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, November 12, 2007
Harry R. Jackson, Jr. :: Townhall.com Columnist
An Open Letter to the Christian Community
by Harry R. Jackson, Jr.
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


This past year I have spent countless hours writing about problem of the government encroaching upon our religious liberties. I have been shocked that many Christians just don’t seem to grasp the fact that we are in very sophisticated power struggle. We don’t seem to want accept that there is an all-out assault against Christians being waged in the legislature, teamed with the mainstream media. Let me trace four major attempts to thwart faith in the U.S.

Attack No.1 – New Federal Hate Crimes Legislation

Last spring, a move to change hate crimes to include special protection for gays, lesbians, and a litany of other groups began to suddenly build steam. The Congress took HR 1592 from subcommittee to law vote in less than three weeks. Many Christians were not aware as the law was being rushed through Congress and passed in early May. Congressional offices refused to talk realistically about the legislations – calling major Christian ministries (Concerned Women for America, Traditional Values Coalition, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, High Impact Leadership Coalition and a host of other organizations) “alarmists” and “liars.”

Although similar laws are being enforced around the world with a disturbing anti-Christian bias, voters were told they had nothing to fear. Yet, the bias has already begun in America. In Philadelphia (in 2004) an incident occurred during a legally arranged, protest rally at a gay convention. A 75-year old grandmother of three was arrested, jailed, and charged under existing state hate crimes law for attempting to share the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Ironically, the rally did not result in any gays being hurt, wounded, or even intimidated by their actions. If anything, law enforcement officials were the ones who sent the citizens of their state a clear message – “Gays can protest, intimidate and harass anyone anywhere- but Christians had better not speak.”

Attack No. 2 – The Fairness Doctrine

Several attempts have recently been made to reinstate the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.” This doctrine is an antiquated, currently defunct regulation of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which was in effect for several decades until August 1987.

The policy required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues in an equal and balanced manner. On the surface this sounds good. In the best of all worlds it could mean that the little guys get a chance to let their voices be heard. Unfortunately, such doctrines are not easy to implement. In addition, these policies create a chilling affect upon the average broadcaster.

In the current broadcasting environment, the fairness doctrine could be used to mute the voice of Christian and conservative talk shows that are having a major impact on the nation. They would not be allowed to present their biblical or moral views on issues without censorship. On the other hand, liberal talk radio has not been able to get traction in terms of listeners, advertisers, or financial viability. This kind of legislation, if passed, would make it possible for anti–Christian policy advocates to piggy back upon the powerful Christian media network which is much more grassroots than the mainstream media.

Attack No. 3 – ENDA (The Employment Non Discrimination Act)

Despite the efforts of many Christian organizations, Congress passed HR 3685 last week. Again, in concept, ENDA sounds like a positive step to end discrimination in the workplace. However, this legislation has five problems which are highlighted below:

1. ENDA would overturn the historical basis of protected class status by adding “actual or perceived sexual orientation.”
2. ENDA expands civil rights protections on the vague basis of perception.
3. ENDA infringes on the religious liberties of Christian lay people.
4. ENDA puts the integrity of our ministries in jeopardy.
5. ENDA is a direct attack on our freedom of religion guaranteed in the First Amendment.

This bill can still be stopped in the Senate if the Church and conservatives hurry to respond.

Attack No. 4 – Senator Grassley’s Request for Financial Records of Six Media Ministries

Last week marked the absolute lowest ebb of political improprieties when Senator Grassley sent letters to six large media ministries desiring to address financial procedures within these ministries. Grassley claims that he is simply following up on concerns of his constituents. Grassley also stated that he may not stop with these ministries. This statement should be a red flag to all Christian major media ministries. Grassley’s inquires are not warranted for three important reasons:


1. This area should be IRS territory. Proper legal protocol has not been followed. A Senate committee should not be involved in this type of action.
2. There will be a presumption of guilt concerning these ministries that may follow them for years to come, which will affect their positive effect on our culture.
3. Responding to these inquiries will cost these ministries hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal and accounting fees during the next few months, funds which are needed to produce their impactful programming.

Most ministries broadcasting on radio and television are evangelical and conservative. This move could signal them to back away from public involvement in the political arena. Most Christians are not aware of the numerous IRS inquiries and investigations which have already been targeted against politically active ministries during the last few years. The Senate does not need to supercede what the IRS is already doing.

Having outlined these four attacks, we need to know what we can do to make a difference. Four things come to mind.

1. Join millions of other Christians this Thanksgiving season in praying five minutes a day for our nation.
2. Contact Senator Grassley’s office to voice our disapproval of his actions.
3. Contact the office of the President and ask him to keep his promise to veto both the Hate Crimes and the ENDA legislation.
4. In the 2008 election, let’s vote for candidates that hold our values in every office – from president, to congressmen, and down to school board members.

Finally, let’s keep the faith!

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Bishop Harry Jackson is chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition and senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, MD, and co-authored, Personal Faith, Public Policy [FrontLine; March 2008] with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

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

I agree about Grassley
I am not the biggest fans of the likes of Benny Hinn or Ken Copeland, but I do not see where the Senate should be involved in this area. If there are financial improprieties or tax problems, that is why we have the IRS. And if the probe does not find any problems with how the money is being spent in those ministries, that will not erase the taint on them from being investigated. Just the announcement of the investigations makes the ministries look guilty, and you can be sure that the media is not going to trumpet their exoneration as loudly as they do the accusations.

But what's really funny is that Sen. Grassley is suddenly so concerned about the wishes of his constituents. I don't think that there are that many people in Iowa that are clamoring for the good Senator to launch this type of inquiry. It all smells fishy to me.

At Least they Weren't Tassered
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Arlene Elshinnawy, a 75-year-old grandmother

As ConWebWatch documented, "sharing their faith on the public sidewalk" is a misleadingly benign description of what they were doing; in fact, they were doing the bidding of street preacher Michael Marcavage of the group Repent America, who used a bullhorn to try an interrupt a stage performance at a gay street festival in Philadelphia, and were arrested only after they refused to go to an area on the edge of the event.

Jim Crow
Is alive and well, and only the civil disobedience against the criminal intent by law makers themselves will change the course this government is following now.

They have shown they have no respect for individual rights if its a Christian or a Conservative.

No different than the the Justice System of the old South when it passed its Jim Crow Laws.
MLK showed the only way possible to fight the illegality of law when its the system itself that has the criminals in it passing law.

Agree with Jackson But...
These are all infringements on our liberties--speech, assembly, property.

But I honestly don't see how any represent an infringement on religious liberty. How do they interfere with the dictates of conscience to worship God as each sees fit? How do they affect faith of the faithful?

Jackson doesn't explain, just assumes it. Being an atheist lacking faith I admit this would be difficult for me to see, so I'm asking for some reasonable Christians to explain.

Disgusted
I was clenching my teeth through the first 3 "major attempts to thwart faith in the U.S.", but wasn't really surprised by any of your hollow attempts at fear mongering and hate-baiting, and so didn't have much to say. But then I got to number four.

Oh, number four.

"Responding to these inquiries will cost these ministries hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal and accounting fees during the next few months, funds which are needed to produce their impactful programming."

Oh, come on. Surely we can all agree that an unbiased audit of gigantic, tax-exempt, for-profit bastions of intense wealth can only have a positive effect on our society as a whole. If they're operating completely legit, they have nothing to worry about.

Really, I just can not believe that you would list Sen Grassley's requests for information from megachurches as an attack on faith as a whole. Isn't their excessive spending really the biggest attack on Jesus' true message?

Christians have become mealy mouth wimps
In this present day, afraid to stand up for their God Given Rights.
And I am sick of it, and I know many of us are.

We have had the Ministry taken over by wolfs,charlatans, phonies who are in it for money or praise of men and NOT God, and they have dumbed down the people into submissive wimps.

The Congregations have no fight in them but a sprinkling few, they bow down to Caesar and not to God in respect to persons.

Sin has shaped the public image of what Christians in America are all about today, and they keep looking to government for the solution when the government is the problem.

This government is over stepping its lawful authority and the people moan still yet, cause we have left our FIRST Love, Jesus Christ and bow to the gods of this world.

A nation of hypocrites, liars, fornicators, adulterers and thieves, and even honored.
The hero's are people who either act like they are something they are not, or the ones who can play some game well.

I am old enough to remember when Jesus Christ was HONORED by the public, and not scorned and spit on as it is today.

We have even bowed to a court room that has no power to legislate law, and have no law Legislated against Prayer.
Yet all Christiandom has bowed to the decree of the king.

No different than if Daniel had bowed to King Nebuchadnezzar when he commanded all to bow to his god, the golden image.

We are living in the day the Apostle Paul warned was to come, Perilous Times.







The hate is coming from
The sodomites themselves, and from the people who are protecting them from hearing any word of mouth from anyone who disagree with the deviancy of sodomy and the intolerance of extreme hatred these people have for anyone of the Christian Faith.

Personally I do not care how angry or mad my speech makes any man, no more than he cares if his speech offends me, and all justificatiosn for this crime against nature is offensive to me, even if I was not a Christian.

The offence comes directly from the sodomite themselves, as they respect no man, no right, no property, no religion but their own.

They shove this despicable sexual deviancy into the public square and get outraged when all do not agree with the reprobates.
If they would keep it silent and in their bedrooms, no one would be saying anything.
The reprobates will not keep it to themselves but want to SHOVE it down everyone else's throat, and you had best not disagree with the hate filled deviants.

What are our Options?
I for one will fight. If any government tries to tell me what I can do, say, think, or believe; then I and my family will "follow God".

The government of this country is getting very close to coming into a church and saying what they can or cannot say.

When that happens, and I believe it is coming, then the only thing left for the citizens to do is "Lexington and Concord".

Believe me, I do not say this lightly or in some "macho/bravado" fashion. But I would be both a poor Christian and a poor US Citizen if I would not be willing to do so.

talent scout
If I may just hose down the flames shooting of your ears for a second- honestly, I could replace the words "sodomites" and "retrobates" with the words "Christian fundamentalists", and your post would still ring entirely true.

If you could only keep your religion silent and in your churches and livingrooms, no one would be saying anything.

Isn't the Christian effort to block non-discrimination law, truly no threat to your personal liberty or ability to practice your faith, evidence that it is Christians that "will not keep it to themselves but want to SHOVE it down everyone else's throat, and you had best not disagree..."

Don't I have a right to pursue my own happiness, which is undoubtedly hindered when my sexuality, in my view a very central, permanent tenet of my identity and sense of self, is free game for my firing, or my being intimidated, or my being disallowed to visit my loved one in the hospital?

Even if you view my secularism as my own "religion" (a ridiculous notion), don't I have that freedom in this country?

Hope you're not speaking literally.
Talent Scout writes: "The reprobates will not keep it to themselves but want to SHOVE it down everyone else's throat".

I've had my laugh for today.

church and money
thank you Harry Jackson for you well researched and thought provoking column.
Their is an attack on the "Christian Church", Muslim and all others get a free pass from this country. so we have some mega-churches, with high-profile ministers making a little money. I say it's about time!! Most of these ministries have been operation for 20+ years. and they have consistently preached the word, and tithed and asked their congregrants to do the same... Why don't they take a look at these ministries and their outreach to their communiteis... Please Creflo Dollar's ministries is less than 100 million dollar organization... When is a workman not worthly of his hire. Abraham was very rich.
by todays standards that would houses, land, companies, instead of sheep, cattle, and goats.

Give me a break, this is just another way in Harry Jackson's words, " To Muzzle the Pulpits"
Grassley needs to start fishing somewhere else,
How about earmarks for starters...

The public square
Is open to us all to voice our opinions.
That means every single man woman boy or girl has the exact same rights to express their opinions.

I do not want this right taken from any person, I want it protected as the God given right it is.

I believe the sodomite has as much a right to disagree with me as I him, but he has no right to stop me from speaking my own views, beliefs or ideas.

I have never supported any law to outlaw the speech of even the communists among us, whom I despise with passion over ideology.
And I will not allow such people to stop me from speaking up or defending what I believe in.

As an individual free born American Citizen whose Rights come from My Creator, I am going to fight anyone and any government that tries to take my God given Rights away, UNLAWFULLY.


church and money
If I donate to a church, or other charitiable organization. Am I giving so that I can beat my chest about my generous spirit. I give because I believe that God's word says give and it shall be given... that bringing the tithes in the storehouse will bring blessings and not a curse.
In the old testament, the priests recieved from what was given by the people... Ministers work hard they are asked to be fathers, shepherds, counsellors, and teachers.. Should be put a price tag on these. As long as they are not false prophets or after filthy lucre. I say leave them alone... If the IRS gives them a clean bill of health, then Sen. Grassley is stepping beyond his authority... Has he ever heard of separation of church and state.
I guess ministers should only make below the poverty level. Will this make people feel better about themselves.

Unbiased audit?
Frank Rows A Velt writes:

"Surely we can all agree that an unbiased audit of gigantic, tax-exempt, for-profit bastions of intense wealth can only have a positive effect on our society as a whole. If they're operating completely legit, they have nothing to worry about."

We cannot agree at all, and the reason is what follows in your own post:

"megachurches... Isn't their excessive spending really the biggest attack on Jesus' true message?"

Notice the presumption: "Megachurches spend excessively." The audit in question is anything but unbiased. There's a presumption of guilt.

The ECFA (Evangelical Council for Financial Responsibility) establishes Best Practices and standards for church financial accountability, similar to the standards for secular businesses established by the FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board). The only businesses that are required by law to have annual audits are those that are publicly-held; they're required to file a 10-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission, because their stocks are traded publicly. What Grassley is calling for is a higher degree of scrutiny on churches than on businesses.

Ultimately, the question comes up because some people think others are being defrauded and are wasting their money donating to "rich" ministries. If the complaint comes from someone who was promised some service or good they did not receive, it should be heard. If it comes from someone who doesn't like what SOMEBODY ELSE is contributing, the only valid response is "Mind your own damned business."

Can you show me objections coming from those who feel THEY have been defrauded? or is it just some greedy kid who doesn't want Grandma to send his inheritance money to some preacher? or an atheist trying to put religion in the grave?

The US Constitution is being tested
By law makers trying to abolish the God Given Rights for Individual Persons, without the justice of equal protection of the law.

Any law that challenges any individuals Rights of Speech, Faith, Assembly, Representation, or the Press is AN ILLEGAL LAW.
The exact SAME thing the Jim Crow Laws of the Old South were.

The Jim Crow Laws was made to stop certain individuals from having their God given Civil Rights recognized and protected by a blind Justice System, that showed NO RESPECT to any person but only went by the Laws made under the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution.
No law can be made lawfully against the speech or the belief of any man under our Founding Documents and it be lawful.

As the criminals in the south ignored the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence that all of us have the exact same rights GIVEN to one and ALL by the CREATOR, they institutionalized Jim Crow hate crimes against a group of US Citizens over the color of their skin.
Now we have some criminals in government wanting Jim Crow Laws passed against people of Faith, and directly pointed at one group of people of faith, Christians.

I will change my faith for no man, dead or alive.
Sodomy is a sin against God and Nature.

Frank, Hang-tyme
Well here's another laugh for you.

You WILL NOT keep it to yourselves, but WILL parade it down Main Street. You WILL and DO shove it into the public schools in the guise of comprehensive sex ed (Heather Has Two Mommies), in spite of parents' reasonable objections. Who other than the homosexuals and libertines parade and push their sexuality so openly, and why? Deciding to make your so-called private lives public makes you fair game for criticism. So, I guess the choice is you either keep it to yourselves or you learn to take the ctiticism in stride. You don't have the right to not be offended any more than I and my fellow believers do.

If you weren't just as willing to shove your sex lives in our faces as you claim we are in proclaiming what we have been commanded to proclaim, we might not be so tempted to think you a bunch of infantile imbeciles who are obsessed with what you do with your privates!

The homosexuals I know would have nothing to do with you.

My Faith IN God
Is a Civil Right
It is a Right that comes from My Creator.
My Civil Rights do NOT come from the Senate, the Congress or the President.
I have received my Civil Rights from a MUCH HIGHER authority, God.

I will allow no criminal who has gained some seat of power in government to overthrow my God Given Rights.

The very FOUNDING PRINCIPLES OF AMERICA.

Read this line by line and discover the truths of our Founding Fathers.
The Ideas that gave the world America.

THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLES

---------------------------------------------


We hold these truths

(notice the 's' showing more than one truth is revealed)


to be self-evident,

(so plain it is common knowledge, inherent in each man to not need to be taught him)



(Truth 1.) that all men are created equal,




(2)that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

(3)that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

(4) - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,

(5)deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -

(6) That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,

(7) and to institute new Government,

(8)laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
------------------------------------------


This line, line number 8 shows the underlying principle this Nation is Founded in is the truths 1-8

"laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form"


And the very First Principle Jefferson listed is
Rights come from God.



"We hold these truths to be self-evident,



that all men are created equal,

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights



inkling
Your points are well taken, and duly noted.

Since every dollar Creflo Dollar and Ken Copeland spends on fueling up their jets comes from individuals freely giving it, the entire issue is no one else's business. Fair enough.

Even when those preachers' most oft-repeated message is that God intended them to be filthy rich (and so can you!), the people giving the money still do so, after hearing that message, of their own will and effort. Not my money, not my problem. Cool.

Here's where the problem comes: If those preachers are telling millions of people via TV that giving money to their ministry is a ticket to heaven, by whatever twisted version of the Word they subscribe, that notion is tantamount to fraud; it is precisely what the Catholic Church has been apologizing for for centuries- the selling of indulgences.

That taking advantage of a faith-hungry populace for personal gain, you may agree inkling, should not be legal.

Congress shall make no law
If ENDA is of any concern to you, please watch this statement by Mitt Romney on the Boy Scouts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEOJNw4lmlI




ALIVEINHIM
How are you doing? From your above rant masquerading as a post, I deduce that you think I (I'm Hang-tyme) am gay. Nothing could be further from the truth. Women are so very, very, very, very beautiful.

However, your post is still a bunch of nonsense, though the central premise has a little validity. Allow me to ask you a question. Do you keep your heterosexuality in the bedroom?

lonestarblues 1
You ask a reasonable question, although I think the answer is simple. Freedom to practice one's religion IS a liberty intertwined with freedom of speech, assembly, and to some extent (in scenarios posited by those concerned about the measures outlined by Jackson), property.

These measures (I would make an exception of the "Fairness Doctrine") seek to attach a special cost, and/or special liabilities, to speech, assembly, and property wielded on behalf of religion. (The "Fairness Doctrine" I understand to be an attempt on political speech, not religious speech. I don't recall it having had any impact on strictly religious broadcasting in the past.)

Themost immediate concerns I have, regarding these measures, relate to ENDA, and to Grassley's improper intervention in auditing religious organizations. Of all of them, ENDA is the most likely to immediately embroil a church in a lawsuit, for punitive damages from a former church employee who decided he or she was gay, in contravention of the beliefs of that church. A private association like a church should not face the potential of being financially undone, through an action of the state, for its core beliefs. That unquestionably amounts to putting freedom of thought in jeopardy.

lonestarblues 2
On the Grassley effort: the state has the right to ensure, through the IRS, that tax-exempt organizations follow the rules for their kind. But interest taken by the Senate is, ipso facto, political interest -- not executive oversight according to "blind," equally-applied law. Grassley needs to back off. He is applying special, politically-motivated pressure to religious groups.

Imposing special costs on some forms of thought is an attack by the state on them. The idea of "hate crimes" legislation affirms that outright. Literally punishing thought with incarceration, or intervening to prevent it beforehand, may be some way down the continuum of thought suppression, but it operates on the same principle.

Here is my question for you. What purpose is served by establishing a basis on which a church may not adhere to Biblical principles regarding, say, homosexuality, or women in ministry, without losing its tax-exempt status -- or, indeed, losing everything its congregation has built in a lawsuit? What is the purpose of imposing that liability on churches?

Olbermann/Hang-tyme
"Do you keep your heterosexuality in the bedroom?"

Thank you.

If my sexuality were some ego-tripped, selfish, thoughtless, naughty adventure I decided to take one day, just for the hell of it, than it would only be right for me to "keep it in my bedroom", as the Right so eloquently suggests.

But my sexuality, my HOMOsexuality, is as much a part of me as your love for your wife is part of you, Inkling and talent scout. An attack on my love for my partner is as offensive to me as the same would be to you.

I will not be silent, nor will I keep it in my bedroom. Because my partner and I are not only in love when we're in the bedroom. We're in love in the kitchen, too, and in the livingroom, and in the grocery store, and on the train, and everywhere else.

In fact, our love is never diminished by powerful attempts to silence us, and that should speak volumes. My partner and I are truly in love, and you don't have to like it, but I will demand that you respect it, the same way I wouldn't streak in the church during your wedding. (Although that would be hilarious.)

Just respect my choice to be honest about who I am, for pete's sake. Be a human, not a robochrist2000.

Taft and sophia, liars
The point being made by Jackson is that "hate crimes" legislation is going to be used to suppress religious expression. He provides one example; there are dozens of others, which I can find if needed.

The one example he provides is of a "granny" arrested for attempting to preach the gospel to gays at a gay rally. Taft provides an interesting attempt to spin the event, thinking arresting the counter-demonstrators was somehow justified if they used a bullhorn. Of course, demonstrators and counter-demonstrators use such devices all the time; it's necessary if one is to be heard in a large, open place. But to Taft, I guess, trying to be heard constitutes a crime.

The example is pretty plain: 8,000 people got a permit to hold a demonstration on one side of an issue; 11 people got a permit to hold a demonstration on the other side. The 11 were arrested for "harassing" the 8,000.

In the ensuing legal evaluation, all 11 were freed, the courts citing free speech protections, and properly so. But the example remains; the notion of disagreeing with gays constitutes "harassment" and becomes the legal basis for arresting Christians for doing nothing but declaring what they believe.

Lest anyone feel sorry for the poor, harassed 8,000 gays, let's also note that their reaction to those horribly threatening 11 counter-protesters was to send a cadre of "Pink Angels" with whistles to drown them out, and pink styrofoam panel to surround them, so nobody would be able to either see or hear them. So, naturally, it was the CHRISTIANS who were a threat, and were arrested.

No bias there, no. None at all. Horrible example. How dare Jackson bring it up?

A great article!
People need to hear this. The left and the militant homosexuals themselves will stop at nothing to advance a militant agenda. What no body gets or refuses to get is that the Chirstian conservative does not hate the homosexual, nor is the homosexual being attacked in any way. The facts are that it is a deadly lifestyle full of drug abuse and diease. If we hated the homosexual we would encourage them to keep this lifestyle like the left and like the militant homosexuals are doing, and we would be happy to see them continue it to their doom. But we do not. We want to offer a way out for anyone who are at all intersted. There are many ministries of men who were formerly homosexual that seek to help other homosexuals who want to seek them for help getting out of such a lifestyle. These people and groups of former homosexual people and helpers are denied an exsistance by leftists and the militant homosexual agenda. Why are these people denied an existance? Why does the left want to stop the message of the formerly homosexual person? There is no hate at all in what they say. It makes no sense. The only logical conclusion is that the freedom of speech coupled with facts is damaging to their militant agenda and therefore they want to tear down the constitution to force people into silience. They seek to force us to stop trying to warn people about this lifestyle and trying to help them out of it while at the same time they seek to destroy our rights to not have this militant agenda force on us.

Olberman
I'm just fine, thanks! :)

In answer to your question. Yes. And in the family room, the living room, the hallway, even after nearly 29 years of marriage...but the kitchen countertop is a bit hard on older bones (dang!). Your point is...what?

I don't have to parade the intimate side of my married life publicly down Main Street with floats and all the rest, however, in order to justify it. IT IS WHAT IT IS FOR ANYONE; only the insecure feel the need to shout about it, make it the whole point of their existence, and generally drag everyone else into their drama. That was my point.

So what part of my post was nonsense? Can you document?

Frank, whatever your sexual preference, nobody cares if you want to swing from the chandeliers or the doorknobs or hang upside down in the jambs, for that matter! But don't use the end of a gun to force me to *think* a given way about a behavior (or anything else). Whatever I think in my own mind about homosexuality, you'd still be perfectly welcome in my home so long as you conduct yourself in accordance with good manners, like any other guest.

Who are the ones
That fight for oppression is clear.
Any and every single person on earth must be as willing to give to another what he wants for himself to insure Liberty for All.

Otherwise there is no liberty but oppression.
The Law itself is only as good as it is used lawfully to PROTECT the Rights of all US Citizens.
Christians are not second class citizens and have to be put at the back of the bus, but have every bit as much a right to speak out in what they believe in just as much as any other person does.


Governments are the ones throughout history that are the Guilty ones of suppression, oppression and murder by the State.

And the "rule of law" is their path to justify any crime against the persons whom they want silenced.


No law against selling indulgences
Frank Rows a Velt continues his attempt to justify government oppression on the basis of the target being rich and Christian thus:

"If those preachers are telling millions of people via TV that giving money to their ministry is a ticket to heaven... that notion is tantamount to fraud...

"That taking advantage of a faith-hungry populace for personal gain, you may agree inkling, should not be legal."

I could not disagree more.

First of all, the basis of your argument is that you object to the content of what certain men preach. The Constitution is clear on this matter: overseeing the purity of religious content is simply, clearly, and let's hope irrevocably NOT the government's business. And if you disagree, let me ask: how long do you think it will be 'till someone, having read Sam Harris or Chris Hitchens, decides YOU are a fraud, and makes what YOU preach illegal? What will you say then?

When somebody sells a product purported to cure the common cold, and there's no experimental basis for the claim, it's relatively easy to identify a fraud (and even in that case, I would prefer caveat emptor to government action). When the subject is the much more subjective question of how to please God, it's simply insane to use the government to settle the question; the nature of a free society is that such questions are open for debate, and for private action as well - like, donating money to people you think deserve it, no matter what others think.

This is why, no matter how deeply the practice distresses you, there is no law against selling indulgences. Oh, and for the record -- selling indulgences has passed into distant history, and this was accomplished without a single law being passed against the practice.

You don't like what Ken Copeland preaches? Preach something better, and if you beat him in the marketplace of ideas, more power to you. THat's how freedom works.


If Christians were
Even close to being like the intolerant sodomites and God hating socialists, we would be marching into schools, bars, porno shows etc and dragging people out and hanging them immediately.

After all, we do have the numbers and the guns to do it.
But the fact is Christians are against this sort of crimes against God, and we condemn the people who use religion to commit crimes against the Due Process of Law.

But we will not give up our rights to see the Law is according to righteousness and Liberty for all, even the sodomites.
Which I would criminalize like the Founders supported in a much more Moral Generation of Liberty loving Americans.

Who observed the Laws of nature and Natures God, not the laws of a criminal king who opposed God and Liberty.



This is turning into Gay Parade Day
And the topic has little to do with that. We're trying to discuss several, systematic attempts to make Christianity illegal, in point of fact if not in point of law.

But sophia does keep the lies coming (and the insults as well) so I do want to blow the whistle.

She writes: "The "homosexual lifestyle" is not filled with drug abuse and disease anymore than the hetero...There are promiscuous risk takers in either group and those people often suffer consequences..."

If she's familiar with the public health stats, she's lying; if not, then she should shut up and listen to those who are. 'Cause she's dead wrong.

Homosexuals are as much as 4,000 times more likely to contract colo-rectal cancers. Guess why. (Between the Lines, "Anal Cancer and You," Sept. 29, 2000.)

Men who engage in oral sex with other men are more than 800 times more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease than those who do not. ( Centers for Disease Control, "Resurgent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Disease Among Men Who Have Sex With Men," September 10, 1999)

HPV affects 60% of non-AIDS-infected homosexual males, and 100% of HIV-positive males. (Infectious Disease News, "Because of HPV, anal cancer screening indicated for certain high-risk groups," October, 1997)

I could go on, but I think the point's made. Sophia, once again, launches ignorance and expects us all to bow down.

scarier than britney's parenting
Hey Inkling, you know what? You're right. Every pastor on earth is free to preach whatever they like, and no one can ever argue. They can just leave the pews if they want.

So when is the line crossed? Since our salvation is not something we'll ever be able to quantify, and so since those asking for money in the name of that salvation are free to allow any common garbage escape their lips without fear of an ounce of condemning evidence against them ever coming to light, is there any line whatsoever they may be able to cross before their actions become so heinous as to become illegal?

Benny Hinn has millions of people believing that a touch of his hand to their forehead will take away their cancer.

In light of Christianity's wealthiest names being convicted a scant 20 years ago for these very crimes, and in light of the fact that these operations can afford incredible amounts of technology that can sleight-of-hand anyone in to thinking anything is actually taking place:

Isn't it all incredibly scary to you?

Shut 'em down and arrest 'am all? No.
Audit them? Absolutely.

Frank Rows A Velt
writes:

"Here's where the problem comes: If those preachers are telling millions of people via TV that giving money to their ministry is a ticket to heaven, by whatever twisted version of the Word they subscribe, that notion is tantamount to fraud."


You know the mind of God, eh? Well, good for you. Unfortunately, the fraud is difficult if not impossible to prove. Much like the "ab-lounge", or the magical diet pill minutes having been paid, those air minutes are paid for by those ministries....

And believe me, I am no fan of Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, etc. But someday, I fear you by your infinite wisdom will come along to a ministry I do respect, and apply your same logic.

Question
Does the Reverend Jackson want to do away with all Federal Hate Crime laws or just does not want to extend it to include crimes committed against Gays and Lesbians? I think that some of these so-called Christians adamantly opposed to this law are milking their followers of their bank accounts.

ALIVEINHIM Part 1
Aliveinhim (AIH) states: "So what part of my post was nonsense? Can you document?".

Olberman Rocks (OR): With pleasure, and I'll do most from your 12:26 p.m. post.

AIH: "You WILL NOT keep it to yourselves, but WILL parade it down Main Street".
OR: Probably a very small percentage of homosexuals engage in this behavior, much like white people that join the klan or black people who join the Nation of Islam. Yet, you attempted to generalize based on the fringe element of a particular group.

AIH: "You WILL and DO shove it into the public schools in the guise of comprehensive sex ed (Heather Has Two Mommies), in spite of parents' reasonable objections".
OR: If Heather does have two mommies, isn't it better for teachers to intervine and discourage harassment resulting from circumstances Heather has no control over? And even if parents object, that doesn't change the fact that Heather is being raised by a gay couple. Discouraging harassment doesn't equate to approval.

I see all the usual suspects...
... are making an appearance.

NoTalent, NoInkling, and a trainee in misinformation and hysteria TNboy.


Sophia: I _loved_ your posts of 2:09 and 2:20. Precisely.

Sophia
Why do begin every post with an ad hominem insult attack against some other poster with whom you disagree?

heresyarch
Hmmmmm....Do I know the mind of God...Good question.

I'd venture to say that I know the mind of God as well as every other individual on the face of the Earth.

And seeing as how millions of those people use a handful of probably-unrelated one-sentence verses to unequivocally condemn the foundational part of my being known as my sexuality, I would conclude that self-serving, sanctimonious judgment abounds.

ALIVEINHIM Part 2
AIH: "Deciding to make your so-called private lives public makes you fair game for criticism".
OR: So you say you keep your intimate life private. Tell me AIH, have you ever introduced your wife (whom I'm sure you love) to coworkers. Have you ever kissed her or held hands with her in public. Have you professed your unconditional love to her with anyone other than her. If so, you parade your private life in public.

If Frank did any of the above with his partner, you'd consider it shoving his sexuality down our throats.

P. S. The first part of your last post was very funny. It's also something I can relate to.

dyerje
"You ask a reasonable question, although I think the answer is simple. Freedom to practice one's religion IS a liberty intertwined with freedom of speech, assembly, and to some extent (in scenarios posited by those concerned about the measures outlined by Jackson), property....That unquestionably amounts to putting freedom of thought in jeopardy."

Right, but those liberties hold regardless of religious faith. And I can understand they relate to some values Christians may hold, or not, or anyone else. Even as an atheist I likely share many or most of those values. And I agree with Jackson and other posters many of our liberties are being limited as government expands. But I'm asking what specifically regarding liberty of conscience is being threated? Jackson nor any poster so far seems to have lost any faith.

I agree, for example, government has no business interfering with a private, voluntary association, well, unless that organization claims exemptions or receives funding from the government. There are always strings attached such that what the government giveth you can be sure it will taketh away in some other way.

The separation of church and state?
If the main purpose of the finances is for public welfare...the only exception Senator Grassley has is a recent denial in making the ministry records public. Strange as that might seem...does any one have the right to access the financial records of the FBI, CIA or the NSA? It wasn't that long ago when the IRS was given powers to maintain their own Army, ( nick named the black booted thugs ) to impose fear and intimidation on the tax payers. There needs to be in place laws prohibiting gross negligence and abuse of powers by our govenment. By the way, the reason that thug army was disbanded was they falsely and mistakenly broke into the home of a retired minister who died of shock because of it. Public outrage fixed that mistake!

Last post about homosexuality
...since that is not today's topic.

1) The statistics I posted did not differentiate between "committed" and "uncommitted" homosexuals; but they do demonstrate that homosexuals as a group have a MUCH higher incidence of many serious diseases.

2) The occurrence of a "committed" homosexual relationship is very rare, indeed. The proportion of gays claiming an interest in such relationships was reported as 3% in one study, and another study, attempting to assess homosexual "marriages," had to become a nationwide study just to find a large enough number of subjects to make the study meaningful (they found 150 in the entire nation who were willing to participate). So any difference between "committed" and "non-committed" homosexual relationships is going to be moot.

3) The average tenure of a homosexual "committed" relationship is around 18 months, and such relationships almost always include frequent infidelity. It happens that relational instability is part of the pathology of homosexuality. Since STD spread is related to number of partners, it's unlikely that gays in "committed" relationships have better health records than others.

4) Sophia, you never bested me in anything. I proved beyond a doubt that you were lying to the audience here. I'm sorry that you're psychologically incapable of recognizing your own failures, but that's not my problem.

5) My mother was 10 to the billionth power a better human being than you will be in your highest-flying dreams, and raised me very well indeed.

Frank Rows A Velt
"And seeing as how millions of those people use a handful of probably-unrelated one-sentence verses to unequivocally condemn the foundational part of my being known as my sexuality, I would conclude that self-serving, sanctimonious judgment abounds."

I thought the topic was whether or not laws should be passed to prevent "frauds" as *you* have defined them from hitting the airwaves. The relevance your reply is what? Obfuscation?

Is this *your* justification for shutting down Kenneth Copeland? Benny Hinn?

Enact more *unconstitutional* laws?

I got the part in the constition where the government should established a free exercise clause of religion...but I missed the free sodomy clause

so since the topic has to do with restricting "frauds", since you know the mind of God, like Benny Hinn from peddling their indulgences, as *you* equate them, I believe the sancimonius, self serving judgement is all in your court.

Gays and disease
Inkling_Revival seems to think that all STDs are spread by gays and lesbians and cites some very amazing figures, which pure BS. I believe that there is too much promiscuity in the gay male community, which is caused by the difficulty gay males find them in our society. They surely don't wake up one day and say - yippee, I'm gay. Does she also think that only gays and lesbians have oral or anal sex?

She also didn't mention that gay and lesbian teenagers are far more likely to commit suicide than heterosexual teenagers. My guess is that Ms. Inkling_Revival thinks that gays and lesbians only account for 1% of the population.


Sophia my sweet
You mis-read my post.
I will just judge it to be intentional, which is normal in your world.
----------

sophia writes: 2:51 PM
For Talent
Since you are so afraid of an angry mob of gay men storming your church and beating you up or hanging you,

I would think you WOULD support hate crime legislation!
---------

I do not need another law Sophie, already have enough to cover such situations, I would just shoot them, myself.

When liberty of conscience is violated
lonestarblues, who stands out here as a polite and reasonable man, asks: "But I'm asking what specifically regarding liberty of conscience is being threated? Jackson nor any poster so far seems to have lost any faith."

Nothing the government does or can do will cause any person to lose faith (but note my comments about education, below). That's not the issue.

What the government can do is reduce our LIBERTY based on our faith. That's being attempted, and has been since the 1970s.

The first real forays by Evangelicals into the public eye took place over attempts by the Carter administration, back in the 1970s, to apply secular hiring standards to Christian ministries and churches. There was a threat that churches could lose their tax-exempt status for refusing to hire gays, for example.

There have been attempts various times by states to require Christian schools to teach particular things about multiculturalism.

There have been several instances of Christian ministers being arrested and charged under "hate crimes" legislation in Canada and Europe, simply for publicly calling homosexuality a sin, raising the likelihood that such legislation will be used for a similar purpose here in the states.

Christians are regularly asked to pay property taxes to fund schools that teach moral relativism and scientific materialism, both making positive claims about the universe that contradict Christian teaching.

David Limbaugh wrote a reasonably interesting book entitled "Persecution" a few years back, and it documents some 800 incidents of attempts to refuse Christians rights to do things, from singing Christmas songs to hiring according to their convictions. Many of these attempts failed because of court protection, but the attempts took place, and continue to occur.

The last post
Let's hope it is the last post on the subject from NoInkling, but I'll bet it isn't.

"1) The statistics I posted did not differentiate between "committed" and "uncommitted" homosexuals; but they do demonstrate that homosexuals as a group have a MUCH higher incidence of many serious diseases."

Individuals rejected by their communities often engage in destructive behavior. That makes the incidence of disease higher. The people who reject gays--that means YOU--are partially responsible.

"2) The occurrence of a "committed" homosexual relationship is very rare, indeed. The proportion of gays claiming an interest in such relationships was reported as 3% in one study, and another study, attempting to assess homosexual "marriages," had to become a nationwide study just to find a large enough number of subjects to make the study meaningful (they found 150 in the entire nation who were willing to participate)."

I see. So heterosexual marriage is destroyed by just 150 gay couples who want to marry? If you believe this, you're hysterical. (And I don't mean funny ha-ha.)

"3) The average tenure of a homosexual "committed" relationship is around 18 months, and such relationships almost always include frequent infidelity. It happens that relational instability is part of the pathology of homosexuality. Since STD spread is related to number of partners, it's unlikely that gays in "committed" relationships have better health records than others."

Evidence for either assertion? Especially the second.

"4) Sophia, you never bested me in anything. I proved beyond a doubt that you were lying to the audience here."

Deluded. But we knew that.

"5) My mother was 10 to the billionth power a better human being than you will be in your highest-flying dreams, and raised me very well indeed."

I'll take Sophia any day.

To Little Ms. Inkling
Where do people like you get some much misinformation? What would you do if your son or daughter came home one day and said, I am homosexual? Would you do what Alan Keyes, former Republican Presidential Candidate, did to his daughter? He kicked her out of the house.

Talent scout
The hate is coming from
The christianists and from the people who are protecting them from hearing any word of mouth from anyone who disagree with the deviancy of religious bigotry and the intolerance of extreme hatred these people have for anyone who doesn't subject themselves yunder the tyrammy of the most extreme forms of the Christian Faith.

Personally I do not care how angry or mad my speech makes any man, no more than he cares if his speech offends me, and all justificatiosn for this crime against humanity is offensive to me, even if I was not a member of a minority they seek to oppress and destroy.

The offence comes directly from the christofascists themselves, as they respect no man, no right, no property, no religion but their own.

They shove this despicable religious bigotry into the public square and get outraged when all do not agree with the reactionaries and zealots
If they would keep it silent and in their churches and keep mum about their vicious beliefs and bigoted, supremacist lifestyles, no one would be saying anything.
The zealots will not keep it to themselves but want to SHOVE it down everyone else's throat, and you had best not disagree with the hate filled bigots.

Swampfox writes
"Does the Reverend Jackson want to do away with all Federal Hate Crime laws or just does not want to extend it to include crimes committed against Gays and Lesbians? I think that some of these so-called Christians adamantly opposed to this law are milking their followers of their bank accounts."

I'll wager he wants all Federal Hate Crime Laws done away with. The whole hate crimes legislation controversy became front and center over the Matthew Sheppard case.

I doubt there is one conservative evangelical on this board....Inkling, or Talent Scout...or myself, that wants Hate crimes for the protection of Christians.

In theory most crime is by default "hate"....it certainly ain't love.

On a more serious note
The day Bush vetoes ENDA I will start sacking our Christian employees in my company. I have avoided hiring Christians for some time now, but after this I will sack all of them.

After all, thay believe that it's their Go given right to oppress and discriminate against gays so it's only fair that they will have a dose of their own medicine. I don't care if they're good workers or an aseet, they're Christians and thay have to go.

I don't hire racists, I don't hire Christians. According to Jackson it's Christian duty to advocate for hate crimes against gays nd to discriminate against gays in housing and eployment). If I had tenats I would kick all the Christians out as soon as possible.

You vicious and meanspirited Christians are protected bith by hate criomes laws and by anti-discrimination statutes but you believe that it's you God given right to desroy and crush as many gay lives as you can.

Jackson represents utter evil and I do not want single person as vicious as him in my business or in my social life. I will not work with, socialize with or befriend any Christian person as long as I live. And I sincerely hope that one day Jckson and you all will be treated in same manner you treat gays now.




heresyarch
I have never spoken in support of "shutting down" Ken Copeland or Benny Hinn. In fact, in one post, I wrote: "Shut 'em down and arrest 'am all? No. Audit them? Absolutely."

My point is that if you want the "homosexual agenda" to be silent and go away, you must be open to the same critique being applied to the "Christian agenda". In your worst analysis, my sexuality was completely my choice, rendering it identical to your faith.

Of course, I know my sexuality was NOT a choice whatsoever. So to that end, my committed love for manflesh garners a higher position in the human condition than your committed love for christflesh. My sexuality is WHO I AM. Your faith is YOUR CHOICE.

As it is now, Christians, as such, are protected by federal hate crimes law. Someone who beats you up while calling you a Jesusfreak will be convicted of a federal crime, in federal court. All that for something you have, by definition, chosen.

As a gay man, with (give me the benefit of argument here) no choice as to his sexuality, I not only have the burden of living a clean honorable life (which so many of my brethren don't, admittedly), I also have to contend with constant condemnation by those speaking for God, the fear of public attack for something as simple as a stroke of the back of the neck by my man on the public bus, and no chance of actually getting married (how would YOU feel?), and all of that withOUT federal hate crime protection.

No, I don't think any churches should be shut down. I don't think any evangelist should be taken off the air. But the fact that you and inkling are so quick to defend Ken Copeland et al is scary on a whole new level to me.

Audit "pious" millionaire TV celebrities who ask for money every single week from people who don't know any better? How in the world could you be against that?

Swampfox writes:
To Little Ms. Inkling
Where do people like you get some much misinformation? What would you do if your son or daughter came home one day and said, I am homosexual? Would you do what Alan Keyes, former Republican Presidential Candidate, did to his daughter? He kicked her out of the house.

No, I would not. Nor, would I use that fact to make political points as Edwards did in 2004.

Modern Day Pontius Pilate
I find it incredibly ironic, that the tax and spend Congress is more worried about donated money being spent than tax money forcibly taken from the American taxpayer and used over and over again in silly, worthless pork barrel spending.

He recently indicated that the investigations are not about doctrine, yet is quick to quote Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, not a Bentley - that sounds pretty doctrinal to me.

Further, tracing all of this commotion back to it's original sources, it is about doctrine. Two ministries are the ones who have been attacking these mega-ministries and it is over doctrinal issues. Didn't the Pharisee's do the same thing with Jesus, complain to the government?

Why is Grassley doing the Dem's dirty work? It is the Dems who want to silence the church.

I would suggest the best thing Senator Grassley could do, is run. As fast as he can from these hearings. Repent and drop the whole charade, and focus on his colleagues out of control spending of our money for once. Or else he will have a legacy of being a modern day Pontius Pilate.

Rufus writes:
The day Bush vetoes ENDA I will start sacking our Christian employees in my company. I have avoided hiring Christians for some time now, but after this I will sack all of them.

After all, thay believe that it's their Go given right to oppress and discriminate against gays so it's only fair that they will have a dose of their own medicine. I don't care if they're good workers or an aseet, they're Christians and thay have to go.

I don't hire racists, I don't hire Christians. According to Jackson it's Christian duty to advocate for hate crimes against gays nd to discriminate against gays in housing and eployment). If I had tenats I would kick all the Christians out as soon as possible

And very soon after, you would be out of business, thanks to the civil Rights Act of 1964. Those fired employeees would sue YOU, and win. Think about that, BIGOT.

The debate here seems to be more one of
muzzling Christians than anything else...

What the Bible says is clear. And anyone can read it for themselves at "http://www.biblegateway.com".

May I recommend those who want to parse out this sin or that sin (that they don't have) remember the Bible says ALL have sinned and need a Savior? Even the Pope, Billy Graham, and Sophia...

Romans 1:18-32 seems to indicate homosexuality is a symptom of not worshipping God; but it's no worse than pride, gluttony, etc...

Rather than worrying about who (other than me) is doing what, we should be getting ourselves right with God and praying that He will forgive our sins and heal our land...

AMAZING!
Jesus commanded Christians, "Go... preach... to EVERY creature..."

Jesus said, "If you love Me, keep My commands..."

The New Testament says, "God was not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance..."

Christians are demonized for preaching the gospel; they are labelled fascists for believing that Jesus meant it when He said, "I am the (only) way..."

EVERYONE can convert to Christianity; every race, every religion, every sexual orientation is allowed (and ENCOURAGED) to repent and convert to Christianity.

So why ARE Christians so reviled and hated by militant anti-Christians? The secular, the irreligious and the atheists seem to FEAR Christians. Christians are harmless; I know because I am one. Why the fear? Why the hate?

Inkling's continued rant
Inkling_Revival writes, "Christians are regularly asked to pay property taxes to fund schools that teach moral relativism and scientific materialism, both making positive claims about the universe that contradict Christian teaching."

Inkling, I pay taxes to fund schools and I don't have any children. I pay taxes to fund a lot of things which I disagree. I guess that I am being persecuted, too?

Frank...
"I have never spoken in support of "shutting down" Ken Copeland or Benny Hinn. "


But then you wrote, and raised my suspicion:

"That taking advantage of a faith-hungry populace for personal gain, you may agree inkling, should not be legal."

Uh, huh. Caught with your hands in the cookie jar, eh? Me thinks you would vote otherwise.

"In your worst analysis, my sexuality was completely my choice, rendering it identical to your faith."


I haven't made one cottin picken statement about homosexuality, so don't impute your thoughts to me. BTW, I oppose any "hate crime" legislation created to protect Christians (or any special interest group, for that matter).

heresy
First, I did not mean to attribute the analysis that my sexuality was my choice solely on to you. I meant the hypothetical "you". My apologies. But, if you happen to agree with me that my sexuality is inborn, innate, and natural, I would be surprised.

Secondly, so I raised your suspicion when I wrote "That taking advantage of a faith-hungry populace for personal gain, you may agree inkling, should not be legal", after I had said I wouldn't want to shut them down.

So you're admitting that these evangelists are taking advantage of people? How long should that remain legal? How much misleading rhetoric must spill from their greedy mouths before they're officially deemed extortionists? Or disturbers of the peace? Aren't they kind of yelling "Fire" in a public place?

To Lumberjack
Lumberjack writes, "No, I would not. Nor, would I use that fact to make political points as Edwards did in 2004." Edwards and Kerry were horrible in 2004. I have the utmost respect for the Cheney's in the manner that they have accepted their lesbian. And, I voted for Bush in 2000 and in 2004.

dyerje
"Here is my question for you. What purpose is served by establishing a basis on which a church may not adhere to Biblical principles regarding, say, homosexuality, or women in ministry, without losing its tax-exempt status -- or, indeed, losing everything its congregation has built in a lawsuit? What is the purpose of imposing that liability on churches?"

Control. Interference. Coercion. But all the church need do is cut the strings tied to tax-exempt status. If you don't want government regulation, don't depend on it. There are churches that do that and are free to do as their conscience dictates.

It would be the same if I had a business. As long as I don't depend on government, I'm free to hire and sell as I see fit.

Now if you're citing cases of churches that do not in any way depend of government, then, I agree 100%, it's got no business meddling, and I'll stand right beside you and fight it.

Yelling Fire in a public place
"Everybody quick! Run towards the exit in an orderly fashion, drop a 20 in the basket by the door, and get outta here 'fore the devil gitcha!"

lol

Swampfox writes:
To Lumberjack
Lumberjack writes, "No, I would not. Nor, would I use that fact to make political points as Edwards did in 2004." Edwards and Kerry were horrible in 2004. I have the utmost respect for the Cheney's in the manner that they have accepted their lesbian. And, I voted for Bush in 2000 and in 2004.

Many of my gay friends faced the same response that Keyes's daughter did. I find Keyes's response reprehensible, and for that reason alone (And there are others) would not vote for the man.

BTW, several of my wife and I's gay friends have asked us to stand as family for hem when the Cathedral of Hope here in Dallas has its Celebration of the Family Sunday, and we have proudly done so.

frank roosevelt is an idiot
just like the original roosevelt. taft, swampgas and the rest of you left wing homosexual morons. the moron website is the du guys, go there. this site is for people with a brain. seeing as no democrat has a lick of common sense you don't belong here.....fundamental christians are the only good thing america has going for it right now. the teacher thug unions who teach our kids nothing but we have to pay for no service, abortions which are murder and we have to pay for them. the american people are no longer a great people. we have been rotted from the inside out by scum like hillary annnnnd "anyone" who would vote for her. after you idiots turn this into a hillary dictatorship and all your freedoms are gone, then you'll understand that conservatives were right all along. but, then it's too late and we owe it all too you dummies.

inkling_revival
"Nothing the government does or can do will cause any person to lose faith (but note my comments about education, below). That's not the issue."

Oh? That seemed to be Jackson's.

"What the government can do is reduce our LIBERTY based on our faith. That's being attempted, and has been since the 1970s."

Ah, OK, I'll try to look at it that way.

"The first real forays by Evangelicals into the public eye took place over attempts by the Carter administration, back in the 1970s, to apply secular hiring standards to Christian ministries and churches. There was a threat that churches could lose their tax-exempt status for refusing to hire gays, for example."

But iirc this applied only if the ministry depended on government exemption or funding, and it applied to all government-dependent institutions and companies. As I said above, cut the government strings and then government can't regulate.

"There have been attempts various times by states to require Christian schools to teach particular things about multiculturalism."

Private schools that claimed no federal exemptions or funds for programs?

Canada and Britain I can't speak for.

"Christians are regularly asked to pay property taxes to fund schools that teach moral relativism and scientific materialism, both making positive claims about the universe that contradict Christian teaching."

Everyone must, even if you don't have kids. Christians are not targeted.

(Don't you mean metaphysical materialism? Scientific materialism is simply the scientific method.)

David Limbaugh I find unreliable and truthy.


As I said to dyerje, if Christians are being targeted unfairly I will stand with you in protest. But I see the problem as being broader than government interfering with Christians, it interferes far too much in everyone's lives.

Thank you too for the reasoned response.

No Christian gays or Lesbians
Of course there no Christian gays or lesbians. All Christians have the same view on homosexuals.

Nothing to do with religion
I agree with the author's points, and it has nothing to do with religion.

Hate crimes: seeks to make some more equal than others in the eyes of the law. Sorry, no matter how much I might like the 'some', that's just wrong.

Fairness doctrine: is simply an attempt to squelch talk radio, which happens to be popular among right leaning folk. Left leaning folk have the same opportunity for broadcast (but apparently not the audience). Success is not a reason to shut down anyone's broadcast.

ENDA does not offer protection to anyone not already protected. It simply paves the way for lawsuits, and seeks to dictate who someone can hire. Business owners have to be able to hire people who fit their business. In a given situation, that might mean it's more desirable to be gay (female, religious, blonde, smart, black, asian, male-whatever), less so, or doesn't matter. Oughtn't to be legislated.

$3. We have the IRS to audit any business. Why would congress want to take it on (not like they don't have anything to do).


To truthseeker
Don't you realize that I am gay, but a Republican and a Christian. I have never have voted for a Democrat for national office. Amazingly, I don't think that there is a serious Republican candidate this year that you could really call anti-gay. I never have liked the evangelical tent preacher group that believe that they have a direct pipeline to God..............except for Billy Graham. This year I adhere to the belief that we don't need another Bush or Clinton in the White House.

itcanbedone
"so we have some mega-churches, with high-profile ministers making a little money. I say it's about time!! Most of these ministries have been operation for 20+ years."

Conservatives: Willing to excuse a little greed in the name of moral sanctimony any day.

(Wait! there's more!)

"Please Creflo Dollar's ministries is less than 100 million dollar organization..."

lol. Oh, poor Creflo. How will his kids ever see a doctor without SCHIP?! roflmao

Say WHAT!?!?!
Swampfox writes: "...there are no Christian gays or lesbians."

Swampfox ALSO writes: "...I am gay, but a Republican and a Christian." (and Swampfox also responds to every column that has anything to do with ENDA; not that there's anything wrong with that).

Swampfox could so easily be a friend of mine. He was gay all his life until he was age 33. Then he experienced a spiritual transformation, got married to a great gal and is a proud father of four terrific kids.

I believe he might qualify as a "gay Christian". I have no doubt that he still is sometimes attracted to men. If he ever acted on those feelings, I guess that would be "gay". But his Christianity guides his behavior and, as an act of faithfulness to God, he remains faithful to his wife. Does that mean he is denying himself? Of course! Just as I deny myself of every woman I find attractive in order to be faithful to my wife.

Why can't gay men marry women and have children and control their sexual drives the same way straight men do? Just wondering... "with God all things ARE possible..."

Hate crimes, fairness doctrine and ENDA
I don't the the Federal Government should be getting into passing such laws. It should be left to the States. As for the so-called Fairness doctrine, it should be declared unconstitutional along with all the campaign contribution laws that limit one's ability to finance someone's campaign. Laws should, however, require complete disclosure. Most large corporations that have a grain of sense already have something that are similar to ENDA that protect gays and lesbians.

phileo
"Why can't gay men marry women and have children and control their sexual drives the same way straight men do? Just wondering... "with God all things ARE possible..."

First, I just threw up in my mouth a little. I can't believe it's come to this. "Okay, um, just...just try guys, okay? I know you like men, but um, God said no, so just try, okay?!"

Puh-leeze.

Second, how about the fact that straight men, after denying their lusting selves in the face of hot women all day, get to go home and completely satisfy their urges, and purely.

Should gay men attempt the same, they become Sen. Craigs, Rep. Allens, Rev. Haggards, etc. Our attraction to the same sex is WHO WE A...oh, never mind.

I need a beer.

To Phileo
Phileo writes, "Why can't gay men marry women and have children and control their sexual drives the same way straight men do? Just wondering... "with God all things ARE possible..."

Yep, with God all things are possible. It is even possible that God will enlighten you as to the fact God makes gays and lesbians.

JUST AN OBSERVATION
It seems that most bloggers expressing disdain for homosexuality only target homosexual men. Even when citing statistics supporting the unhealthy consequences of male relationships, lesbianism is ignored.

While heterosexual women (particularly black women) comprise the the fastest growing and most vunerable group for HIV contractions, lesbians are all but insulated from the disease. For women, does that mean lesbianism should be preferable to heteroness (I know, it's not a word). I'm sure even old Inkling Revival would have trouble spinning those statistics.


Who scraped skin off your nose?
Frank Rows a Velt has been carping all day about Crefflo Dollar, Ken Copeland, and other rich Christian ministries. So far as I can tell, Frank is not Christian himself, and appears to consider himself morally and intellectually superior to Christians.

So I'm wondering -- why is the behavior of some Christian minister or other of any irritation to him? What difference does it make to him, one way or another, if some Christians decide they want to give their money to a ministry that's wealthy? How does that pick Frank's pocket? How does it beggar him in any way?

You know, personally, I'm a Christian with a pretty good education. I dislike Crefflo Dollar; I think he teaches some wrong things, and I would not contribute to his ministry, nor would I encourage anyone I cared about to spend much time listening to him. But why that's any of Frank's business, I can't imagine.

Guys like Frank love to call some ministers "charlatans and thieves", but it's not their money that's being "stolen." It's not anybody's, really; it's donated voluntarily, even willingly. So why do they want to stop people from doing something they're glad to do?

They're busybodies, pure and simple. Control freaks. Can't stand watching other people enjoying something they're not part of.

Frank, MIND YOUR OWN DAMNED BUSINESS!!!!!!! Don't you have a family of your own to protect?

Empty Headed Follwers
To everyone who is getting so upset about ENDA because of the half-truths people like Harry Jackson write about have any of you actually read the freakin' bill? People of Faith will still be PROTECTED!!!

Maybe you should start doing your own research for yourselves – then your anger might be justified:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=1 10_cong_bills&docid=f:h3685ih.txt.pdf


ANOTHER THOUGHT
Does anyone remember the moral crusader Bill O'reilly promoting homosexuality? He did, after all, encourage his producer to invite her female friend to join them for a menage-a-trois. Why are conservatives not outraged about this?

Empty Headed Follwers
To everyone who is getting so upset about ENDA because of the half-truths people like Harry Jackson write about have any of you actually read the freakin' bill? People of Faith will still be PROTECTED!!!

Maybe you should start doing your own research for yourselves – then your anger might be justified:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=1 10_cong_bills&docid=f:h3685ih.txt.pdf


My first cousin's experience
I have a first cousin who married a lawyer in Georgia. It was her first marriage, his second. He had children with his first wife. It turned out he was GAY. She was devastated. In my view he is scum.

sophia, you must be
dumber then ear wax. when did i say no rep will get elected. i said any one who would vote for hillery is anti american. also dumb as a box of rocks. i guess i'm talking about you, huh!

FrankSwamp, you're being ignorant...
"Ignorant" in the sense of IGNORING the root of the question. I'm not denying what you say about being gay-by-nature - in other words you believe God made you that way. I'm just saying that sexual behavior can be controlled, properly channelled and DISCIPLINED. And it's clear in the Bible that God commands sexual restraint and self-control. It's clear that His plan for sex is that it be enjoyed within the bounds of marriage between one man and one woman.

It's fine if you want to live your life however you choose. Just don't try to justify your behavior by blending Christianity with hedonism and narcissism. Such a blend is impossible.

A gay Christian is one who no longer engages in gay behavior. Anything less is not Christian. I'm not trying to condemn or be unkind. I'm just saying that, if you want to experience God through a relationship with Christ, I APPLAUD you. I would just encourage you to make changes in the way you live in order to experience the "righteousness of God in Christ" and experience the full potential which God intended when He created you.

inkling
I do, in fact, have a family to protect.

It's made up of the millions of gay, lesbian and transgendered people on this Earth who continue to be vilified in places of worship in every country, city and state where they live, work and play.

As long as high-profile TV celebrities are making millions teaching the masses how inherently evil and dirty I am (targeting your children?! yeah, probably not), I will do everything in my power to fight them.

For caring so much about who people fall in love with, it is these "charlatans and thieves" that are the busybodies, pure and simple.

Gays vs. evangelists
hmm...let's see.

We both have our faults. But what are our respective bottom lines? For TV evangelists, it's how much their ministries collect each Sunday. For gays and lesbians, it's our freedom to love.

Money vs love. Wow. What would Jesus do again?

no devilbreath, it's
we don't need to give people like you special rights,so you can sue us into poverty when we don't let men dressed as women with a five o'clock shadow in the ladies room scaring the ladies. and other things like that.

frank, jesus specifically
said for men not to have sex with men. i guess you only care about your lifestyle so you will say anything to promote it, weather it's true or false. and mostly it's a lie cus thats what dems spout from their pie hole.

INKSTER - IN HIS OWN WORDS
Below is the way Frank Rows A Velt should answer Inkling revival's 5:18 p. m. post, but using his own words. The only adjustments are in all caps, otherwise it reflects Inkling's sentiment.

Who scraped skin off your nose?
INKLING REVIVAL has been carping all day about GAY MARRIAGE, HOMOSEXUAL SEX, AND OTHER SAME SEX RELATED ISSUES. So far as I can tell, INKLING REVIVAL is not GAY himself, and appears to consider himself morally and intellectually superior to Christians.

So I'm wondering -- why is the behavior of some HOMOSEXUAL or other of any irritation to him? What difference does it make to him, one way or another, if some GAY PERSON decide they want to ENGAGE IN AN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP WITH A PERSON OF THE SAME SEX? How does that pick INKLING'S pocket? How does it beggar him in any way?

You know, personally, I'm a GAY MAN with a pretty good education. I dislike EXTREME RADICAL GAY ORGANIZATIONS; I think THEY teach some wrong things, and I would not contribute to THEIR ORGANIZATION, nor would I encourage anyone I cared about to spend much time listening to THEM. But why that's any of INKLING'S business, I can't imagine.

Guys like INKLING love to call some HOMOSEXUALS "charlatans and thieves", but it's not their RELATIONSHIP that's being "AFFECTED." It's not anybody's, really; it's A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS ENTERED INTO voluntarily, even willingly. So why do they want to stop people from doing something they're glad to do?

They're busybodies, pure and simple. Control freaks. Can't stand watching other people enjoying something they're not part of.

INKLING, MIND YOUR OWN DAMNED BUSINESS!!!!!!! Don't you have a family of your own to protect?

FRANK ROWS A VELT
Man, I hope I didn't step on you toes with the above post to Inkling. I know you can speak for yourself, but I wanted to call Inkster on opposition to behavior that affects him in no way.

Olberman
does, in fact, rock. Thanks, bud.

To Phileo
I have posted before on this board. But I will do one more time. I was in the closet for over twenty years and chaste. What it did to me was make me put a 22 caliber 9 shot revolver to my head for five days playing Russian roulette, thankfully, I cheated. Then I spent 17 days in a mental hospital on suicide watch. This all happened last June. Don't ever talk to me about being disciplined.

well said inkling
i too, wouldn't give a dime to people like benny hinn. it's cus i don't think he puts God first. i think he puts profit above everything else... this is only my opinion but i don't think a preacher should live in splendor with million dollar homes. thats not what the money was donated for... but i also think it ain't "none" of sen grassleys business what benny hinn and those others do. like you said, people donated of freewill. i don't think he has constitutional authority to butt his nose in.

truthseeker
Sorry, did you say Jesus said that? You mean like red-letter Jesus, the Man himself?

I think you're mistaken. Jesus didn't tell the story of S&G, nor was he speaking in Leviticus. Nor in Romans. Paul, maybe, but not Jesus.

Seeking truth, indeed.

Frank writes.....
"So you're admitting that these evangelists are taking advantage of people? How long should that remain legal? How much misleading rhetoric must spill from their greedy mouths before they're officially deemed extortionists? Or disturbers of the peace? Aren't they kind of yelling "Fire" in a public place?

It should be legal, unless it can be *proven* that they are committing fraud, forever!

"proven" is the key word. Unfortunately, the only inkling I have into the mind of God is through the bible, and it doesn't mention Kenneth Copeland and Benny Hinn. I don't claim inerrancy for myself, and I certainly don't claim inerrancy into the state.

But know this, whether on earth or in heaven, God will not be mocked.

I have often been approached by homeless transients...if I discern they will not use what I give them for drugs or alcohol, I will often give them money....even up to $100...I don't even write it off :-). Now, I may be the biggest sucker in the world (don't give to Hinn or Copeland, however), but here is what I figure....I believe they *may* be honest. I believe they may use the money for good use....I believe God will recompense me accordingly (he owns all resources), and if any of them have just duped me, again I believe God will recompense both of us accordingly. I have never been the poorer for it.

wow
[respectful awe of swampfox]

inkling_revival
I think part of the problem here is attributing motives to lawmakers as being strictly anti-Christian, and don't think that is easy. But I can see someone like Frank Rows A Velt comes across as faulting and targetting Christians, and were he a lawmaker, I'd understand what Jackson says--any maybe there are lawmakers like that, but, not being Christian myself, I don't pay much attention.


And, Frank Rows A Velt, I mean no disrespect, but are Christians the only ones you find fault with? If not, who else?

phileo
"Just don't try to justify your behavior by blending Christianity with hedonism and narcissism. Such a blend is impossible."

As a homosexual I couldn't agree more - homosexuality and Christianity (as it is defined by most of it's followers) are incompatible with one another.


man olberman is an idiot
both the real one and the fake one. you forget, stupid, that there is a higher power in this universe that gave us laws. and one was not to have sex with other men. but thats not my biggest problem with you kind(militant activist homosexual). it's your agenda i'm fighting, to protect my country from your warped hedonistic lifestyle. anything goes, and if something goes wrong like aids, well blame someone else. can't be your fault, right!

Sophia mocks...
"Deuteronomy 22:20-1 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. "

I find responding to posts like this throwing pearls before swine but here goes:

Of course the if you take the entire law in its context, as the Jews did, this may or may not occur, but it depended on circumstances. It was often stipulated the maximum penalty that Jews could impose, but weren't necesarily imposed....and there lots of examples of this.

One significan't NT example of this was the fact that Mary the mother of Jesus was not stoned to death inspite of her pregnancy.

A few other things to note about the Law, Sophia. Ever notice, no prisons...and things like restitution (even via slavery). Now compare it to our failed legal system....over crowded prisons, and little justice, and almost no restitution. Its a different world the Hebrews under mosaic law.

sophia, you need to learn to
think. maybe you can interpret that to mean i think hillery is going to win. but it's not what i'm saying ear wax for brains. i'm saying you guys are trying to make this country into a fascist oligarchy with people like hillery at the top. we could substitute any leading dem here. they want to micromanage your life. if you think you will have any freedom of dissent just look at thailand. do they have any or are they shot down in the streets like dogs. she wants to be queen not president. with divine right to rule and people like you want to give her that chance. well, like i say , there is going to be another civil war in america, between the progressives and the conservatives. and they don't call us the right side for nothing.

lonestar
"I mean no disrespect, but are Christians the only ones you find fault with? If not, who else?"

None taken, lonestar, but thanks for your consideration.

I don't "find fault" with anyone, personally. Inkling or truthseeker or yourself and I could go have a lovely dinner together and get along famously, for all I care. I blame not any man for the "Truth" lain upon him by others. We are but empty vessels.

I do find fault, however, with any and every organization whose claim is that God, and therefore Heaven, are attainable through them, without exception, and that everyone else is doomed to eternal damnation. Christianity and Islam are really the only two I can think of right now, but other world religions fall in to the same category, I'm sure.

I understand it's the only way to win- you can't just say you're right. That's not convincing enough. You have to say you're right, completely and eternally right, and everyone else is wrong, completely and eternally wrong.

It's transparent. It's greedy. It's sad. It's self-serving. It's disingenuous and dangerous.

The condemnation of homosexuals, something I happen to be, is just the bitter icing on the salty cake.

Hope I answered your question.

hey frank
i know you don't use your brain so let me help. the "whole bible" is the word of God, not just the red letters. God wrote it all or he wrote none of it. guess we'll find out on judgment day.....if God don't exist eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die. and the worst that can be said of people like rev jerry falwell is he led a moral life. if God does exist, your in big trouble buddy..... and what truth are you seeking. one that glorifies you.

To Truthseeker
Truthseeker writes, "i'm saying you guys are trying to make this country into a fascist oligarchy with people like hillery at the top. we could substitute any leading dem here. they want to micromanage your life. if you think you will have any freedom of dissent just look at thailand."

I don't want Hillary and I don't want a right wing theocracy installed. And, as I have said I don't want another Bush or Clinton for a long time. We need new blood in Washington.

Tick Tock
"Again, in concept, ENDA sounds like a positive step to end discrimination in the workplace."

Ahh, there Jackson goes again. He always seems to hint that he is actually opposed to discrimination, but he just doesn't like the proposed solution to the problem.

I wish Jackson would just come out and say that gays should be discriminated against, they shouldn't be discriminated against and this is what he proposes to do about it, or that they shouldn't be discriminated against but he doesn't care enough to do anything about it.

The "Christian Ministries" that Jackson mentions are clearly in the first category. With these "pro-family" groups stand a small minority. A near majority believes that discrimination against gays is bad and they believe something should be done about it. Unfortunately, a bare majority - while not proponents of discrimination - are completely apathetic.

Jackson: Which group do you belong to? Considering that this "open letter to the Christian community" doesn't explain why discrimination is good, which is what you'd have to do to in order to influence people to change positions, I think Mr. Jackson belongs to the first group. Group two and group three won't be moved by this.

The numbers don't look good for this point of view. Tick tock.


Truthseeker
We agree on the Higher Power. I'll trust Him with a righteous judgement concerning my salvation, not you. Let me ask you a question Truthseeker. Do you have to practice being that stupid, or does it come natural?

P. S. On judgement day, I hopes God is grading on the curve concerning FORNICATION. I could care less about homosexuality.

Sophia...
Yeah, God's laws are just that, a-ok. In fact, they are the definition of justice. Wow. You figured it out. Good for you.

Now if you can figure out that often, they imposed maximum penalties to limit over reaching punishment. In the case of stoning, can you find me one instance in all of Scripture where an adulterer was stoned? I even recall Jesus protecting a gal scribbling something of significance in the dirt.

Some argue that means penal, as well as priestly, and ceremonial laws were done away with. Jesus is the "forever" high priest...who is forever executing priestly offices. Ceremonial laws were no doubt done away with....how about penal? Good question....its an intense debate among theonomy circles.
How about the death penalty, another good question, and is debated....although few would reject the death penalty in evangelical circles since it was established under the covenant with Noah. One thing is for certain, aids and STDs didn't develop in ancient Israel.


What modern judicial system?



In Denmark and Holland and the EU
consitution, which many countries rightly voted against, have laws that state no one can say anything negative about homosexuality. It's proscribed under anti-discrimination leg. That's not to say rabid atheists can't say lies and approbrium against Jews and Christians without any fears of prohibition.

Such leg. is anathema to traditional Christians whose beliefs and culture for 2000 years has not embraced the libertinism of "gay lifestyle," altbough non-practicing honosexuals are welcomed in most churches of anyb sect.

The unFairness Doctrine is less an aspersion against religion than it is a boldfaced attempt to defeat alternative news or discussion of anything not approved on the front page of the NYTimes, the virtual liturgical arm of the Dems./liberals.

Neither hate crimes--which are socialist thought control like Newspeak in literature--nor the "Fair"ness Doctrine should be activated. Anglo-Saxon law punishes actual illegal actions, not states of minds. A free press and free expression do not need the FCC to regulate people's ideas and speech.

Teenagers and young adults
Sophia, I don't think that "they" get it when I comes to someone who realizes that they are gay or lesbian. You don't wake up one day and say, "yippee, I am gay." Staying closeted for so long and talking to nearly no one about it, almost cost me my life. I asked my psychiatrist in one of my sessions what percentage of teenagers committed suicide over the issue. His response was honest. He said that they just don't know. Many teenagers don't leave suicide notes.

My sister has a gay brother-in-law who is a rock star you might know. He has been with his partner for about 15 years. My father has a lesbian first cousin who is around 66. She was the president of a small college on the west coast. I don't know how long she has been with her partner.

Sophia
I'm about to log off, but I thought I'd acknowledge the queen's presence before doing so. Also, I know Inkling Revival is concocting a nasty response to my post directed at him. If he responds, and since I won't be present, would you please discard him (once again) on my behalf. Thank you, and God Bless.


P. S. You're right. Truthseeker is a certified nutcase.

Sophia
Keep on keepin' on, gurl.

You rock.

so sophia
by your reasoning might makes right. if i think something is ok then who are you to tell me it's not. if i want to have sex with a three year old who is to say i'm wrong. hitler thought he was right. 50 million people died proving him wrong... i believe there is a higher power out there who gives us moral absolutes to live by. i think being gay is a birth defect. if not how do they reproduce. it doesn't mean kill them, but marriage is out. its a sacred commitment to help raise children. and a child needs