of male and female so therefore natural marriage must be the union of only a male and female. Homosexual marriage is unnatural and laws making it so would be against nature and therefore bad law.

This approach would be consistent with our Constitution that used natural law to forms its founding principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; the unalienable rights endowed by the Creator. This approach is based upon a philosophy begun by Greek and Roman philosophers, which, in its origins, has no connection to Christianity.

Roadmaster
Go to the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
http://www.cpc.lee.house.gov/
will take you part of the way.

Find the membership and it lists 6 pages of Democrat Congressmen.
Pelosi is on the list.

You probably already know "Progressive" is a euphemism for Communist.
You probably also know Communists do not tolorate religion of any kind.
This sort of explains why Democrats fight to remove any trace of religion they can.

During the McCarthy era when Communism was under attack they all run and hid in the Democrat Party. Eventually they took over the Democrat Party and that is the situation today.
There are still many honorable Democrats in the Democrat Party who are unaware of who their leaders are. They do not understand "Democrat"
has defaulted to a euphemism for Communist!

It's not that I hate Christians...
...I just wish they would stop flaunting their lifestyle in public.

leefu
What is so offensive about the Christian lifestyle?

Welcome, Dr. Kantor
Dr. Kantor asks rhetorically: "Isn't it odd that intolerant Christians are defending free speech rights in court? While the presumably more enlightened and tolerant folks who don't like what the Christians say are resorting to the law to shut them up?"

Allow me to give a rhetorical answer: Well, no.

You see, it's currently all the rage to be a Christian-basher these days to prove one's "progressive" credentials. This form of bigotry is much celebrated by the elites who dominate the press, academia, the entertainment industry, and -- of course -- the Democrat party. It takes absolutely zero moral courage to write one of these books hostile towards Christianity, and that gives us a clue as to the character of the people writing them.

Very good article, by the way, Dr. Kantor.

utahnotmormon
utahnotmormon writes:

>a religion that would hunt them down and mutilate them for Allah.<

This type of rhetoric is no different than Hitler in the 1930s. There are roughly 25 million Muslims in this country, and you're saying each one wants to hunt down and mutilate non-Muslims. How incredibly elitist and evil.


have you read the koran? it calls for the death or enslavement of "infidels" anyone that is not muslim/a true believer. I hear no muslims refuting that statement. If there are "moderate" muslims, they are very silent, for it states plainly that infidels (re: Irans prez) will be either converted, enslaved or dead. It is your willingness to be so pc about islam, sure lets be open and nice and take them at their word, have you heard their words? Death to America, Death to the Infidel.....how much plainer do they need to be? It is people like you that scare me (not as much as the muslims, but close) for your type will let them slowly erode our way of life (the conyers bill making it a crime to dis islam) one bill at a time.....I pray for us all, for islam/muslims want their way or no way....they say it, few seem to be hearing or rather believing what they are saying.

God Bless the United States of America and all of its peoples, that their eyes and hearts will be open to the true reality of our days and the possibilities if we are not viligent, will be.

leefu writes:
leefu writes:


"It's not that I hate Christians...
...I just wish they would stop flaunting their lifestyle in public."

That's a joke. Right?...

MyOpine
MyOpine writes:

"You probably already know "Progressive" is a euphemism for Communist.
You probably also know Communists do not tolorate religion of any kind.
This sort of explains why Democrats fight to remove any trace of religion they can."

I'll bite..

I vote for MyOpine as next head of our most prominent local school's administration..

He/she has made more sense, and told more truth, in 2 minutes reading, than I have seen Liberal *cough* liars, I mean "elites" make in years of prejudiced rants and -truly-bigoted proclamations..

Sing Dr. Kantor..
Thank you Dr. Kantor in sharing so well just some of the -truly-bigoted propaganda and attacks we Christians have had to stand against in these United States, and other "civilized" nations, for some time now.

I said it before, I'll say it again, and I think the sentiment was echoed in this article.

When we arbiter for such similar rights, true ones, not lies and fabrications based on "rights" that should never be, the people of faith, whatever their background, ultimately, defend themselves..

Now let us stand on these truths, and let the honest leaders and acadamicians of the world step forward and speak this breath of fresh air we know as Truth.

Before the smog and deception of prejudice, lies, and haughty disdain choke it out, and blind men more to realities they will not see.

No coincidence
I don't believe it's a coincidence that the left's current fear and loathing of Christians is occurring when another religion has emerged as a bona fide threat to civilization. There is a psychological defense mechanism known as displacement which explains this irrational response.

Under displacement, the genuine fear and loathing one should feel towards fundamentalist Islam is diverted instead to a harmless proxy -- in this case Christianity. The proxy allows the legitimate feelings of fear and loathing to be directed towards something, but not the rational target, radical Islam. After all, the Islamics are quite unequivocal in their intent to destroy or subjugate the West. Many of their leaders repeatedly preach that it is Allah's will to do so. The intent to acquire weapons of mass destruction to be used against America is well known.

So the left's fear and hatred is rational, but the response tends to be misdirected, and thus, irrational. The misdirection of this animus to Christians -- the harmless proxy -- is understandable in psychological terms, but that doesn't make it acceptable -- or any less cowardly.

Similarly, the displacement principle also does much to explain the left's irrational hatred of Bush -- who is confronting the real threat of Islamic terrorism -- in Churchillian fashion. Bush is an unabashed Christian, and thus a harmless proxy for those who must direct their hate towards something other than the true threat.




What's the point?
That because others are bad, Christians are guilty?

Does Dr. Kantor really believe that Milton (and the Purtians) were arguing for freedom of speech, or rather that he argued *status quo ante*, so that books must have printer and authors names inscribed so that blasphemous or libellous could be destroyed after the fact? And, speaking of freedom, perhaps Dr. Kantor would like to comment on how religious tolerance was practiced by the Puritans on their arrival in North America. There are far to many examples of *Christians* who are guilty as charged, and we can start with the Rev. Fred Phelps as just one example.

CHRISTIANS AND INTOLERANCE
From the beginning, Christianity was destined to be always controversial because some of its core beliefs are about curbing some basic instincts which, if allowed to take their course, would reduce humans to just another form of animal life.

In Europe, once known as Christendom, Christianity is virtually extinct. Throughout history, Christianity as it was known in Europe, whether Catholic or Protestant, was notoriously anti-Semitic and allied with despotic monarchs and political leaders. There were official state churches which people were compelled to belong to and support financially, namely, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, and Church of England. In addition, there came about the Enlightenment and the rebirth of humanism, which spread like wildfire. Europeans appear to have a deep patholigical dislike of Christianity, which has created a void filled by Islam.

In America, the Founding Fathers created the "establishment" clause of the Constitution to prevent the establishment of an official state church. Christianity as it developed in America has not been allied with any specific political philosophy and has not been anti-Semitic. Most American churches are pro Israel.

The American Christian community took an activist role in ending slavery. Today, the Christian community is largely ineffective, in no small part, because of legislation authored in the 1950s by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson of Texas when a radio preacher criticized him. Most Churches and Christian-related groups are effectively muzzled because of the threat of losing their tax exempt status.

In addition, it's as though there are four unspoken and unwritten commandments that contribute further to making the Christian community ineffective:

11 Money is the root of all evil. You shall not have more money than you need for life's necessities, i.e., food, clothing, shelter, and medicine.

12. Be humble in the eyes of God. You shall be literate but untalented. Don't worry about ability to compete in the world.

13. Know your place. Do not be angry that you are expected to live on the wrong side of the tracks and ride at the back of the bus. Do not be angry that there is a stained glass ceiling.

14. Stay out of politics.

Christians need their own version of the Anti-Defamation League.


Meanwhile
…while Islamists continue killing people right before our eyes, in Somalia and other places around the world, the thought police continue their efforts to blame American Christians for all of their petty self inflicted problems.

Religious freedom
If this were a Christian nation, it would be a Protestant nation -- no Catholics and certainly no Jews. There was a fair amount of resistance from what then was the religious right to immegration from eastern and southern Europe between the civil war and WWI because the immegrants weren't Protestant. And being Protestant wouldn't even have kept you safe. The state religion of the colony of Virginia was Episcopalian -- Baptists not allowed. All that religious freedom the ACLU keeps fighting for has been very good for you.

Lady Logician writes: "liberalgoodman, The thing that gets me about your examples is that no matter how many times mainstream Christians decry the actions of those people, secularists throw them back in Christians faces as if to reconfirm that they are the norm. THEY ARE NOT!

However, I realize that these denunciations will again fall on deaf ears."

Lady, the original post mentioned Pastor Grove as someone who had been discriminated against. I challenge you or anyone else to find one single episode of discrimination because of Christian beliefs.


Don't Worry
What's all this fuss about the libs' fuss over some foolish paranoia about a conspiracy by the "religious right" to take over the country?

The same paranod fears were uttered against Catholics over a century ago. The Pope's come over, but mostly to admonish his wayward flock.
The last time I checked, no truly loyal Catholic will ever get elected to the Oval Office thanks to a promise given by the only (not-so-loyal) Catholic who did occupy it.

Catholics aren't really the boogyman they used to be, even in the eyes of many Protestants. After all, isn't W the first "real" Catholic president (as Bubba was the "first black president"?

The real targets of the liberals are the megachurch pastors with their mega-egos and mega-mall-churches and mega-list-of-prospective-voters. Those unthinking and supposedly less educated evangelical folks who'll just check off whomever their mega-pastors tell 'em who to vote for. Right.

Libs, if you really look into the so-called "Religious Right," you're worries will cease instantly. They're not going to fall for Dominionist fruitcake ideas and many of the theocratically inclined folks you're so perplexed about couldn't run a one-car-funeral.

Few points
Dr North
Quote: "Since two men cannot physically function like a normal married couple they have no legal right to any standing that puts them on the same legal level as a heterosexual married couple."

Well... So in this point of wiew, marriage should be only some form of trade... Ok...?
Men and women could be paired just by some lottery machine... Or by some reverend... Or by deal of their parents...
(-- GIRLS & BOYS aged 15-30 for sale..!! Only 1000$ per piece..!! Settle your family now and get free honemoon travel..!! --)
...like in medieval times...
..after all, emotions or some spiritual aspects have no effect on "physical function" so why to care about...
Is that how you think it, Dr North...?

Querty
You're writing about "natural law" but, in fact, in nature is homosexuality quite common - it's a way how to ensure that specie would not get overpopulated...
...if we think about that in case of human race, it's strange, that it's rate in human population is only about 4% in time, when global human population is nearly 2x larger that this planet is able to supply without problems...
...myself, I explain it by raising numbers of ppl who are sterile and women who refuse to have their own children and care about children of their friends, relatives instead...

Roadmaster
Hh... You are probably even imagine, what communism really is... Propably it's "all different than what I think"...
Maybe you heard some rumors about Marxism-Leninism (officially called Comounism too) in local Inn...
But belive - even that it's the worst ideology (Too naive - Not counting with ppl's greed for example), that probably seen that world...
It's probably heaven in compare to what will soon happpen in US...
There are many sociologists, trying to say how problematic it would be, but they're all unsure...
...it would be affected by too many aspects...
(For example value of $ - it's real value is half as oficial... It's sudsidised by China... But for how long...? In unstable regions (for example due to state bankrupt) freedom could be erased quickly... And You in fact have no great freedom even now... You have freedom "not to harm freedom of others" == no freedom, because you can harm others freedom just by existence.. It's only step from there to a something like comunism but in US case in style of Corporations, not "Communistic Party" )

melinwy
Infidel in Koran == Ateist...
...their dislike USA because from their point of wiew:
1) USA are the major death-bringer...
2) USA are spreading thair faith (From moslem point of wiew - chistianity corrupted by $$$ ) by bullets and illegal weaponry... (Yes, we know about that "secret" phosphor airstrikes)
--> In moslem point of wiew are US soldiers atheists wearing christian symbols...
That's maybe why that "jihad groups" consist even from christians... (With homeland mostly in Palestina, but not only there)
Then, you cannot be surprised they suggest Americans are infidels...

yavapaidiane
Well, I disagree with this:
"which has created a void filled by Islam"

That's not true...
Yes, there is effect of humanism - religious freedom greater than US citizens could even imagine...
Noone would attack you verbaly or physically...
...there is no "good christian" but only "good man"...

And that void...?

There is plenty of cults of Wiccans (and similar..), Universalists (+ neo-Hegelists, Enochians, and similar), Satanists (NOT La Veyists!! - that is not a true religion), Buddhists and other ppl who go their way into spiritual world on their own, without "aid" of some church or some dogmatic truths...
Ppl who stay before a miror... With no God's clerk hiding it...
They couldn't do any evil act and then it throw away by droping some coins in church, praying for being pardoned...

So no void...
In fact, some ppl switch to Islam only because they like culture...
(Which is in some way superior... (for example - Art))

Re Gay Marriage

Dr. North & qwerty:
The issue of gay Marriage gets batted about quite alot here at TH. Whenever somebody like Dr. North advances the argument that Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't reproduce, someone like Comodor W Falkon above points out all the other reasons that there are for marriage, or asks if sterile heterosexual couples should be denied the right to marry.

And whenever somebody like qwerty advances the argument about homosexuality being unnatural, somebody else (again like Falkon above) points out all the homosexual behavior that occurs in all manner of species throughout nature.

As I've noted earlier in this thread, I'm embarrassed by the way we supposedly tolerant Liberal types are sometimes nasty and oppressive in our behavior towards Christianity and devout Christians. But IMHO what DR. North and qwerty express is one legitimate reason why we Leftists have problems with some parts of Christianity in America. It's insidious how easy it is for Dr. North to say that a Gay couple can't be a "normal married couple" and qwerty to call homosexuality
"Against Natural Law", when all homosexuality actually is is offensive to Dr. North, qwerty and many other devout Christians.

Dr. North's 'normal' and qwerty's 'natural' may sound scientific, but they are really just value judgements reflecting their own moralities, preferences and sensibilities.


Definition of "Islamist"
"Are “Christianists”—Andrew Sullivan’s newly coined word for Christians who, like Islamists, want to use the power of the law to impose their religious principles on others—poised to seize control and strip us of our fundamental freedoms?"

Actually, I thought Islamists are people who want to use intimidation, even terror, and not the law, to impose their religious principles on others, seize control, and strip us of our fundamental freedoms.

One small example
You ask who gets the Christianist label. look here:

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2007/01/christianism_wa.html

The US National Park Service is selling a book at the Grand Canyon park saying that the canyon is less than 6000 years old. That's like forcing the natural history museum to carry books saying evolution never happened, or forcing the US National Institutes of Health to post on its web site that abortion causes cancer (no evidence of that), NASA to remove references to the "big bang", etc.

Lessons from Mr. Rutherford…
At least you could have quoted from someone whom the Founders cited. Though they did on occasion cite Milton, they hardley ever cited Rutherford.

Yes, their Christianity was so radical that they ended up rejecting the divinity of Christ and hence removed themselves from Christianity altogether!

As John Adams put it:

"If I understand the Doctrine, it is, that if God the first second or third or all three together are united with or in a Man, the whole Animal becomes a God and his Mother is the Mother of God.

"It grieves me: it shocks me to write in this stile upon a subject the most adorable that any finite Intelligence can contemplate or embrace: but if ever Mankind are to be superior to the Brutes, sacerdotal Impostures must be exposed."

-- John Adams to Francis van der Kemp, October 23, 1816. Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 122, Library of Congress. Taken from Hutson, The Founders on Religion, p. 223.

"They favored reason subject to divine revelation and instituted the rule of law and a free church."

Which gets it exactly backwards: They favored revelation subject to man's reason. Man's reason told our founders that the Bible was errant and could determine which revelation was legitimately given by God and which was error. Adams elevated reason so far over revelation that he told Jefferson, had he been with Moses on Mt. Sinai and God revealed the doctrine of the Trinity to him, he still wouldn't believe because reasons informs one is not three period.

"The Founders rejected the so called ‘Enlightenment’..."

That would be news to George Washington (and Madison, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin) who thought that Christianity needed to further reform to "fit" the tenets of the Enlightenment:

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society."

Letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792

See also:

http://positiveliberty.com/2006/10/our-founders-believed-enlightenment-should-transform-christianity.html

Jon Rowe

http://positiveliberty.com
http://jonrowe.blogspot.com


Errors of opinion combated by reason
"Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson was famous for being a deist who was definitely not a Christian in a nation where the vast majority of leaders were much more devout than he. He believed in some sort of divine order or influence; something far off and impersonal, but not likely to call him on his lifestyle choices or politics. Benjamin Franklin lived the life of a man who apparently was little concerned about God's sanction. On the other hand, George Washington and the Adams brothers as well as many of the other Founders had deep personal faith. They wanted to be free to practice their (mostly) Protestant faiths without anybody telling them what church to belong to. Most of the federal states had their own state religions and there was no hegemony of sect. The Baptists didn't want the Episcopalians telling them they had to be Episcopalian, for example. Thus, the Founders agreed on freedom OF religion. The Baptists would be free to be Baptists. The Episcopalians would be free to be Episcopalians. It was acknowledged in the personal writings of some of the Founders that this would mean the tiny Jewish population would be free to be Jewish.

This was an uncommon idea, but it was an idea I think born from the Bible. Jesus never told His followers to go and advance the gospel at the point of a sword. He told them to "go and tell", doing good works as they went, spreading Godly love in their wake, impressing people with their Christ-centeredness. Sometimes when you tell, as often happened with Paul, people want to debate you. They want to present their reasons why you're full of nonsense. The Apostle Paul spent most of his adult life reasoning with those of different opinion. Sometimes he's was successful, sometimes he nearly got killed, eventually, it would lead to his death in Rome.

The Founders understood that talking never hurt anyone. Ideas are a good thing, even when the ideas themselves are unsupportable. Error of opinion will harm no one so long as reason is available to shed light on the error and provide correction.

When I say Jesus Christ is the only way to God and that if I had not chosen to believe in Him and accept the salvation He offers I would die in my disobedience to God and the penalty for that is eternal life in Hell, that is my opinion based upon observable data in my own life. I can point to the Bible for various proofs that this is what Christians have believed since the First Century. I can inventory my own life from before I was a Christian and since and say that I am better off as a Christian than before I was one. I can say from my own conviction that I think you ought to accept this because I know it is the truth. My stating of that opinion in no way forces you to accept that opinion. If you diagree with it, you are permitted to use reason to mount an argument against it. You are welcome to try to convince me that I am in error. However, I don't think Thomas Jefferson would agree that you should be allowed to silence my voicing of my opinion just because you don't like it. I think he'd want to know why you can't use reason to show the errors rather than enforce silence so you don't have to be reasonable.

Comodor
QU:"Can I ask, why I was cited in reaction giving me into some relation to someone with different point of wiew...
...after all in meaning as argumentum et hominem...?"
_____________________

You were quoted in an bit about "word-farting". You were cited because, whether your pride lets you see this or not, you struggle with the English language. Many of your posts are just gibberish to us, which is why they are ignored.

Examples: "...case, when girlfriend(In meaning of love-partner) of my friend was physically attacked by clasmates in one US school when advocating right to go interruption, sounds for me as unacceptable" || "In basic, It's true... In fact it's only empty text... One can get inside any abstract lifestyle......such texts are in class o propaganda or demagogism..." || "but I tell you - we, people of high intelect are quite rare, so across snowball method, we know nearly each other"
_____________________

All of the above examples, and more, are word-farts. Bragging about your "high intellect" while word-farting and throwing out wacky theories makes you cartoonish and mockable. And, to complete the circle, your knowledge of Latin seems to be no better.

"Argumentum et hominum" would be translated as "Argument and of the men", which is senseless, a Latin word-fart. The correct Latin phrase you're looking for is "Argumentum ad hominem", which is "argument to the man", I believe (I haven't taken in six years). All this is important only because ET and AD are two of the most common words in the Latin language. For you to attempt at Latin, though having no basic knowledge of the language, is another example of your cartoonish ego's reach exceeding its grasp.

The ego loves lies, so I'm sure all this stings and feels like an "et hominum" attack. Nothing terrible, you just need to go back and study English for a while, and practice a bit of humility in the meantime.




aurorawatcher
I don't have a problem with most of what you have written. However, like many folks, you don't quite fully understand what the key Founders personally believed. Neither Jefferson nor Franklin were strict deists; both of them believed in an active personal God. And neither Adams nor Washington were devout orthodox Christians. As I just showed you, Adams fervently rejected the Trinity. He also elevated man's reason over biblical revelation and thought the Bible, while it did contain some profound philosophy, was ultimately errant.

In fact, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison and Washington by in large agreed on the central tenets of their religious creed. Whatever label we choose to give it (understanding that it is neither strict deism nor orthodox Christianity), applies to them all.

One other thing, they most often spoke of "religion" in the generic sense. And when they did they meant what the text says: "religion" generically NOT Christianity specifically. There is a myth the "Christian Nation" folks peddle that when the Founders said "religion" what they really meant was the "Christian" or even "Protestant" religion. This is not true. And my blogs verify the historical record. What they considered "religion" included, at the very least Christianity (both Protestant and Catholic) Deism, Unitarianism, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Native American Spirituality and they also considered pagan Greco-Romanism "religion." So when, for instance, they talked of "religion" being important to society because of the morality it produces, ALL of these world religious systems qualified under that understanding.

Even when they talked of "Christianity" I can show that sometimes this was shorthand for ALL of these world religions because they believed all world religions taught the same Truth as Christianity and were thus valid ways to God.

Interested in the documented historical record? See my blogs:

http://jonrowe.blogspot.com
http://positiveliberty.com

MGB
I am not going to debate you on the gay marriage issue; I won't even start with someone who believes that homosexuality is caused by demons. We will get nowhere. Though, I am an expert on the Founding and Religion and can engage you there.

The Declaration of Independence is mostly a document of Enlightenment philosophy that tries to use generic langauge that could draw a consensus between the more orthodox Christian forces and heterodox Enlightenment thinkers.

Re Washington. He didn't describe God as either "The divine Architect of the Universe" the "Most High God." And he was, like the other key Framers, imbibed in Greco-Roman and Enlightenment philosophy. He did refer to God as the "Great Architect of the Universe" in a letter to his fellow freemasons and referred to God exactly as they did.

http://www.watch.pair.com/GW.html

Most Christians I know who believe homosexuality results from demons also believe the Freemasonry is demonic.

And the word "nature" as our Founders used it means what is knowable from "reason" not what is revealed in the Bible. As such, natural law and natural rights are discovered primarily through man's reason, not scripture. And this makes sense given that the concept of "natural rights" -- especially a natural right to political liberty -- is not contained in the Bible.

http://jonrowe.blogspot.com
http://positiveliberty.com

Question for Post-it
Post-it posted:
"I'm a Christian who would have no problem taking away most of what others regard as "Civil Liberties". The fact that those "Civil Liberties" are not being taken away is just proof that Christians are not in charge. Heck, Christians aren't even in charge of a lot of churches these days."

I suppose I should thank you, Post-it, for helping prove the point I made in my earlier post. I said I don't believe *most* Christians want to threaten liberty in the name of their religion, but there are *some* Christians who do. You provided backing for both points (by openly avowing your wish to "take away civil liberties", while complaining that not enough of your fellow Christians share your view).

Out of morbid curiosity, Post-it, would you care to elaborate just which civil liberties you'd like to take away from us, and why?





Re: Definition of "Islamist"
Cinderella posted:
"Are “Christianists”—Andrew Sullivan’s newly coined word for Christians who, like Islamists, want to use the power of the law to impose their religious principles on others—poised to seize control and strip us of our fundamental freedoms?"

Actually, I thought Islamists are people who want to use intimidation, even terror, and not the law, to impose their religious principles on others, seize control, and strip us of our fundamental freedoms."

In countries where they are in the majority and have the political power to do so, Islamists *do* use the law to take control and strip non-Muslims (and fellow Muslims of the "wrong" sect) of fundamental freedoms, by basing the civil law on Muslim "shari'a" law.

Are you implying that it would be legitimate for Islamists to do that here in the U.S., if they had the political power to do so? (Remember that if and when you argue that Christians have the right to enforce their beliefs by law because they are the majority, you imply that Muslims have the right to do so where they are the majority, and the right to do so here if they become a majority.)

WRH Bill
I was agreeing with you.

"Out of morbid curiosity, Post-it, would you care to elaborate just which civil liberties you'd like to take away from us, and why?"
________________

I haven't built an exact platform, but, to satisfy your curiosity, I'd start with "Reproductive rights", of course.

I'd also criminalize sexual immorality, (including, but not limited to: prostitution, adultery, pornography, homosexuality, maybe even fornication, indecency and/or birth control). Divorce would also be very illegal.

Children born out of wedlock would be denied the vote. I'd probably also raise the voting age to 40 and repeal the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage).

I'd deny immigration to non-Christians, and rewrite the anchor-baby clause in the Constitution...I'd implement the death penalty in full effect. Drug dealers especially would be executed; with nooses, not needles...Entitlement programs would be deleted, taxes would be capped...Censorship of the public airwaves, of course...English would be the National language; the borders would be on lock-down...Public education would not be compulsory, and would be handled locally and without federal funding.

Again, you've caught me off-guard, I'm probably forgetting a few things, but you get the idea.

MGB
Thanks for your wishes re my friend.

Jefferson did finish his Jefferson Bible which is everything he believed to be True in the Bible after editing all of what he saw was error.

I didn't say the Declaration was a secular humanist document; it is, however, a generic monotheist document and a document of the Enlightenment. Most of the Enlightenment figures believed in God; they just didn't believe in the Christian God. Likewise, the key Founders believed in God and publicly referenced Him in a generic sense to try and be inclusive so that any monotheist could believe they were talking about "their" God. However, when you read their private correspondence and see what THEY really believed, they weren't Trinitarian Christians, and as such arguably weren't Christians at all (if one defines Christianity by its historic credal standards). I'm referring to Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin, who without question denied the Trinity. And Madison, who, almost certainly was a theology unitarian. And George Washington who likely was. The evidence gets less certain with Madison, and even less certain with Washington. The fact that both kept religious secrets, which was a tell-tale sign of infidelity, and both refused to publicly affirm orthodox Christian beliefs, in my opinion tells me they weren't Christian. Neither ever said anything publicly or privately about God that contradicts what Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin believed.

I could go on. My blog documents all of this.

Btw, who is Dr. North? Is it Gary North. His ebook is a great piece of scholarship, even though his Reconstructionism frightens me. And of course, unlike North, I'm happy that our Founders broke with the tradition of covenanting to the Trinarian God and established the "no religious test" clause in Art. VI of the Constitution.

more on Natural Law
Flaming Liberal Multiculturalist

QUOTE - And whenever somebody like qwerty advances the argument about homosexuality being unnatural, somebody else (again like Falkon above) points out all the homosexual behavior that occurs in all manner of species throughout nature. END QUOTE

This misses the point, FLM. Some species of animals eat their young. According to your logic; we should therefore allow for this among the human species.

The point of natural law theory is that for a law to be just it must work with the "nature" of the created order. If a law goes against the natural order it will produce unrest. Laws that permit one to steal will upset the general welfare and cause havoc in the citizenry. Laws that go against nature cannot bring justice.

One of the most powerful forces in nature is the replication of the species'. Just because some small percentage of the species found in nature may be homosexual doesn't negate this powerful force of the natural order. So, even though it's there it represents a "disorder". Those who say the homosexual populations is natures way of controling populations misses the point of natural law and the need for law to reflect the natural order. A classic case of mixing apples and oranges.

Another point of natural law theory is that it doesn't "require" God in the equation; though almost any concept of a Supreme Being can be logically supported by the theory. Don't forget natural law theory began to philosophized centuries BEFORE Christianity by the Greeks. The Romans picked up on the idea and certainly Christian theologians saw in this philosophy areas compatible with Christian thought.

The point is that one doesn't have to be Christian to be against homosexuality. So I can understand why those who wish law supporting homosexual marriage would not like ideas like natural law brought forward. It can be used, as it was in our Constitution, as a means to unite diverse religions and traditions. As history shows -- Christianity has done quite well in the U.S.

Natural Law & Homosexuality
One of the problems with the natural law theory and homosexuality is that in order to get a truly airtight theory that is not subject to contradiction, one must conclude that maturbation and heterosexual oral sex and contraception both equally violate the natural law as homosexuality does. Given that almost everyone violates the natural law like homosexuals do, this theory seems self-evidently absurd and is otherwise unacceptable to most folks. Is there anyone willing to defend these results?

Jon
I'm just hanging out, not particularly trying to get in this argument, but IMO you're on the right track, just going the wrong way.

Masturbation, contraception, and oral sex are un-natural as well. You haven't proven the "rightness" of homosexuality, you've proven the "wrongness" of all non-reproductive sexuality. And, of course, I agree with you on that point.

Trinity
By the Trinitarian God I mean the Triune God or what is held by the Nicene Creed. The key Founders didn't believe this creed central to orthodox Christianity. They were theological unitarians who thought Jesus was a great moral teacher but not God.

I don't like "Natural Law Theory"

qwerty writes:
"This misses the point, FLM. Some species of animals eat their young. According to your logic; we should therefore allow for this among the human species."

This is no logic of mine, qwerty. Initially you claimed that homosexuality could be opposed on the grounds that is 'unnatural'. I and others merely pointed out that your premise is false, because homosexuality does occur naturally.

The above statements make no claims regarding attaching a valuation of any kind (good, bad or anything else) to behavior because it DOES occur in nature.

More generally I don't see much value in this "Natural Law Theory" because it's underlying divining rod, this "natural order", seems to me to be a wildly subjective concept, that can mean whatever you want it to mean. I don't see much difference between "the natural order" and "that which is pleasing to qwerty".

I Didn't Start the Fire, FLM
QUOTE - Initially you claimed that homosexuality could be opposed on the grounds that is 'unnatural'. I and others merely pointed out that your premise is false, because homosexuality does occur naturally. END QUOTE


FLM

In nature animals kill each other. Does this give us justification for murder? And to give you some credit. I can agree that Natural Law Theory can be misapplied. However, your attempt to characterize it as totally subjective is not accurate. Do you believe in the evolutionary concept of "survival of the fittest"? I would assume you do. The natural ability of a species to reproduce is central for this to be so. When the ability of reproduction is thwarted a species is on the path to oblivion. Laws that legitimize unions that have no possibility for the production of offspring are destined for oblivion. So, I can be 100% certain that no homosexual is going to leave behind a brood of second generation homosexuals.

I assume you believe in the Constitutional right to life. Actually, the constitution doesn't give you that right. That right is given to you (according to our Constitution) by natural law. I can agree with several ideas that Jon has been writing about; he's just a bit too libertian for my blood. The value of natural law to our constitution is that it recognizes that some law goes beyond "legislated law". There are rights that people have that go beyond anything that needs to be written. The recognition of this law is one of the principles that have made the U.S. Constitution so enduring. So, I think you have not thought through you comment -- I don't like Natural Law Theory.

The point of Natural Law Theory (again) is that if our legislated law works in conjunction with the natural law we will have good law. If we have law that goes against the laws of nature we will have bad law and we will suffer as a society for such bad law. Not because I say so, not because qwerty wants it to be so, but because Mother Nature will not be thwarted.

BTW -- Post-it. I appreciate you back-up comment to Jon.

Christians under attack
Dr. Elizabeth Kantor is correct. Brilliant and beautifully written column.




Yes, Homos Again
Pitbull
It's not so unreasonable that homosexuality should come up in discussions of this article, though it's certainly not the only direction in which the discussion should lead.

Dr. Kantor was right when she titled her article. Homosexuality and the conservative Christian attitude towards it come up kind of naturally as a counterexample, because many Leftists such as myself consider it a legitimate reason to be unhappy with, and to literally "Warn About" letting the Christian community be the only arbiter of America's mores.

I'm not getting Thru 2 qwerty

Who writes:
"In nature animals kill each other. Does this give us justification for murder?"

No, No it doesn't, and I never claimed that it did, I guess I didn't explain very well in my previous post. Ill try again:

From your use of it I'm guessing that Natural Law Theory holds that:

IF (a behavior is not natural)
THEN (that behavior is bad and undesirable)

I think that's the grounds on which you initially argue against homosexuality, and again several oher posters and myself point out that your premise (the stuff after the 'IF') is false because homosexual behavior does occur in nature.

From your lasts two posts to me you seem to think that, just because I pointed this falsity out to you, that I believe that:

IF (a behavior IS natural)
THEN (that behavior is good)

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT! Really! I don't think that 'Natural Law Theory' believes that either (though you're the expert there, not me). In this case, I am NOT claiming that Homosexuality is to be embraced and well-thought-of just because it occurs in nature. I'm just shooting down your argument for condemming it, nothing more.

I think that all attempts to use 'Natural Law Theory' to decide anything worthwhile will devolve into an endless discussion about what is and is not "natural". Having said that, I have to point out that it is SPECIES which survive over time, not INDIVIDUALS. Sometimes, the survival of a species depends on it's ability to NOT reproduce, or to regulate it's reproduction in the face of famine or overcrowding. Once again this idea has already been expressed here and in many other places, but it can be argued having homosexuality in it's reportoire of behaviors may be essential for the log-term survival of a species.

John Milton wasn't a Christian
Arguably this is the case. I've been doing some research and, though there is still some controversy among Milton scholars, the consensus is that he was an Arian, which is form of unitarianism that views Jesus as a created being inferior to God the father.

This depends, of course, on how one defines "Christianity." But traditionally Christianity has been defined by the Nicene Creed. That is, one must accept the Trinity in order to be a real Christian.

See my latest post:

http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2007/01/unitarian-whigs-it-may-surprise-you-to.html



Not *Just* Homos, Pitbull

See Jon's comment above, pitbull? The Homos haven't *completely* taken over here!

In reading over this discussion I'm amazed at how many Independent thinkers, each with their own approach to the standard doctrines of Christianity, each with their own decisions about what they accept and what they reject, were running around loose in the countryside during the American Revolutionary times! Where did all these people go? They don't seem to be around so much these days. Maybe they're all too unelectable?

Another few points...
Post-it
Well,
i agree, that even daily training with about 1xx friends in Australia, NZ, GB and relatives in Alaska, my English is still crapy...
Once - as long as British Coucil existed - it was better, but since it was closed, there were no good teachers...

Latin
I checked, it's AD...
...well, in fact, I use that laguage only when it's use for naming some events or methods... If standartized naming is in latin I have no reason to use some other name...

About some examples I used...
...well, I used them as counter-facts in some special cases and they shouldn't be dragged from context...
...for another context there should be some better example...
If you dislike using examples - well, there would be problem still, because in this I'm affected by Asian philosophers, where examples are most important...


Mery_go_boy
Quote: "As Falkon points out in an earlier posts there are species that practice homosexuality. This is true.....IF...you consider MAN AND WOMAN another species of Animals...or as the scriptures say Beasts..."

Well, don't you think, it's more animal-like to have nothing like soul...?
To be only 2 types of puzzle-pieces, reproduction machines...?

Because once we even take on mind an idea, that human beings have soul - than there's also possibility to prefer spiritual aspects - love to soul, than physical aspects...
...after all - have soul any gender...?
...have God any gender...?
...and how You're sure, that even believing in God isn't caused by some demons...?

Post-it (vs. WRH Bill)
You joking...?? You're ready to live under that "Christian Sharia"...? I guess no - You're just joking...
...but let's imagine, it could be real...
Quote: "I haven't built an exact platform, but, to satisfy your curiosity, I'd start with "Reproductive rights", of course."
Ok... As human race is overcrowded it could be fixed on Two children per family... No problem..

"I'd also criminalize sexual immorality, (including, but not limited to: homosexuality, maybe even fornication, indecency and/or birth control). Divorce would also be very illegal."

Probably people would be burned at bonfire for that...?

One of the example of positive correlation between symbols in sociology is correlation between prohibition of abortion and rise of criminality and poverty...
(Data gathered in US states where abortion were allowed and later prohibited, few ex-totalite regimes where it was allowed and Poland, where it's prohibited...)

"Children born out of wedlock would be denied the vote. I'd probably also raise the voting age to 40 and repeal the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage)."

Well, what is a "wedlock"...? Some paper from goverment, some paper from church, or some spiritual ritual...?
After all Christian marriage could be considered as void from some point of wiew...

"I'd implement the death penalty in full effect. Drug dealers especially would be executed"

That's good idea... As best with overdose with their own stuff

"Censorship of the public airwaves, of course..."

In US..? Nothing new... After that goofy scandal about Mrs Jackson your "live" media channels are delayed so some so-called "X-rate" (too much natural for purists) content couldn't be shown...

"Public education would not be compulsory, and would be handled locally and without federal funding."

Well, In fact, that shouldn't affect education quality to much...
Look at the international statistics...
Except few universities and private low and mid-lvl schools, it's maybe better to study in Africa...

I'm pretty sure it was joke, but... Are You sure, that there is noone who wish to live in such system...?
I know one politician with those opinions even in mine country..!!

qwerty (vs. FLM)
"In nature animals kill each other. Does this give us justification for murder?"

Well, they kill each other due to contention for food or power over some teritory or pack...

Well, Human's do same... And they don't call it "murder" but "war" or better "war against terror" (...in their frightened minds)
...we can say, that gives animals justification to do same...

Right to life is not natural.. It's only semi-natural and it's maintained by social compromise... Apes and dolphins do so...

Many christian laws are against nature - and it function... Mostly...

Pitbull
Well, It's about if you see people like "reproduction machines" or simple animals without soul...
...and than is dislike against homosexuality ok, because all your arguments are aimed on physical aspects... On body...

But if you think about ppl as about soul-possessed beings than you must concede, that consonance of souls doesn't need to comport with "type" of body...

Materialism or spiritualism...?

(And don't take politics inside - You're probably not from Europe, you don't know, what evil communism mean... You'll be maybe greatly surprised - and many US citizens too - but there exist even apolitical phenomenons)

FLM
Do to my opinions, such as:
"..equall chances for all, but high self-responsibility in one time.." (in fact, anti-christian)
...I'm supposed to be patron of something you'll call "Ultra-right Liberalism"...
(In Europe - political system is different, public is practically apolitical, so no "pigeon-hole" (??) systems are used)
...and I agree with You in many points...

Tolerance Doesn't Include Christians!
Tolerance doesn't include Christians, don't ya know?!?!? You can be tolerant of Muslims, of homosexuals, of different races, but tolerance, in this society, does NOT extend to Christianity.

Honestly, if you look at their history, the homosexual lobby is the most intolerant group of all. Remember Masters & Johnson? Used to be the foremost authority of human sexuality....remember them? They did a 15 year study of homosexuality and came to the conclusion that it is a LEARNED behavior in approximately 90-95% of all cases. This was published in the early 1980's. The growing homosexual lobby did NOT like this report, so they hired their own "experts" and denounced Masters & Johnson. They destroyed their credibility with their hired "experts" and not only ruined their careers, they got divorced and no one has heard from them since.

The powerful homosexual lobby today is like a modern Mafia. If you cross them, they will come after you with both barrels blazing. And Christians are enemy #1. No tolerance, no nothing.

Wake up and smell the coffee people!

Other few points..
Kath

William H. Masters & Virginia E. Johnson NEVER proved that..!!
In fact, they done 2 studies...

First study was between 1964-1968 with 176 homosexuals (94 M, 82 F - age range: 21 to 54) and two control groups - 567 ppl they worked with on their first project and 114 new volunteers...
It was mostly aimed on sex-behaviour and Hetero-couples come out in quite bad light... It was found it's because of society myths - in hetero-couples it was supposed, that man is a "leader" so woman didn't said anything about what she like and quite similar it was vice versa.
Interesting was, that in case of bisexual, sex behaviour copied homo or hetero behaviour...

Then between 1968-1977 they worked with quite small (67 - 54 M, 13 F) group of homosexuals who wanted to be "converted"...
...even that wanting to be "converted", there was failure of 34% (33% M, 40% F)

And - what it's most important - no such a "conversion" fas at the end proved...
...clients only learned how to behave heterosexualy, and how to settle with that behave...
...THAT was goal of whole project...

...some of them were able to partly shift as they were even able to set up a quite functional family with opposite-sex partner and even to have a children...

All that was then written in book "Homosexuality in Perspective"...
...a book where's in fact written, that heterosexual ppl have to teach a lot from homosexuals...
...and that homosexuality will be stil there - even if we'll ignore that...
___________________________________________

Lydia
It's US citizens who are killing many civilists - even women and children all over world...
Doesn't matter if "personally" (US army invasions) or via dictators - after all - how Saddam Husein get power...?
He was named president and get conventional and chemical weaponry from USA to fight with Iran...
...and he was NOT unique...

After all - what one should expect from christians, if we count that they worship mass-murdering god...
(Read bible - Satan killed 10 ppl in bet with God, God killed maybe 2 - 3 milions ppl in 40-days-long fury... Probably, Heaven is only for christians who killed enought non-believers...)
...probably it's true, that ppl are determined by "higher entity" they belive in...
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.