-
Seat of Liberalism
January 21, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Spiritual Decay
November 16, 2011 | 593 comments
-
End of the Mainline
September 21, 2011 | 30 comments
-
Whatever Happened To Jennifer Knapp?
August 10, 2011 | 300 comments
-
Too Messy Even for Liberals
April 27, 2011 | 24 comments
Eminentoes
Abortion’s Holy Worker
Meet the religious leader of abortion of demand.
War is being waged, and it isn’t overseas extremists, but rather Roman Catholic bishops who perpetrate the assault, according to the new head of a religious left group that fights for abortion on demand.
“We can’t let religious bullies silence us,” argues Harry Knox, the former head of the Episcopal Church’s LGBT caucus, and now the new President of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), formerly the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights. Knox describes as “holy work” his efforts to counter a “war on women in the name of religion,” a conflict “so vicious that it’s hurting all of us.”
RCRC’s opponents, Knox assesses, want to “send women back to the dark ages” and “strip women of fundamental human rights.”
“I’ve been called to lead a religious movement for reproductive justice,” Knox summarized in a video introducing himself to RCRC supporters, which counts 15 Jewish, Unitarian Universalist, and liberal Mainline Protestant caucuses and church agencies among its affiliates.
Knox was announced as RCRC’s new head during the United Methodist Church’s governing General Conference in April-May, where a legislative committee, for the first time across 40 years, voted to withdraw church agencies from RCRC. A legislative logjam prevented the likely vote to quit RCRC, which United Methodist agencies helped found in 1973 in the wake of Roe versus Wade.
RCRC is best known for its past Chairman Katherine Ragsdale, an Episcopal clergywoman who infamously led chants that “abortion is a blessing” at a Birmingham abortion clinic. If Ragsdale was the “high priestess of abortion,” as her detractors asserted, then Knox is abortion’s gentle southern pastor, smiling and soothing that abortion is always a moral option.
Knox has solid Religious Left credentials, but heading RCRC completes a trifecta of same-sex marriage advocacy, Obama Administration Faith-based Advisory Council membership, and now opposing any restriction on abortion, including for the purposes of gender-selection.
Knox can point to Georgia Equality, Freedom to Marry, and the Religion and Faith Program of the homosexual advocacy group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) among the groups he has helped lead. In the latter position, Knox convened HRC’s bi-annual “clergy call” to bring pro-LGBT pastors to Capitol Hill, where they lobbied in favor of gay and transgender policy changes.
“My life’s work has been about equality,” Knox recently explained, touting how he has gone up against “staunch opponents of human rights in the United States Congress and the Catholic hierarchy.”
Knox began his tenure this month, completing his work as Interim Executive Director of Integrity USA, the unofficial LGBT caucus within the Episcopal Church, which recently enacted a policy of blessing same-sex unions.
As a pastor in the majority-gay Metropolitan Community Church (MCC), Knox led a Houston-area MCC congregation, and is also a former licensed United Methodist pastor.
After megachurch pastor Joel Osteen responded to prompting from CNN’s Piers Morgan and revealed his belief that scripture regards homosexual practices as sinful, Knox went on-air to challenge his fellow Houston pastor.
“When people hear in church that God doesn’t love homosexuals, it authorizes people who are hateful in their hearts or who are fearful in their hearts to go our sometime and to commit violence against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, particularly young people,” Knox told a Houston TV reporter. That Osteen named homosexual practices as “outside of God’s ideal” (and never said anything about God not loving homosexual persons) did not prevent Knox from seeking to smilingly tar-and-feather his fellow Houston area pastor.
Roman Catholics have frequently been a target of Knox, who claims the church sends a message that violence against homosexuals is acceptable. Knox once referred to the Knights of Columbus as “the foot soldiers in the discredited army of oppression.” In February of 2010, Knox said the Pope’s position against condom usage (lining up with a Harvard study that inconsistent condom use increased HIV transmission in Africa) was “hurting people in the name of Jesus.” Following the comments, leaders of Catholic groups called upon President Obama to fire Knox from his faith advisory council.
Abortion, however, is Knox’s new mainstay. While RCRC cites programs having to do with sex education and contraception, the group’s origins — and most of its activities — closely orbit a fervent insistence that God wants abortion on demand.
“I believe that — as a matter of social justice — religious people should support the rights of women to make decisions about bearing children, including about abortion and birth control,” Knox wrote in the Huffington Post this May. “In my view, it is sinful to turn away from women who are struggling to make the best decision for themselves, their families and perhaps their future children. There is nothing holy about silence in the face of human struggle and there is certainly nothing religious about shaming a woman who has an abortion.”
Recently Knox implored: “I ask for your prayers and the prayers of all who care about women’s health.” He can be assured that many of his opponents are among those most fervently praying for him.
About the Author
Jeff Walton directs the Anglican program at the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (122) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jeff Walton
More Articles From Eminentoes
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/01/abortions-holy-worker
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Consternated Conferences
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- Hannah and Her Friends
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Aristocat| 8.1.12 @ 6:14AM
Please read Genesis: 19 about the city of Sodom. Then go to the Epistles of Paul to read: "No sodomite will enter the kingdom of heaven."
All Democrats are required to bow down to sodomy and abortion.
TLP| 8.1.12 @ 9:04AM
Actually.
I think they're supposed to Bend Over, or Get on their Knees.
Or, was it - Get on all fours?
Leftist Ideology is an Oxymoron. It's Mantra is: The Process, by which everybody attains Freedom, Liberty, and a Better Life, by Accepting Totalitarian Rule, under an Omnipresent, Authoritarian Central Authority, at the Point of a Gun, and under Penalty of Death.
Likewise - Leftist Religion - is the Belief that, "If God were here, right now? Not only would he NOT Destroy SODOM and GOMORRAH, but he would have added on to them by building Abortion Clinics, giving out Free Condoms, and teaching Children in the 3rd Grade, the Wonders of Anal Sex with the Adult that lives across the street."
These people are an Affront to God.
They seek to do In Heaven, what they do on Earth.
Lie, Cheat, Steal, and Pervert that which they don't like. They seek to set up Moral Equivilencies, for their Immoral Lives.
Like their New Messiah, and the Constitution, their New Churches seek to Cicumvent God's Ten Commandments, because they are a Collection of Negative Rights, and fail to preach Their Gospel of "If you're still having a hard time getting it in the Hole? Get more Vaseline, and Push Harder."
Amen.
RCV| 8.1.12 @ 1:08PM
TLP, your constant preoccupation with anal sex and its details says a lot about you. Really.
Libertyinfinite| 8.1.12 @ 1:53PM
It's actually a pretty good metaphor for what happened to the right in 2012 though so... ...what can you do?
I said it yesterday on breitbart, I say it today here, "bend over America, grab your ankles & kiss the last of your freedom good-bye".
It was all over when chairman O started bending over to our enemies, & then we knew...
TLP| 8.1.12 @ 4:25PM
See?
Liberty infinite gets it.
I wonder why you don't.
What, exactly, does This THING have to do to this Country, before you're willing to say: "This MFer is a Disaster"?
ARBEIT MACHT FREI?
TLP| 8.1.12 @ 4:22PM
That comes from having to constantly deal with Assholes, like you.
But, you already knew that.
Pelleas| 8.2.12 @ 12:40PM
I'd rather be "an affront to god" , than an affront to common decency and mensch-keit--which is what I think of everytime TLP opens his filthy yap
Brookschwarzenegro | 8.1.12 @ 9:53AM
You've got bigger problems than little issues such as gays and abortion.
Gays guns and God is all about bread and circuses.
TLP| 8.1.12 @ 4:26PM
Speaking of Anal Sex.
Jack in Wi| 8.1.12 @ 6:43AM
This guy is a nightmare. Well I guess I am glad this guy is attacking my Catholic Church. It shows that we are doing our job that Christ gave us. It also shows why Methodists like the Bush clan and the Cheney clan are soft on gay marriage and abortion. There can be no compromise with these people for a Christian. We must suffer persceution for our beliefs, even death if necessary. The so called Christians and Jews who worship at altar of Satan have a lot to answer for.
I know several Methodists who are nice people. I find it hard to believe that they go along with this guy. But who knows. I know seveal liberal Jews again nice people. But the temples they belong to push the most radical positions on abortion and homosexuality. I don't know how they can belong to such groups.
Brookschwarzenegro | 8.1.12 @ 9:54AM
It's merely wedge issues, Jack.
MK48| 8.1.12 @ 10:37AM
Jack.........you may want to cruse the parking lots at the 11 am mass....I see a lot of O stickers.
Just like the jews never could figure out why any chatholic would vote dem......maybe in your infinite wisdom you could explain.
FBX1999| 8.1.12 @ 3:10PM
Not all Catholics or parishes worship at the altar of the New Messiah. Many of us are faithful to orthodox Catholic teaching - which calls both abortion and homosexuality a grave mortal sin. Wheat and tares grow together but will eventually be separated.
TLP| 8.1.12 @ 4:27PM
I fear that those numbers, are Less than what you believe they are.
I Pray I'm wrong.
Marlowe28| 8.1.12 @ 4:54PM
Jack, how do you live with yourself when you put money in the plate that you know is going to be used to protect the priests who have sexually assulted hundreds of thousands of children and the members of the hierarchy who provided them with a fresh crop of victims every time they moved them to a new diocese?
I knew several very nice Catholics but I can't for the life of me understand how they support an organization who cares more about its reputation than it does about protecting children from rape.
Nick| 8.1.12 @ 7:41PM
Complete anti-Catholic claptrap, Marlowe.
MK48| 8.2.12 @ 10:30AM
Hi again NICK.......what did M28 say that was off the paper was it not true...........it's hard to admit that there are some in this world that are still on the dark side even the ones that ware robes.
They will have to stand before God in the end. If I was a catholic I too would say "clap trap" I would be embarrassed. But there are those who in all faiths that fall...it is those of us who show the rest that we are different by our actions and words.
Be strong my friend maybe one day we shall meet.
Nick| 8.2.12 @ 4:35PM
Hello, again, MK48. I'll try to be concise.
My reply was mostly directed at the last sentence of Marlowe's comment. And, at his claim that money given during the offertory, today, is used to protect any priest who committed crimes against children. Such statements show a complete lack of knowledge of the sexual abuse scandal.
To be clear, I'm not defending any criminal priest, nor, the bishops who moved them around or thought they could be "cured." What they did was abominable. I've been following these scandals since the mid-1990s, when the Archdiocese of Dallas was trying to cover-up for the crimes of several priests. The MSM was a little late to this story.
So, I'm not "embarrassed" at all. The guilty are responsible for their own actions. I feel sad, and pray that it never happens again.
I receive solace when I'm reminded that Christ did not build His Church upon perfect, sinless men, but, upon sinners. He did chose Judas, after all. And, Peter, who denied Him thrice. Or, Thomas, who refused to believe in the Resurrection, without proof.
It brings to mind a phrase that I recently came across in another blog:
The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints!
God Bless!
Nick| 8.2.12 @ 5:00PM
I should add, MK48, that these kind of crimes are not exclusive to the Catholic Church. There is a study that I read about which showed the problem is far more prevalent in the public schools. Even among religious organizations, the Church was towards the bottom of the list.
Again, I'm not trying to excuse the crimes that happened. Those guilty need to spend a very long time in jail. I am repulsed by the crime of pedophilia, as everyone should be.
This brings up another point. The majority of the abuse was committed by priests against pubescent boys,i.e., pederasty. So, to referred to the priest sexual abuse scandal as a problem of "pedophile priests" or "child rapist" is just not accurate. They were a small percentage of the crimes.
This was a problem of homosexual men being allowed to become priests. Most of the crimes, that could be proven, happened in the 1950s, '60s, & into the '70s. When Blessed John Paul II became pope in 1978, the problem was just being uncovered. The pope addressed the problem almost immediately.
Incidences of sexual abuse steadily declined in the 1980s & '90s. It should be noted that the dioceses that had orthodox bishops who ran their sees in strict accordance with canon law, had almost zero problems with abusive priests. They were weeded out at the seminary, or, if they committed a crime, the bishop notified the police.
Nick| 8.2.12 @ 5:02PM
p.s I can't cover this complex subject in the detail it requires, in a comment thread. Just suffice it to say that if you only got your information from the LameStream Media, you didn't get the true story.
Thanks for your kind words, MK48.
Yours in Christ, Nick
Chef Schnauzer| 8.1.12 @ 7:31AM
The left automatic jump from parties in disagreement to declarations of 'hate speech' will cause a sort of bombast inflation. Its like the old Soviet 'people's inspector' looking for enemies of the state who upon exhausting the cast of shady characters simply accuses everyone.
The sodomites and their supporters are, apparently forever dissatisfied in general and forever dissatisfied specifically that those with traditional values won't endorse sodomy as equal to normal culture building behavior.
I've always wondered at the terrific anger hurled against Christians and conservatives over the whole AIDS thing when the whole mess could have been avoided by keeping their pants on. It is their behavior and their choice and their inability to accept the consequences of their behavior and choices that spread AIDS not the lack of federal funding.
For this caricature of a 'man of God' to declare what hate lives in hearts of others makes him look like the silly old fool he is.
TLP| 8.1.12 @ 4:29PM
Again.
Anal Sex rears its head.
Hardcard| 8.1.12 @ 7:41AM
it is an abomination, this evil sodomite is part of obamanation, thou shall not kill.
TLP| 8.1.12 @ 4:29PM
As you can see.
Your favorite pastime, has nothing to do with ME.
Peter| 8.1.12 @ 8:39AM
Where is Torquemada when we need him?
Mick Lee| 8.1.12 @ 8:40AM
"Social justice” is it? Ah, the evil done in its name.
What about defending the weakest and voiceless among us? What about abortion is an injustice against the unborn?
Do we really entertain the notion that a Christ who calls us to take up the cross and follow him would also tell us that the deliberate destruction of a child because he/she didn't fit into our current lifestyle, was the wrong sex, wasn't normal, or cost too much was just fine?
Oh. And we are to accept it on face value that if preachers such as Knox campaign for abortion they are doing the Lord's work but if other churches and clerics speak against abortion they are shoving their religion down people's throats?
Alan| 8.1.12 @ 8:47AM
They are called "false prophets", and they ARE MANY.
Libertyinfinite| 8.1.12 @ 1:48PM
Social justice is blasphemy, & only another way for cultural marxism to sink it's teeth into our lives.
ebonystone| 8.1.12 @ 6:58PM
Typical two-faced left-wing propaganda.
When conservative churchmen speak out against abortion or homosexuality, they're accused of "ramming their religion down other people's throats." But when left-wing clergy like Knox and Jesse Jackson spout their nonsense, demanding free abortion or special privileges for minorities, they're upheld as moral paragons.
But what is really strange is the way Moslem clerics get a complete pass from the left. Their views of abortion and homosexuality are far more savage than any I've ever heard of from a Christian cleric. And in most Moslem countries, non-Moslems have virtually no rights at all, much less any special privileges.
Derek Leaberry| 8.1.12 @ 8:50AM
Satan's greatest trick is the illusion that he does not exist. Of course he does. And he inhabits the soul of Mr. Knox just as he did Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao, Lenin and Ted Kennedy.
TLP| 8.1.12 @ 4:33PM
You left out THE BEAST.
"And I saw the BEAST rise from the Sea. And he was given a MOUTH, to speak Haughty and Blasphemous words. And he was allowed to exercise authority for forty two Months."
Revelation 13-5.
Sound like anyone we know?
Minuteman78| 8.2.12 @ 11:31AM
And don't forget Obama!
Nick| 8.1.12 @ 9:00AM
What we need to start doing is end the pretext of referring to people like Knox, Jim Wallis, Jeremiah Wright, Barry Lynn, O'Bama, etc., as Christians. When they are demonstrably not.
Christ told us how we would know His disciples:
"A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another."
- John 13:34-35
These people, liberals, don't love Christ. They are embarrassed by Him. They deny His great miracles. They deny the Resurrection. They ignore the "tough" teachings.
Knox is a politician, not a man of God.
MK48| 8.1.12 @ 10:46AM
Nick.............we are taking the big test. I think our 40 years roaming this desert has come to a big decision, are we going follow Him or It.
This delema we are facing has history and you know what they say about history..."it repeats itself".
TLP| 8.1.12 @ 4:48PM
Nice.
HIM or it.
There is a Muslim, with all of his Pertinent Information SEALED in a Vault, on an Island, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, sitting on the Throne of the Most Powerful Christian Nation in the World, and Israel's only Friend.
Born to an Atheist Communist, and a Muslim Marxist.
Raised in the Muslim Schools and Mosques of Muslim Indonesia, where he knelt on his Prayer Rug, facing Mecca, and prayed to his God of Murder, Blood, Death, and Subjugation, 5 times a day.
His major Benefactor is a Jew, who, as a Boy, helped the Nazis in their quest to Exterminate his fellow Jews. When asked about this, he said:"It was the best time of my life."
He has, single handedly, turned over Egypt, and Libya, to the Enemies of Israel, and HAMAS believes that he was "Sent by Allah, to Destroy the Jews, and return Jerusalem to Muslim Hands.
And he is doing everything in his power, to RUN OUT THE CLOCK, on Iran's quest for a Nuclear Weapon.
Did I miss anything?
Pelleas| 8.2.12 @ 12:45PM
Your insane shit-breathed rant is getting more and more batshit crazy, TLP--and-- your "comment" about Soros ( not one of my favorite people, btw) is fuckiing OBSCENE-- for you to call him a a "helper of the Nazis" when he was just a scared out of head young boy , just trying to stay alive, is the filthiest thing you have said--TODAY--
Nick| 8.1.12 @ 7:39PM
Yes, MK48, history does repeat itself, repeatedly. The Bible shows this by the cycle of sin of Israel.
From the 40 years in the wilderness; to the time of the Judges; to the establishment of the Davidic kingdom, the splitting of that kingdom, and, finally, the destruction of Solomon's Temple in 586 B.C.; the Israelites find themselves repeating the same cycle without learning:
Silence: After God rescues them and gives them peace and prosperity, they forget about God, and stop talking to Him.
Sin: They then, as should be expected, fall into sin.
Servitude: Then, the Israelites are attacked and find themselves in bondage.
Supplication: Now they cry out to the Lord for release from their slavery.
Salvation: God, Who is a good Father and always keeps His Covenant, hears His people, and grants them release.
Then, the Israelites, fat with peace and prosperity, stop obeying God, again. And the process starts all over again.
Not that we are any better. Isn't America doing the same right now?
God Bless!
MK48| 8.2.12 @ 10:33AM
Nick..........10-4
Nick| 8.2.12 @ 6:00PM
I'm sure there is much more on which we can agree, MK48, than on which we may disagree. Take care.
Libertyinfinite| 8.1.12 @ 1:46PM
You should read "The Celestial Railroad" by Hawthorne, he talks about people like this. But you are right, these people do not fallow god. Amazingly enough, modern muslims don't fallow mahamed either. It's power & money that they truly worship, & hell is their fate.
Marlowe28| 8.1.12 @ 5:04PM
I see nothing but hatred from the supposed Christians on this board. Which among you is following Christ by throwing stones?
Btw, Jim Wallis is anti-abortion. It would appear that it's you who is concerned with politics and not Christ's teachings.
Nick| 8.1.12 @ 7:15PM
"Btw, Jim Wallis is anti-abortion."
So what? He is a political hack. He doesn't know the Gospel of Christ.
What do you know about being a Christian, anyway, Marlowe?
Doctor Right| 8.1.12 @ 9:29AM
""When people hear in church that God doesn't love homosexuals..."
Isn't it funny when pathetic liberals announce their selective hearing?
Joel O'Steen did NOT say that God doesn't love homosexuals; he said God doesn't like homosexuality.
One is a person; the other is an act.
Why give these fools publicity?
Libertyinfinite| 8.1.12 @ 1:42PM
It's a controlled situation. Both sides control content, so that their well worn grooves are giving us all only gutter balls. Want proof? Mitt Romney signed in government take over of the health care industry, AND GAY MARRIAGE, & yet, we aren't allowed to talk about the truth now. Both sides are highly dysfunctional. We lost big with romney this time. We should have had a conservative & then maybe the Tea Party wouldn't have died.
nathan| 8.1.12 @ 10:05AM
Abortion rights advocates always talk about this in the context of "the woman's body". The problem is, do a DNA test on what's growing inside her, and she shares only half of that DNA. Purely on that basis alone, we can make a scientific case that it's a separate entity with it's own "unalienable" rights.
What abortion really gets down to is when does the endowment of those unalienable rights take place? At conception? At viability? At birth? Taking religion out of this, if that's what these people want to do, I can make a purely "secular" argument against abortion certainly midway through the second trimester based on viability and with the progress of science that time frame is moving back to the beginning of the second trimester, again based purely the application of the unalienable rights doctrine. And from the standpoint of the entity, the means of creation, rape or incest, is irrelevant to ITS rights.
If a woman wants to cut off her finger where there is a 100 percent DNA match, be my guest. But with child bearing she is playing host to a person separate from herself who has its own rights and since she's not the "Creator", she has no authority to take away those rights. (The one recognizable exception is when her life is truly endangered.)
Nick| 8.1.12 @ 8:23PM
Actually, Nathan, from a purely scientific perspective, human life begins at conception. So, abortion can never be justified, for any reason. Even for life of the mother.
Thankfully, abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother.
The rest of your comment is dead on.
nathan| 8.1.12 @ 10:22AM
I will suggest one more thing. As Christians (the real ones) we can focus our attention on passing laws and electing candidates and that's okay. Or we can go out and do what Christ told us to do, "go ye into the world and preach the gospel". Broadly when people come to Christ, their behavior changes, the objectionable actions we're talking about, "largely" go away. (We don't become perfect until we get to heaven.) We are long overdue for another great awakening in this country. We can focus our limited resources campaigning for this or that candidate, or focus more attention on bringing the lost to Christ. 100 years from now, when all of us on this site are dead, it won't matter who won in November, all that will have mattered is whether we accepted Jesus as our Savior. And also how many others we gave that message to and helped bring home with us. Want to really effectively deal with abortion/gay marriage all of it? Do more of what Christ commanded us to do, go into the world . . . .
We can have our political disagreements here, oh so spirited some times! But at the end of the day, the only decision that I make, any of us make, our families, our friends, is accepting or rejecting Christ. If you want to really make a difference, that's how you do it.
CJW| 8.1.12 @ 10:46AM
nathan,
Good post, especially about abortion.
MK48| 8.1.12 @ 10:49AM
Well said N..................
Al Adab| 8.1.12 @ 3:26PM
Nathan, W:
Lost in the ongoing debate friends is the definition of "Choice" as the Idolotrous god of this sect. Whatever ones own personal religious or philosophical inclinations might be, most reject the worship of idols as false.
We sacrifice children in their millions to this god and for what? There is no hope attached to the act, no desire for placating the god or achiveing anything than ones own convenience. It has become a horror beyond belief. If six million constitutes a holocaust, what does 50 million make?
CJW| 8.1.12 @ 6:57PM
Al Adab
Was it Stalin who said one or two is a murder but 50 million is a statistic?
The numbers are overwhelming and numbing.
Libertyinfinite| 8.1.12 @ 1:35PM
The Christian thing is great for Christians, but not really for the rest of us. We think it's great that you have found your way. But you need to learn that it does not promote freedom when you deny other religion their freedoms. Asian Americans are largely ignored, & deists like myself are just flat out destroyed. But if you spread the denial of freedom, just don't expect anyone to give you what you refused us all, your freedom.
Fallwell was aptly named.
nathan| 8.1.12 @ 2:50PM
I will not speak for others but the church I attend believes in being respectful as we do our outreach and not using force of any sort to try and reach others with the message of Jesus Christ. I have yet to hear the lead pastor one time speak in terms of denying others their freedom of conscious.
I more than many here stand with an atheist of all people Tom Paine who said "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." I totally disagreed with Newt over a year ago when he said that no new mosques should be built in this country until Saudi Arabia allows churches to operate there. (This was said at of all things a so called "freedom" concert hosted by Sean who did not repudiate him for his totally against the Constitution remarks.)
But being in total agreement with the Founders regarding freedom of conscious does not preclude me from "going into the world and preaching the gospel". Those I approach, politely, are free to tell me to move on as many do. But given that I am convinced that there is a real heaven and real hell, and that accepting Christ as your Savior is the way to that eternal life with God, would you have me be silent? Am I, in the name of religious freedom, obligated to say nothing? I don't think that's what Madison had in mind either.
Libertyinfinite| 8.1.12 @ 5:52PM
The vast majority of opinion in the ranks of the right is that freedom literally hinges on whether or not enough people believe in the bible. The right has been very, very wrong on religion for at least 60 years. & most people on the right just fail to see that the real issue is whether or not every American has freedom, not just bible believing Americans. We actually righted the rights' wrong when Senator Santorum said that it is all Americans' freedom, not to be dictated by government, & it doesn't matter if you even have religion at all.
Senator Santorum came in second & just like in horse shoes & hand grenades, it aint good enough.
If you look at the comment below from TLP, that is what anyone who does not believe in the bible gets from the right. How would you like it if people treated you like that? They don't because you are on the right.
It doesn't matter, America is on her way out of the world by way of cultural marxism unhindered. I thank you for your reply. & don't be a TLP, no body wants that.
The biggest loss of power for the right has been it's wrongness on religion.
TLP| 8.1.12 @ 4:50PM
"Diests like me."
You mean IDIOTS, don't you?
Libertyinfinite| 8.1.12 @ 5:55PM
Yes, I believe that the human heat needs nothing but itself to be god. Omnipotent, with the understanding of how nature works, what makes us strong, what we are truly made of. I also believe that life is infinite. In the afterlife in where true liberty begins.
& I am an American, I am free to chose that for myself. I assume someone as hateful as you can be found only in hell.
Libertyinfinite| 8.1.12 @ 5:57PM
Sorry type error, it's human heart not human heat. The quality that makes us infinite is our ability to love, I call the soul the human heart. Not that anyone cares. I know only christian opinion is allowed on the right. The right never changes.
Clara| 8.1.12 @ 11:27AM
What about my right as a women to seek care from an OB/Gyn who supports the culture of life. I have some heakth problems that need to be treated, unfortunately I can't find a doctor who I trust and does not have the intention of population control. I am a women, I want my choice to be respected, I need a doctor who respects life. I refuse to be touched by a doctor who kills unborn children.
Marlowe28| 8.1.12 @ 5:09PM
So, call your local Right to Life organization and ask for the name of an anti-choice ob/gyn. This is not rocket science.
Bob K| 8.1.12 @ 11:51AM
Knox preaches generational and genetic suicide. That is what it is. Pure and simple.
Nick| 8.1.12 @ 11:55AM
Meanwhile.....in other news:
Boehner & Co. sell the American people down the river, yet again.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07.....ppointees/
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll537.xml
Remember, back in the spring of '11, when the first budget battle was winding up? And, Boehner/Cantor/McCarthy/Ryan were lying to conservatives about cutting $100 billion in the budget deal?
Remember when Boehner & Co. were telling us to wait until Sept., '11, when they could really cut the budget?
Remember when Boehner & Co. promised that if the GOP took back control of the House, they would publish ALL BILLS 3 days before a vote?
Remember, a year ago, when Boehner & Co. sold-out to O'Bama on the debt-ceiling increase, and didn't give us 3 days to read the bill?
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Boehner has got to go!
Libertyinfinite| 8.1.12 @ 1:29PM
Only a preview of the republican administration we'd get under blatantly liberal romney.
This nation is on it's way out the door because the right is clinging to republicans. But that's like clinging to a wet sock, as the titanic sinks.
Clara| 8.1.12 @ 12:14PM
There is only one kind of person more annoying than an ageing hippy who insists on shoving their totalitarian religion of selective tolerance and moral
relativism down every last
person's throat; a religious figure who is an ageing hippy who insists on shoving their totalitarian religion of selective tolerance and moral relativism down every last person's throat. Tolerance for me but not for thee. Concern for women's health only if they are the "right" kind of women.
Seek| 8.1.12 @ 12:37PM
Nobody is "shoving" anything down your throat. Asserting the right to believe or disbelieve a particular doctrine is what liberty is about. As for "aging hippies," hey, we all get old. That's life.
Clara| 8.1.12 @ 2:34PM
Actually yes, they do insist on shoving it down every women's throat. My trust in doctors was destroyed by the pill pushers whose only concern was to prevent the white trash girl from reproducing. None of them cared for my health and well being.
Marlowe28| 8.1.12 @ 5:11PM
Did you have a doctor who came by your house every day to shove the pill down your throat? Maybe you should have moved so he couldn't find you.
Clara| 8.1.12 @ 2:44PM
Do I have the choice to believe that life is a miracle? Do I have the choice to go to a doctor who will treat me as a human being with dignity and respect for life? Do I have the choice to teach the culture of life to my children? Not under the dictatorship of the "tolerance" authoritarians. They insist on pushing their values on my children.
Bob James| 8.1.12 @ 6:29PM
Clara,
Yes. Yes. And yes.
As for your choice of physicians, you might look here: http://www.aaplog.org/
If you're in the metropolitan DC area, try Divine Mercy Care. Dr. John Bruchalski founded this ardently pro-life practice. He himself was an abortionist before his conversion to the Roman Catholic Faith. This practice is his life-long penance for his acts, as well as his providing countless ongoing Corporal Works of Mercy every day.
God bless you.
Petronius| 8.1.12 @ 12:37PM
Abortion is about justice and equality? It's anything but. Abortion is about female superiority and satisfaction. The father of the child has no rights. He has been reduced to a stud if the female wants to give birth and then he is a drone taking up space the rest of the time. Let these clerics rename their churches with an apt description of what they really worship. How about the Temple of Fulfilling Sexual Consumption? The mistake we make is opposing abortion for liberals. I don't want them reproducing.
Libertyinfinite| 8.1.12 @ 1:25PM
Among liberal females it is as you say, the woman is a vessel of "genderless" ideology. The woman is no longer a woman, the man no longer a man. Liberals want a genderless society. But those who fallow it, the woman abuses the man, it is true.
But among the vast majority of the general public, it is the woman who is abused. The woman is expected to slaughter the child. Get a job, abandon motherhood, & leave the child (if she is so foolish as to keep it) despotic state & fascist school.
The sanctity of the American Family, the cornerstone of American Liberty, has been crushed into something that was washed into the sewer. & replaced by a maxist compliant America.
Petronius| 8.1.12 @ 2:56PM
No need to be so verbose describing the ant hill we now live in.
Libertyinfinite| 8.1.12 @ 6:01PM
I'm just waiting for the end, I gotta do something with my time. The way America is going, I figure the Mayans were dead on.
Marlowe28| 8.1.12 @ 5:13PM
If men could have babies, abortion would be a sacrament.
Bob James| 8.1.12 @ 6:34PM
Nice bumper sticker, but a palpable, risible lie.
MK48| 8.2.12 @ 7:48PM
I thought I was having a baby the other day.......but I just passed a kidney stone instead.....WOW.
Libertyinfinite| 8.1.12 @ 1:12PM
2012 is the year that the right embraced liberal ideology again. They tried it, & failed in 2008, but they think that now, if conservatives could only go liberal (romney) then all of our problems will disappear. Problem is, the American People are disgusted by a liberal right.
& it is comical that the right continue talking about problems that their chosen one is against them on. Abortion has destroyed freedom. It need not be a religious battle. Our culture among our youth is to kill the baby & abuse the woman if she doesn't fallow left wing extremism to the t. I.e., get a job & abandon motherhood. Leave the child rearing to the despotic state & fascist school.
These issues, & the whole of conservatism has not got a chance anymore. The right sold it's values down the river again this year.
Obama is not the problem. Cultural marxism has destroyed the American people from within. We would have had to had an actual conservative on our side to win.
All that we can do now is bend over, grab our ankles & kiss the last of our freedom good-bye.
Nina in MA| 8.1.12 @ 1:31PM
How in God's name can this guy be called a Pastor/Minister or whatever? Assault on women's rights??? No it's not...they murder their innocent children, getting pregnant is really stupid these days with all the BC available, sex ed in the public school system hasn't really worked has it with all the teenage moms....and yet they continue to "need" to use abortions as a way of "getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy?" What, they are so dumb they haven't realized HOW they get pregnant!? This man is not a man of God! He is a liar and just playing the liberals game to use abortion for population control...I would think they'd need more chilluns for the indoctrination of their philosophy of LGBT lifestyle...instead they murder them! Sorry folks but you have to be a real dumbA@# to get pregnant by surprise these days....oh, I didn't know/realize/used protection which must have failed....ya, right!
Marlowe28| 8.1.12 @ 5:21PM
Actually, teenage pregnancy is at its lowest level since the 1970's. It seems that sex education is working. Unfortunately, kids who are cursed with abstinence only classes continue to get pregnant at shockingly high rates. Of course, at the rate the religious zealots are taking sex education out of the schools and making it harder to get birth control, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone when the rate go up. Oh, well, those nasty girls should have kept their pants on anyway.
Nick| 8.1.12 @ 7:07PM
No, Marlowe28, actually, sex-ed and easy access to birth control causes teenage & out-of-wedlock birth rates explode.
There have been studies. Look them up.
Mistral| 8.1.12 @ 1:31PM
""When people hear in church that God doesn't love homosexuals..."
...terrible lie for politically correct consumption... My parents were ortodox Roman catholics and taught me as a young boy that God loves all His creation but he hates certain sins more than others... we must pray to avoid these behaviours. I have several homosexual friends who know I like them as people but do not approve of such a sexual orientation for myself as a Catholic. I have also worked alongside homosexuals in various professional situations without our private lives ever getting in the way of the work in hand.
So, Mr Knox you are a very sad and sorry agent provocateur who knows nothing very much about the true Chrisitian perspective on this sin. Moreover, you are uncharitable because you are encouraging people to believe all sorts of untrutha about the situation with homosexuality.
No one in the Roman Catholic Church ever taught me to hate anyone for anything. You are a liar and your brief is to spread the doctrine of hate yourself posing as a religious man when all along you are an imposter. May the God Who is Love have mercy on you and your lies and bring you to recant your utter mischievous nonsense.
Marlowe28| 8.1.12 @ 5:26PM
What makes you think that yours is the "true" Christian perspective? Weren't you taught that it was a sin to eat meat on Friday? That one was so silly that even Catholics finally gave it up. Don't you feel sorry for all of those people who were punished in the afterlife for committing that sin?
Talk about utterly mischievous nonsense.
Nick| 8.1.12 @ 7:00PM
"Weren't you taught that it was a sin to eat meat on Friday?"
No, Marlowe28, Catholics were never taught that it was a sin. Where did you get that claptrap? A Jack Chick tract?
And, we never "gave it up," either.
If you are interested in being somewhat informed, Catholics are called to make an act of penance on every Friday of the year. For many years, that act was to abstain from eating meat. Then it was decided that a nation's bishop conference could decide what the act of penance should be, because in certain parts of the world giving up meat was no sacrifice, at all.
In the U.S., Catholics are still encouraged to abstain from meat on Fridays (which my family still does,) unless, they are vegetarians or must eat meat on a Friday for some reason (a wedding reception, e.g.) We are still required to make an act of penance, to remind ourselves of Christ's Sacrifice. That's why we do it on Fridays. (During the season of Lent, ALL Catholics are required to abstain on Fridays and on Ash Wednesday, of course.)
I hope that clears-up the misconceptions in your comment, which were utterly mischievous nonsense.
Also, Mistral never made the claim that his/hers was "the 'true' Christian perspective," only that Knox didn't have it. Read more carefully next time. That being said, the Catholic Church does contain the full Gospel of Christ and is the Church Christ founded upon the Apostles.
God Bless!
cowgirl| 8.1.12 @ 2:08PM
If you were the devil, where would you go to cause as much trouble as possible? A church of course. The Devil already owns those who choose not to believe in God and take part in sins like abortion, homosexuality, drinking, drugs, murder, robbery, lies, cheating, adultery, murder, etc. The Devil has got them lock, stock and barrel. The Devil's real problem are those who attend church, pray, read the bible, are submissive to God and obey God's commands. Mr. Knox's mission from the devil is to stir anger, fighting, and trouble among those in a church in order to destroy those who are there and take them for his own. Remember - Many are called and few are chosen. The more converts the devil can obtain, the happpier he is.. Judging by Knox's actions, the devil is doing happy dances....
Kingofthenet| 8.1.12 @ 2:56PM
Why not just publish his home address and paint a bulls-eye over his head?
TLP| 8.1.12 @ 4:52PM
Finally.
Something I can agree with you, on.
Third Army| 8.1.12 @ 5:06PM
This man sounds creepy.
DRed| 8.1.12 @ 6:40PM
Remind me again what Jesus said about abortion? What about birth control?
Nick| 8.1.12 @ 8:18PM
"Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, 'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.'"
- Jeremiah 1:4-5
"But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also."
- Genesis 38:9-10
"[Christ] answered, 'Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.'"
- Matthew 19:4-6
Also, Samuel, a prophet of God (meaning he spoke for God) said the following:
"And Samuel said, 'As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.' And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal."
- 1 Samuel 15:33
DRed| 8.1.12 @ 10:16PM
Onan-is that why you can't wear a condom? Because God killed a guy for not ejaculating inside his dead brother's wife? Wouldn't the simpler explanation be that God killed him because he disobeyed him? And if you believe that verse forbids you from masturbating, or birth control, do you think you think you have to marry your sister in law and get her pregnant if your brother dies? That seems to me to be the much more straightforward message.
Anyhow, Nick, why didn't you answer my question? Were you not paying attention? I'll limit it to one, so as to make it easier for you. What did Jesus say about abortion?
DRed| 8.1.12 @ 11:26PM
Nick, I've done a bit of research here. Did you know that the word abortion doesn't actually appear in the bible? Not even one time. So, sorry, Nick, I don't go by your interpretation. I go by the actual bible. Looks like I win again.
Nick| 8.2.12 @ 1:06AM
"Wouldn't the simpler explanation be that God killed him because he disobeyed him?"
Maybe, DRed, if you focus like a laser-beam only at those few verses, your crude summation notwithstanding. You can't see the forest for the veins on one of the leaves on a tree. Scripture must be read as a whole.
But, taken with other verses, like God's numerous commands "to be fruitful, and multiply," it becomes clear that God doesn't want us to interfere with His design.
"[...] do you think you think [sic] you have to marry your sister in law and get her pregnant if your brother dies?"
This was a custom, not a law from God at this time. It wasn't codified until the Law of Moses (Deut. 25:5-10). Proving that Onan died because of spilling his seed, not disobeying Judah. Besides, as a Catholic, I'm under the New Covenant. So, this law doesn't apply to me.
"Anyhow, Nick, why didn't you answer my question?"
Umm, I did. Apparently, you are unaware that Christians believe that Jesus Christ is God. So, when God speaks, as in the Word, that is Christ.
"Now the word of the LORD came to me [...]."
Does that clear this up for ya'?
DRed| 8.2.12 @ 9:46AM
Scripture must be read as a whole? Sure, makes sense to me. And there's more to it than just the scripture, right?
Nick| 8.2.12 @ 3:13PM
I can only speak for the Catholics, in this regard, DRed. But, yes, according to my faith, it is both the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition which make-up the Deposit of Faith.
These two, combined with the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church,) make up what has been referred to as the "three-legged stool" of the Catholic Church. Meaning, you can't take one of the legs away, and, still have the Church remain standing.
Hope that helps.
Nick| 8.2.12 @ 1:26AM
"Nick, I've done a bit of research here."
Let me guess....wiki! Am I right?
(It took you an hour and ten minutes to figure this out? How very sad.)
"Did you know that the word abortion doesn't actually appear in the bible?"
Really? oozing sarcasm
So what?
Did you know, DRed, that the words Trinity, Purgatory, and Pope aren't found in the Bible, either? But, the words "Thou shalt not kill" are. Do you know where?
"I go by the actual bible. Looks like I win again."
Boy, I really got under your skin, huh? I'm living in your head, rent-free, DRed!
Where do you get your authority to interpret the Sacred Scriptures, by the way?
You lose. Again. So sorry.
God Bless!
DRed| 8.2.12 @ 9:53AM
Isn't it really more accurately translated as "Thou shalt not commit murder"?
I just find it odd that you think the constitution can't be interpreted, but the bible can be.
Nick| 8.2.12 @ 3:36PM
"Isn't it really more accurately translated as 'Thou shalt not commit murder'?"
I'm no linguist, DRed, nor, do am I fluent in ancient Hebrew, but, yes, I believe that is the more accurate translation. Thus, explaining why self-defense, for nations and the individual, is morally just. Including the death-penalty.
It doesn't really make make sense for God to prohibit all killing in the Ten Commandments, and, then, turn around and demand capital punishment for a whole host of crimes, does it?
Nick| 8.2.12 @ 3:44PM
"I just find it odd that you think the constitution can't be interpreted, but the bible can be."
Was the U.S. Constitution inspired by the Holy Spirit, DRed? I don't believe it was. It was written by men. Also, I don't claim to have the authority to interpret the Bible on my own.
And, when did I ever claim that "the constitution can't be interpreted"? It must be interpreted by understanding what the original authors meant when they put pen to paper in September of 1787. (And the subsequent articles of amendment, of course.) This is called interpreting by original intent. What is so wrong with this?
We can't interpret the constitution by what we wish it should mean, or, by twisting the meaning of words. Something at which lawyers are the experts. Any law which is at the whim of what some judge believes it means, is no law at all. Words have meaning.
It has become cliche that laws are "set in stone." But, just because something is set in stone doesn't mean that it can't be changed. It just can't be changed by saying, "That's not what the law really says. Here is the new interpretation."
If you don't like the existing stone, replace it with one you do like. The Founders left plenty of procedures to precisely that.
DRed| 8.2.12 @ 6:01PM
Yes, of course. But just saying 'the word marriage'isn't in the constitution' is not much of an interpretation. It's like me saying 'you can't find the word abortion in the bible'. They're both technically factually true statements. The 14th Amendment provides that a state cannot deprive an American of 'liberty' without due process. What did the men who wrote the 14th Amendment (obviously, for an Amendment we're not necessarily looking at the original intent of the founders), and the people who ratified that mean? Did they mean, for example, the liberty to marry? If you look at the history of the common law (which, I suppose, is very roughly analogous to a Catholic examining sacred tradition) you can certainly argue that it is. You can disagree with that. Supreme Court Justices have disagreed. But for you to say that since the word marriage doesn't appear in the constitution no court can consider it a right held by Americans is flat out wrong.
Nick| 8.2.12 @ 7:15PM
Your analogy doesn't work, DRed. They are two completely different documents, with two completely different purposes.
Plus, you claimed that there was "federally protected [CONSTITUTIONAL] right" to marriage. When I see a phrase like that, I assume I can go to the constitution and find it. As I can with free speech and the right to keep and bear arms.
The problem comes from the fact that Americans don't know what the word right means, or entails. It is not merely an entitlement. A right comes with duties & responsibilities. And no right is absolute.
Again, we have a federal system. Any powers not given to the federal government are retained by the states, or the people. Ergo, marriage is left to the states and the people, since it's not mentioned in the constitution.
The Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Article of Amendment had no direct application to marriage.
The Due Process clause only refers to depriving persons of life, liberty, and property.
The Equal Protection clause only affected marriage laws if they were applied unequally.
This is why inter-racial marriage is not unconstitutional. It is stupid and racist, but does not violate COTUS. If blacks were denied, while whites weren't, that would be a violation.
DRed| 8.2.12 @ 8:11PM
What was the purpose of the 14th amendment? Why was it passed?
Nick| 8.2.12 @ 11:17PM
What? You mean specifically? I think that it's pretty self-explanatory, DRed.
It was passed so that the former Confederate states couldn't deny citizenship rights to the freed slaves. Would you like a section-by-section exposition?
What do you believe was the purpose of this amendment?
Nick| 8.2.12 @ 7:29PM
Continued....
"AH-HA!!!", I can you say, DRed. But, no, you are wrong, again. Because same-gender counterfeit marriage seeks to redefine what a marriage has always been. If a state's law says that marriage is between one man & one woman, who are not closely related & are of a certain age, denying blacks this privilege violates COTUS.
That is the "equal protection" that the persons of that state enjoy.
Marriage, going back through the English common law, is a covenant, not a contract. It is a sacrament of the Church, for Christians. It transcends the state. And, it has always had limitations.
Polygamy has a long tradition in ancient societies, and in the Bible. Therefore, it has a stronger case of legality than counterfeit marriage does. And, yet, for Utah to gain admission to the Union, the Mormon church had to outlaw polygamy, didn't they?
Notice, also, that it isn't we conservatives who are claiming that MA's & VT's laws are unconstitutional. I don't agree with those laws, so, I don't plan on moving there.
It is you libs who demand that all the states conform to your notion of equality.
That is not how this country is supposed to work.
Here endeth the lesson. (I hope!)
DRed| 8.2.12 @ 8:26PM
"Polygamy has a long tradition" "same-gender counterfeit marriage seeks to redefine what a marriage has always been". I think you contradict yourself, Nick. There's never been one immutable definition of marriage.
I'm not demanding you conform to anything. I don't see how gay marriage effects your life in the slightest. You don't want to marry a man? Don't. You want to get married in a Church that doesn't believe in gay marriage? God Bless.
What are your non-religious reasons for opposing gay marriage? Do you have any?
Nick| 8.2.12 @ 11:41PM
"There's never been one immutable definition of marriage."
Too clever, by half, DRed. Yes, minimum age level has fluctuated over the centuries, and, so has the degree of kinship (2nd, 3rd, or 4th cousin). But, it has ALWAYS been between MEN and WOMEN, has it not?
That's what is being redefined, obviously.
"I'm not demanding you conform to anything."
If you want SCOTUS to nullify all the states that have passed bans on same-gender counterfeit marriage, yes you are. How can you not see that? If Citizens United had struck down all the state laws against campaign donor limits, wouldn't you libs be screaming bloody murder that state's rights had been violated?
"I don't see how gay marriage effects your life in the slightest."
This get's us back to the point I've been making the past few days, which you refuse to answer. If counterfeit marriage is about "equal rights" for "consenting adults" who are "in love," how can you then deny the same equal rights to polygamists and incest practitioners?
You can't say that it's an "equal rights" issue, and then deny those supposed "rights" to any other group who wants to pretend to be married. When that happens, when everyone can be married to anyone else, for whatever reason, then marriage becomes meaningless.
That's how it effects the institution of marriage, DRed.
Nick| 8.3.12 @ 12:19AM
Continued....
"What are your non-religious reasons for opposing gay marriage? Do you have any?"
I can't really separate the two, DRed. As I've repeatedly told you, this country, from it's inception, has always allowed for Christian tenets to influence public policy questions and legal issues. Only because the vast majority of the population was, in fact, Christian.
So, to me, Holy Matrimony is a Sacrament of the Catholic Church. Several Protestant denominations also believe it is a sacrament. To a Catholic, marriage is about the couple's relationship to God, not the state.
Now, issues of property inheritance & child custody do have a state interest. Also, divorce, which some faiths allow, is probably better handled by the state, since it deals with the distribution of property. To a Catholic, it doesn't matter if the state allows divorce, it is not allowed by a command of Christ.
You can't ask a Catholic, or any Christian for that matter, to separate their religious beliefs from the rest of their beliefs. As a Catholic, it is because of my faith that you consider me a conservative, mostly. Even though my faith isn't political, its much more than that.
I guess my non-religious opposition is my argument that the flood-gates will be opened, anyone can be married for any reason, because it is now a "right", and marriage becomes meaningless.
Hope that answers your questions.
God Bless!
DRed| 8.4.12 @ 4:21PM
I'm not asking you to change your opinion on marriage. I'm asking you to consider whether you should impose it on people who don't share your beliefs. Marriage, for you, is a religious matter. Legally, it's a state matter. And for many of us, it's either not a religious matter at all, or our religion says different things about marriage than yours does. What I asking, is why should our secular government discriminate on the basis of your religion?
As far as the equal protection issues go, you don't see how the government can deny a 'right' to marriage to gay people, but not, say, from polygamists. According to the supreme court, the government can't treat groups unequally without showing some sort of reason. This is why I referred you to that Canadian polygamy decision. The judge up in Canada found a number of harms that result from polygamy. Canada, obviously, is not America, but we have similar legal systems. It's the kind of argument an American court would almost certainly buy. Essentially, if the lower courts decisions are upheld in the California gay marriage case, it would be that you have the right to marry whomever you wish so long as that marriage isn't likely to result in harm. The people opposing gay marriage in the California case couldn't provide the court any reasons why gay people couldn't get married. (for a federal court, religious reasons are not valid)
Nick| 8.4.12 @ 6:11PM
"What I asking [sic], is why should our secular government discriminate on the basis of your religion?"
Our government consists of "We the People" does it not? And, the last I checked, well over 80% of Americans are Christians. I, and many others, decide what is moral, what is right or wrong, based upon my religion.
Since all laws are the imposition of one group's morality upon the rest of a community, if that group bases that law on their religion, there is nothing unconstitutional, per se, about that.
Again, was it unconstitutional for Congress to force Utah to prohibit polygamy in order to join the Union?
"[...] but not, say, from polygamists."
And, incest practitioners. You don't seem to want to deal with them, do you DRed?
"According to the supreme court, the government can't treat groups unequally without showing some sort of reason."
A logical fallacy known as appealing to authority. This is the same SCOTUS that gave us Dred Scott & Plessy, correct? They don't always get it right.
Plus, homosexuals are not a "group." Neither are bi-sexuals, drag queens, or flashers. They are sexual deviants. But, that's a whole other discussion.
And, I have shown several "reasons" & "harms".
Nick| 8.4.12 @ 6:35PM
Pt.2
Why is it "wrong," or "discrimination," or "denying equal rights," when I say that same-gender counterfeit marriage is harmful, but, it's perfectly fine for you to say that polygamy is harmful?
How are you not "denying equal rights" to that group?
Why is it wrong for an adult son/daughter to marry his/her mother/father?
(Again, you can't use child deformities, because you libs are all about contraception and abortion, remember?)
Either we are both unjust "discriminators," or, the liberal position is arbitrary, capricious, and illogical.
You can keep going off on these tangents, in a failed attempt to distract.
But, until you can defend your redefinition of the institution of marriage to only include homosexuals, while continuing to discriminate against polygamists, bi-sexuals, and incest practitioners, you have lost the argument.
Nick| 8.3.12 @ 12:22AM
p.s. There is also a slippery-slope argument that asserts you libs won't stop at the church doorstep. In Canada, they have gone after preachers for so-called "hate-speech" just because they read from the Bible and stated that homosexual acts are immoral.
The O'BamaCare contraception mandate is proof that the left is already trying to get the camel's nose into the tent.
DRed| 8.4.12 @ 4:22PM
Canadians don't have a first amendment. Not to be pithy, but it really is that simple.
Nick| 8.4.12 @ 5:03PM
Sorry, DRed, it's not that simple.
Rights are not granted by words written on a piece of paper. They are granted by God, and stripped away by men. (I don't know from where atheists think rights come. Physics? String theory?)
Everyone has the right to freedom of speech, conscience, religious belief and practice, association, et al. It's part of the Natural Law.
Besides, liberals threaten the "free speech" & "religious exercise" rights of pastors & reverends in this country all the time, through lawsuits and IRS tax-exemption revocation. I should qualify that as "conservative" pastors and reverends.
Do you and your fellow travelers sue liberal pastors who hold political rallies in their churches, DRed?
Nick| 8.3.12 @ 1:08AM
p.p.s. I almost forgot to mention the complete hypocrisy of you liberals, DRed.
For a supposed "right" that is not found in the text of COTUS, you say, "You don't want to marry a man? Don't."
You liberals make the same argument concerning abortion, which also is not found in COTUS.
But, just 2 weeks ago, you hypocrites were arguing that so-called "assault" weapons needed to be banned, after the Aurora shooting-spree. Even though the "right to keep and bear arms" is literally written into COTUS!
Why don't you gun-banning libs follow your own advice?
You don't want to own an "assault" weapon? Don't.
Do you not see the TORTURED logic, DRed?
DRed| 8.4.12 @ 3:15PM
First of all, I am not all liberals. If I wanted to make a typical liberal argument about gun rights, I'd point out that there are words before 'keep and bear arms' in the second amendment, and that the founder's original intent was to regulate state militias. But I'm not a gun control nut. I live in NYC, so I couldn't own an 'assault' weapon even if I wanted to, but I don't really care if you do. I think the right to own a firearm is constitutional.
Nick| 8.4.12 @ 4:35PM
Typical liberal obfuscation and deflection, DRed. Or, you are just completely obtuse and can't comprehend my simple point.
Which is that liberals invent "rights" that aren't in COTUS, and then say to those who object, "Well, don't do X." But, when it comes to rights spelled out in COTUS, lefties want to ban the exercise of said rights.
Liberals have pushed to ban guns since the 1960s. This is a fact, your personal views to the contrary. Do you admonish your comrades to change their views on banning guns? Or, banning the death-penalty, which is provided for in COTUS?
So is the free practice of one's religion. And, freedom of association. Liberals infringe on these liberties all the time.
Or, are you just claiming that you support gun-rights because you have no rebuttal?
You are also completely wrong about the Militia. The regulation of which was already given to Congress, in Article 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 16. The 2nd Article of Amendment states, quite clearly, that the PEOPLE have the right to be armed.
Kingofthenet| 8.1.12 @ 8:54PM
Jesus wore TROJANS, because he didn't want anyone to see him cumming.
Nick| 8.1.12 @ 9:02PM
Forgive him Father, for KooK knows not what he does.
Minuteman78| 8.2.12 @ 11:40AM
The fact that the Episcopal church has a LGBT "caucus" is all I needed to know to avoid that denomination and just added another nail to the coffin I have put organized religion in. One nail was the 'you're going to hell if you don't cough up your 10%', another was 'we're at the end of days because of moral decay' (so you won't miss that 10%), yet another was 'who's running the White House isn't as important as who's running your house' (so get with it and fork over that 10%), etc...
Minuteman78| 8.2.12 @ 11:42AM
Almost forgot: If I wanted to give 10% of my earnings to an outfit that promoted abortion, cross-dressing, homosexuality, and all other forms of deviance, I'd just write a check to the DNC.
Vasu Murti | 8.2.12 @ 1:27PM
Pro-life Christians have no Scriptural basis for prohibiting abortion.
Genesis 38:24. Tamar’s pregnancy was proof that she was sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law, Judah, ordered that she be burned alive for her crime.
If Tamar’s fetuses had any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.
Exodus 21:22-24. If two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the fetus is killed, he repays her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon her, and not the fetus.
Author Brian McKinley, a born-again Christian, comments:
"Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence -- it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death.”
The New Testament is more permissive than the Old Testament!
Paul claims the Law is abolished and refers to his previous adherence to the Law as “so much garbage.”
Some Christians argue they don’t even have to follow Paul, either, because Paul claims the risen Jesus said to him three times: “…my grace is sufficient for thee…”
…and they take these words as a license to do as they please, ignoring even the moral instructions Paul gives throughout his epistles.
Thus, pro-lifers have no Scriptural basis for prohibiting abortion.
Nick| 8.2.12 @ 5:53PM
Wrong, as usual, Vasu Murti. Where do you vegans come up with this trash?
Tamar was assumed to be an adulterer, not a prostitute. She dressed as a prostitute. (Although, it is not clear from the text whether she dressed as a sacred, or temple, prostitute, or just an ordinary prostitute.)
The levirate law that required the burning of the daughter of a priest for harlotry, came hundreds of years later.
Judah also conspired to sell his brother into slavery, by the way. So, his judgments do not necessarily come from God. I feel like we've had this conversation before.
Exodus 21:22-26 is not about abortion, it is about wrongful death from a miscarriage. Remember, an abortion is the deliberate killing of an unborn baby (fetus in Latin,) not an accidental taking of human life. Intent is the key.
If the woman miscarries, the death of child is treated as a wrongful death, and subject to civil penalties such as restitution. If the woman is injured so badly that she dies, it is treated as criminally negligent homicide; eye for eye, life for life, is then applied.
Saint Paul never claimed the Mosaic Law was "so much garbage." Those who ignore the teachings of Paul, do so at their own risk. And, reject the teachings of Christ.
See my reply to DRed, above, for the Scriptural basis to prohibit abortion.
Nick| 8.2.12 @ 5:54PM
Also, read chap. 2 of the Didache (The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles) c. A.D. 50-100, which reads, in part:
"you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm
Craigpurcell| 8.5.12 @ 7:18PM
Maybe Heironymous Bosch was a visionary after all with his "Garden of Earthly Delights" painting.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....lution.jpg