E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe blogosphere is abuzz with the story that broke last night, when the Human Rights Campaign released internal memos from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the nation's largest and most visible anti-same sex-marriage group, calling for the use of a racial wedge strategy to fight campaigns for marriage equality.
“The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks -- two key Democratic constituencies,” one of the NOM memos says.
“The documents, marked “confidential,” were unsealed yesterday afternoon in Maine by court order, as part of that state’s ongoing ethics investigation into NOM’s campaign finances.
The memo spells out specific steps to enact, including:
Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage, develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots…”
Here is an excerpt on NOM’s Hispanic strategy:
"The Latino vote in America is a key swing vote, and will be so even more so in the future, both because of demographic growth and inherent uncertainty: Will the process of assimilation to the dominant Anglo culture lead Hispanics to abandon traditional family values? We must interrupt this process of assimilation by making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity - a symbol of resistance to inappropriate assimilation."
NOM also spells out its plans for the 2012 presidential election:
"From a political angle," the NOM document says, "this strategy will require electing a pro-marriage President in 2012." Strategies for defeating, ("sideswiping," as the document calls it) President Obama include "expose Obama as a social radical," and "raise such issues as pornography, protection of children, and the need to oppose all efforts to weaken religious liberty at the federal level."
NOM is a 501(c)3 and cannot endorse presidential candidates, but the former chairwoman of NOM’s board, Maggie Gallagher, endorsed Santorum in January.
Public opinion has moved considerably in the three years since the memos were drafted. The most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (conducted Feb. 29 through March 3) shows a plurality favors same-sex marriage -- 49 percent say so versus 40 percent who oppose. That's a reversal from 41-49 percent in October 2009.
Among African Americans, a majority (50 percent) said they were in favor (41 were opposed). That's a big change from October 2009, when just a third (32 percent) were in favor and a majority (53 percent) were opposed. Among Hispanics, in the most recent poll, 55 percent said they were in favor, 30 percent said they were against. That's also a change from October 2009, when the margin was tighter (45-40 favor to oppose).
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign -- which supports efforts to legalize same-sex marriage -- criticized NOM. “Nothing beats hearing from the horse’s mouth exactly how callous and extremist this group really is,” Solmonese said in a statement.
NOM posted a statement on its website today, saying it is "proud of [its] strong record on minority partnerships."
It added: “Gay marriage advocates have attempted to portray same-sex marriage as a civil right, but the voices of these and many other leaders have provided powerful witness that this claim is patently false. Gay marriage is not a civil right, and we will continue to point this out in written materials such as those released in Maine. We proudly bring together people of different races, creeds and colors to fight for our most fundamental institution: marriage.”
NBC's Domenico Montanaro contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
Larry Robinson-1323081
Bigotry is unbecoming and judging others is against ALL the teachings of Jesus...you'd know that if you read the Christian Holy Book, the New Testament. Jesus NEVER said one word about Gays...show me where He said to do anything about Gays...in fact anyone's sex life is NONE of your business at all...you should be doing good instead of judging ANYONE....let he who is without sin cast the first stone...so you have no sin? And you claim to be a Christian!!! Christians FOLLOW the teachings of Jesus, not DISREGARD them sir! Your hypocrisey and your Bigotry are BOTH showing...just another ordinary bigot is all you are....Civil Marriage is not religious and you have NO RIGHT to JUDGE anyone...so mind your own business you Taliban you...all of you bigots are just like the Taliban trying to ram your beliefs down everyone else's throat while not even believing them yourself.....
Nothing I've said is bigotry unless you are willing to call Jesus a bigot. Calling God a bigot is not likely to help you be accepted by Him.
Jesus actually commanded believers to judge, but to do so with righteous judgment
Christians are called by Christ to judge contrary to the disinformation spread by those who don't know Him or His word.
Jesus NEVER forbid judgment. In fact, He did quite the contrary. Christians have a moral duty to judge.
The Matthew quote is often misused by atheists, but not usually by those who claim to be pastors and should know better.
Which Jesus told you never to judge? Not the Jesus who is God in the Flesh, who died and rose on the 3rd day. He never made any statements barring judgment by believers. In fact just the opposite.
In Matthew 7, Jesus does not forbid judgment, but warns to judge with righteous judgment by stating to be careful how you judge because we will by judged by the same standard. As believers filled with the presence of Jesus through the Holy Spirit, we have the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16)
This is confirmed by His statements in the books of John and Luke.
Jesus said in John 7:24 “Be honest in your judgment and do not decide at a glance (superficially and by appearances); but judge fairly and righteously.” (Amplified Bible)
In Luke 12:57 Jesus said “And why do you not judge what is just and personally decide what is right?”
Echoed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:2,3 “Don’t you know that God’s people will judge the world? So if you’re going to judge the world, aren’t you capable of judging insignificant cases? Don’t you know that we will judge angels, not to mention things in this life?”
As to condemning homosexuality Jesus certainly did condemn it. Jesus taught Jews according to the law of Moses- who do you think He was addressing?
Jesus was openly acknowledged by the masses and the Jewish spiritual leaders as Rabbi, Master, or Teacher. All titles given to those who teach the Tanakh. That point is not disputable
To suggest that He might not have been referring to the Law of Moses is not supportable by any Theologians or scholars, even liberal ones. In fact it is easily debunked
Luke 16:16,17, Matt 12:5, Matt 22:34-40
As a Rabbi, Jesus would only be addressing the Law of Moses.
Now back to your other point; Despite your many attempts to find some angle that will make Jesus accept sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman, it just isn't there.
Jesus affirmed in Matthew 19 that when He created Adam and Eve, He established marriage as consisting of a man and a woman. He addressed specifically that sexual sins including homosexuality defiles you in Matthew 15:18-20
“But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”
Fornication as defined by the law of Mose that Jesus gave to him was sexual relations outside of the marriage of a man and a woman. Orthodox Judaism restricts sexual activity to a legally permissible marriage between a Jewish man and a Jewish woman. A man and women are even prohibited from being in a closed room alone together if they are not married, a law called yichud, nor are they allowed to have physical contact (a law referred to as negiah).
From every reading of Talmud, this was clearly the understanding at the time Jesus taught.
As pastor and someone devoted to following and serving Jesus, I only teach and speak exactly as He did and taught all who follow Him to do likewise.
Larry Robinson-1323081 - It's kinda hard to call a figment of your imagination a bigot. I think for now we'll just stick to calling you the bigot.
BTW: You do realize that Matthew and Luke were both written by an anonymous writers.
Larry--As I showed in 77.13, you do not speak and teach exactly as Jesus did. You interpret His words to suit your agenda. This is not unusual among more egocentric pastors, but those who have fewer personal issues are often intellectually honest enough to admit it. By the way, do you know which circle of hell is reserved for the supremely arrogant?
"Nothing I've said is bigotry unless you are willing to call Jesus a bigot."
Since Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, I don't really think you can blame it on him.
And God is not necessarily a bigot just because YOU claim he makes you say bigoted things.
Larry--I'm sorry to call you on this, but when you stated, "He addressed specifically that sexual sins including homosexuality defiles you in Matthew 15:18-20," you are wrong. Here's what Matthew 15:18-20 says in the NIV: "18) But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man unclean. 19) For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander." I don't see the word "homosexuality" in that passage. That's your interpretation, not what Jesus literally said. It appears that someone has evil thoughts coming out of his mouth.
1. what is your evidence that removes all possibility of God's existence.
2. Are you making a declaration that you have all possible knowledge of the evidence disproving the existence of God?
3. Matthew and Luke both wrote within 30 years of the life of Jesus. Even a very liberal theologian, A. T Robinson said the facts forced him to change his view on the dating.
Although Robinson was within the liberal theology tradition, he challenged the work of colleagues in the field of exegetical criticism. Specifically, Robinson examined the New Testament's reliability, because he believed that very little original research had been completed in the field during the period between 1900 and the mid-1970s. Concluding his research, he wrote in his work, Redating the New Testament,[13] that past scholarship was based on a "tyranny of unexamined assumptions" and an "almost willful blindness".
Robinson concluded that much of the New Testament was written before AD 64, partly based on his judgement that there is little textual evidence that the New Testament reflects knowledge of the Temple's AD 70 destruction. In relation to the four gospels' dates of authorship, Robinson placed Matthew at 40 to after 60, Mark at about 45 to 60, Luke at before 57 to after 60, and John at from 40 to after 65.[14][15] Robinson also argued that the letter of James was penned by a brother of Jesus Christ within twenty years of Jesus’ death, that Paul authored all the books that bear his name, and that the apostle John wrote the fourth Gospel. Robinson also opined that due to his investigations, a rewriting of many theologies of the New Testament was in order.[16][17][18]
C. H. Dodd, in a frank letter to Robinson wrote: "I should agree with you that much of the late dating is quite arbitrary, even wanton, the offspring not of any argument that can be presented, but rather of the critic's prejudice that, if he appears to assent to the traditional position of the early church, he will be thought no better than a stick-in-the-mud."[19] Robinson's call for redating the New Testament was echoed by subsequent scholarship such as John Wenham's work Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Other subsequent works calling for redating of some or all of the gospels were written by such scholars as Claude Tresmontant, Gunther Zuntz, Carsten Peter Thiede, Eta Linnemann, Harold Riley, Bernard Orchard
Add to that the scholarship of William Albright. William Foxwell Albright (May 24, 1891 – September 19, 1971)[1] was an American archaeologist, biblical scholar, philologist and expert on ceramics. From the early twentieth century until his death, he was the dean of biblical archaeologists and the universally acknowledged founder of the Biblical archaeology movement.
the Apostle Luke travelled with Paul and died in what is now modern day Greece in 84 AD
Matthew wrote his gospel record between 50-55 AD most likely in Antioch of Syria.
Old Vet and Jock,
Which of you has a degree in theology? Which of you has taken courses in hermeneutics (methodology for interpreting scripture)? Which of you has taken courses in biblical Greek and Hebrew? Well, I have and as a theologian, I do feel competent that my stance is biblically and hermeneutically correct. I have backed it up with ample evidence while you both merely state your disagreement without any basis in scholarship.
Who was Jesus addressing in Matthew 15- answer- Jews
Was Jesus acknowledged by the Jews, even the Pharisees as a Rabbi, a teacher of the word?
What was the Jewish definition of sexual immorality for Jews at that time?
Sexual immorality which includes homosexuality is clearly part of that definition and no amount of twisting words can change that.
All of these fell under the definition of fornication at the time Jesus was teaching.
"...against [a man] having union with his mother."
"...against [a man] having union with his sister."
"...against [a man] having union with the wife of his father."
"...against [a man] having union with another man's wife."
"...against [a man] copulating with a beast."
"...against a woman copulating with a beast."
"...against [a man] lying carnally with a male."
"...against [a man] lying carnally with his father."
"...against [a man] lying carnally with his father's brother."
"...against engaging in erotic conduct that may lead to a prohibited union. [That is, petting by persons whose marriage would be illicit.]"
While the Torah does not explicitly mention lesbianism, the Sages included it, along with other illicit sexual practices, to fall within the proscription of following in the ways of Egyptian traditions (Sifra Leviticus 18:3). While some scholars deemed female homosexual activity a biblical injunction (Kiryat Sefer Issurei Biah 21:8), others understood it as a rabbinic prohibition (Prisha EH 20:2)
Finally, there is NO evidence that Jesus ever taught ANY new morality that violated the Law of Moses. Quite the contrary.
It doesn't matter whether God exists or not when it comes to public policy. We have the separation of church and state and we always will. Deal with it.
Old Vet, show me one thing I have stated that is different from what Jesus said. I've studied this and taught this for over 30 years and had great mentors.
"All of these fell under the definition of fornication at the time Jesus was teaching."
That was 2000 years ago. How is that relevant? A different time and a different place.
Larry--In 102.5 I showed you what you stated that is different from what Jesus said. By the way, in 77.5 you wrote: "Christians are not under the Law of Moses." Now you're telling us that Jesus said that his followers should be under the Law of Moses by applying Mosaic law to Matthew 15:19. Which is it? As for all your studying and years of preaching, I'm not impressed. I've an AB, MA, and PhD in history, taught and published articles about it for 35 years, worked with PhDs (and grew up surrounded by them) and learned that degrees are no guarantee against foolishness and illogic (including my own--I'm always learning new things about history).
Larry, Please remember this. It's very important. It includes you.
Romans 14:10, we will all stand before God's judgment seat.
Please also remember that God is a forgiving father. He loves unconditionally. Everyone who comes to Him receives His grace.
Psalm 103:13 As a father has compassion on his children, so the Lord has compassion on those who fear Him.
Larry, I know a few very sweet and loving Christians who are gay. You couldn't hold a candle to their kindness and love of God. I don't know how or why they are who they are. I just know God says I must love them because he loves them and they love Him.
1 John 3:1, How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God.
1 John 4:8, Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
Exodus 34:6-7, And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion, and sin"
Larry, I think you've been focusing too much on the scriptures regarding judgement. And have been misunderstanding most of them as well.
Mathew 7:1, Judge not lest ye be judged.
consider it.
God does love all. But God does not extend His love to all. Only those who love Him, serve Him and do so in obedience to His word.
Who gave the commandments to Moses? Jesus did. The Laws of Moses reflect the holiness of Jesus who is God in the flesh
Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me. John 14:23,24
As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. John 15:9,10
“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Matthew 7:13,14
For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:20
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Matthew 7:21-23
Your universalism is not taught by Jesus.
Which Jesus told you never to judge? Not the Jesus who is God in the Flesh, who died and rose on the 3rd day. He never made any statements barring judgment by believers. In fact just the opposite.
In Matthew 7, Jesus does not forbid judgment, but warns to judge with righteous judgment by stating to be careful how you judge because we will by judged by the same standard.
This is confirmed by His statements in the books of John and Luke.
Jesus said in John 7:24 “Be honest in your judgment and do not decide at a glance (superficially and by appearances); but judge fairly and righteously.” (Amplified Bible)
In Luke 12:57 Jesus said “And why do you not judge what is just and personally decide what is right?”
Echoed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:2,3 “Don’t you know that God’s people will judge the world? So if you’re going to judge the world, aren’t you capable of judging insignificant cases? Don’t you know that we will judge angels, not to mention things in this life?”
Your quote from 1 John is out of context- go back some verses
Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked. 1 John 2:3-6
Old Vet,
I'm trying to help you understand but it seems your unwillingness to comprehend the simple truths of the teachings of Jesus escapes you. Jesus was asked about approval by God and what defiles a person before God. He stated the clear moral law of the OT (which He gave to Moses). His point there is that the moral law is the heart of obedience to God, not the ceremonial law.
The direct quotes from Jesus were addressed to Jews and it is they who understood them in the light of the Law of Moses. So when you and others state that Jesus did not directly use the word homosexual, there was no need because the clear teaching of the definition of fornication or sexual immorality to them was as I listed. With His death and resurrection, the ceremonial law and the judicial law which were only for Israel have no relationship to Christians. The moral law was in place even before Moses was given the 10 Commandments (Noahidic Law)
The second point is indeed separate only in stating that Gentile believers are not under the Law of Moses. In fact NO believer is under the law of Moses. Luke 16:16 and Galatians 3:19 among others
The application of applying moral standards to Christians reverts back to Noahidic law for guidance. This was the approach taken by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:24-29
Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”[f] —to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
The word used here for sexual immorality is pornea which is also translated fornication and still carries with it in the understanding of Peter, James, Paul, and the rest of the council this same understanding that Jesus gave in Matthew 15 (illicit sexual intercourse-a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12
"Jesus said in John 7:24 "Be honest in your judgment and do not decide at a glance (superficially and by appearances); but judge fairly and righteously." (Amplified Bible)
So judging someone today by solely utilizing text an English translation, of a 2200 to 2500 year old Aramaic text is fairly and righteous? It doesnt sound like it, however let's say you're right. Jesus also said in Matthew 22:36 "[Jesus], which is the great commandment in the law?" And he said to him, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets." How about this? Matthew 6:14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. Or this? Matthew 18:33 Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?'
I noticed above you quoted Luke 12:57 to make your point, interesting choice, as I have and you are not.
Larry--I will try to keep this simple. You have failed to deal with your mistatement of what Jesus said. It is still your flawed, personal interpretation. I'm not interested in the bigoted thoughts of an hypocritical, supremely arrogant, ignorant old fool. You are an insult to good pastors everywhere. You have no understanding of the truth of Jesus' teaching and have done more harm to Christianity than all the atheists on this vine. Do not preach to me. I'm not interested. I feel sorry for whatever flock you have and will pray for them and for you, that you may see the light and learn the error of your ways.
I wonder if Larry obeys the order found in Deuteronomy 21:18-21, and kills his disobedient children?
He sounds like a real cafeteria Christian and a real hater. And definitely not a follower of Christ.
Larry, after reading all of your arguments about what Jesus meant in Matthew 15, I must conclude, Jesus was a bigot.
No social acceptance for gays.
Except for the fact that there is, and it is growing every year. Be afraid!
Deport gays.
That's too obviously trolling. You'd better go back to the usual homophobic fare.
Apparently Dean has to come out of the closet:
http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/homophobia.htm
Methinks Dean doth protest too much! Erin's post confirms what I've always suspected.
erin- laughable nonsense.
Do all who reject murder and rape as wrong according to the teachings of Jesus have a secret arousal to murder and rape?
larry: stupid "logic". Sex isn't the same as violence. duh.
Larry Robinson-1323081 - Pretty much according to the old testament.
vermontguy- what is stupid is the idea that the reason someone finds a behavior to be morally wrong is only because they are secretly aroused by it. That is the absurdity of the logical fallacy that Erin presents. try looking up "begging the question"
Larry--No one is arguing whatever it is that you are arguing. What the scientific experiment showed was that those who are most homophobic are also those who are sexually aroused by homosexual material. I've cited the study in Psychology Today to you before, but you, of course, choose not to read or understand what is in front of you (possibly quite literally).
larry: hmmm...while I would love to admire your deep knowledge of psychology that would allow me to believe you, frankly, you are have zero credibility. The fact that you tried to argue against what erin posted by talking about violence as if it were the same as sex confirms how clueless you are. But thanks for trying! :)
Obviously not all anti-gay people are secretly gay, but it is pretty likely that some are. Especially those that are so vehement about it being a choice, because it may well have been a choice for them (meaning they were attracted to same sex but chose not to act on it).
So this organization is in existence to protect marriage...if that's true then aren't they going after the wrong people? Instead of going after same sex couples who actually want to get married, they should be going after divorcees no?...I think it's divorce that's destroying marriage or am I the retarded one here?
we need to make adultery illegal! let's bring back the stocks, if we are going to have laws from the middle ages, lets have punishment from the middle ages too!
These scare tactics is what the NOM used in California to win Prop 8. They were able to sway the Latino to vote for Prop 8. Of course religion is for the brainless people. That's how the religious cult like Santorum able to get votes. This is also how Bush used the "Jesus Factor" to win the presidency for his father and for him. Then turn around and print money to fund 2 wars.
It's just amazing that the Republican party can at this moment be in our nations capital with a lawsuit before our Supreme Court stating that the personal responsibility to purchase health care insurance is UNCONSTITUTIONAL . They are nearly in tears (for the cameras) shouting to the media that this mandate shreds our LAST TINY BIT OF FREEDOM! (OMG) While in state after Republican run state, they are busy trying to strip women of their rights to health care. They are busy writing legislation to force women to have invasive procedures performed on them and then forcing them to pay for it all. They've been busy for 2 years writing new laws to take away the right to vote of millions of poor and elderly. They've even planned ahead for what they knew Democrats would do. They made it illegal to help people get to the registration sites. In Florida they are prosecuting people for taking voter registration cards to the required delivery points because they've made it illegal to do so! They are prosecuting a teacher for helping senior students to register to vote! They are busy sticking their noses into our bedrooms, our bodies, our right to freedom to worship as we please (unless of course we choose to worship as Christians or Jews). But they are in this fight to allegedly SAVE THE LAST SHRED OF OUR FREEDOM. Their ridiculous claim that Democrats have taken our freedoms away from us is laughable. What freedoms have Democrats taken from us? It's so absurd. And what is even more absurd is that they have so many of the Republican people in this country fooled.
It makes me see why people of other countries say things like, "Americans are stupid." And I've heard it said by many.
repealing Obama doesn't strip a single woman of getting healthcare. It does strip away getting some of it free.
When government seizes the fruit of the labor of it's citizens, we have surrendered our liberties
When government determines how much of your income you are allowed to keep, we have surrendered our liberties
When government states that it is the arbiter of when and where you should grow (Wickard v Filburn), we have surrendered our liberties
When government states it determines the wage agreements between employer and employee, we have surrendered our liberties
When government determines how and where we educate our children, we surrender our liberties
When government determines that we must purchase health insurance with a threat of tax penalties whether we use health care services or not-we have surrendered our liberties
When government forces us to participate in a retirement ponzi scheme-we have surrendered our liberties
When government forces us to participate in old age government run health care-we have surrendered our liberties
When doctors are forced by the Government to provide free services, we have surrendered our liberties
When government tries to control the environment, we have surrendered our liberties
When government forces us to participate in a marxist redistribution of wealth-we have surrendered our liberties
Consider:
You are right and then wrong.
Problem is Obama did not take care to make legilsation good enough to be resilient to know lissue based attacks. Seconldy huge majority was for health care but what they mean was cost coantinment. Obama did nof do it. He focuseed on acess in a convoluted way. During campaign Obama opposed mandate and won nomination. That was his major issue. Hillary was for mandate. Without that Obama would nto have been President. After being President, he flipped theposition.
Larry--Change terrifies you, doesn't it? That's OK. Change has been terrifying to many throughout history. Caiaphas, at least by some readings, was also terrified of change, particularly the changes to the established order that Jesus threatened to make. Tell us, Larry, would you also have opposed change in Jerusalem during that Passover so long ago?
Larry, yes -- individuals do surrender some liberties to make a society work better. Otherwise we just randomly kill each other (which apparently occurs anyway). We are fundamentally a social species and societies do not work if everybody can do whatever they want to know matter what.
Larry. The state laws I'm talking about are already in effect and they have nothing to do with what you call Obamacare. States are making it illegal for women to get birth control pills. This is where they decided to go with the short lived fight between Obamacare and the Catholic Church. Which, by the way, was quickly resolved to the satisfaction of the church. The right wing tried to keep it going but failed. They decided to use it to carry on their war on women's rights. They quickly passed laws like this in many states.
Now, who has taken your money? Do you think it's been Democrats? What about the taxes the Republicans have collected? You do realize that Republicans live on your tax dollars don't you? You realize that your tax dollars provide Republicans with extravagant perks and salaries and benefits?
And if we didn't pay to run our country and our military then what would become of our country? Whose money would keep it going? Would we put the nation up for sale? Would we just have a corporation owning the country? Would they then own the people as well since we all consider ourselves part of our country. I know I do. How would that work? Or would we just let the nation fall down around us. Sell the White House to the highest bidder? Sell the Smithsonian? Sell the Pentagon? Sell all of our monuments? What if China bought them all up? Would we soon be forced to speak Chinese?
Protecting the environment is not controlling it. I for one want my environment protected from the rape and pillaging of industry. I want to preseve my right to drinking clean water and to bathe in clean water and to breathe clean air. God gave us the earth and the gifts thereon. Every tree, plant and creature is a gift from God. He has commanded us to be good stewards of his creations. He gave them to us for our pleasure and use. It's possible to extract what we need from the earth without destroying it! But we know that if left alone the corporations of this nation would have already destroyed everything they could get their greedy hands on. They are doing it today where they can get away with it.
So you don't care about clean water and air. I do. Who's rights should be protected?
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme to you but to me it's wonderful. I know you've been told lies about it but the only way it won't be there for you when you need it is if the Republicans get their hands on it and turn it over to corporations on Wall Street to "invest". Now there's where the Ponzi schemes were invented and are found.
And the government does NOT tell us where to get our education and it doesn't tell us when to either, except of course in the case of children. Because everyone knows that a child's education must begin early. We have many choices here in this country when it comes to education. Where did you ever get such an idea? Never mind. I suppose I already know.
And, no way are doctors ever going to be forced to provide FREE services. That's another line of BS.
And please, lets not go back to the 1940's. There's enough going on right here and now.
The main reason the founding fathers wrote the Constitution was to give the federal government more power to tax, becuase the country wouldn't work otherwise.
Not at all. Change can be and often is a very good thing. But I don't know anyone who foolishly believes that "ALL" change is good.
For instance, do you believe there are any moral absolutes? If so should they change? who determines what is a moral absolute besides God? If other than God, is it really an absolute?
Really? Then why were they absolutely opposed to direct taxation as an evil to be avoided? Why did they believe that taxation of property (which includes income) was a mark of tyranny?
Larry, I don't know about what kinds of taxes they liked best or worst, but the Articles of Confederation did not give the central government enough power to raise taxes or regulate interstate commerce, which is why the convened a convention to amend them.
Larry--They didn't didn't believe that taxation of property was a mark of tyranny. One of the first taxes passed under the new Constitution was an excise tax on whiskey, and a tax on the property whiskey distillers produced.
Larry--Regarding moral absolutes, it would seem to many readers of this vine that you, my friend, have been determining what the moral absolutes are. You seem to be declaring that you, and you alone, speak God's truth. That, sir, is extreme arrogance. You, like every other religious leader, speak your version of God's truth, nothing more, nothing less. I'm beginning to suspect that you and Caiaphas would have gotten along famously.
"A wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
-- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
John Adams declared that “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence” and that “Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty”
"Property," March 29, 1792 (What man attaches value to and has a right to)
By James Madison
Larry--There is nothing in that out-of-context cut and pasted posting that says property can't be taxed or that taxation of property is tyranny. It says "unequal taxes" or "arbitary taxes" are bad, but not that taxation of property is bad. Most pastors can read. Based on that, I'm beginning to doubt that you're a pastor. Given that you have difficulty with reading comprehension and cannot seem to form a rational argument, I'm beginning to have serious doubts as to the efficacy of attempting a rational discussion with you.
"When men get in the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they cannot easily be cured of it."
-- The New York Times, in a 1909 editorial opposing the very first income tax
Richard E. Byrd, who was speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, warned that it would be the beginning of a new and dangerous period in American government. "A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business; the eye of the Federal inspector will be in every man's counting house . . . The law will of necessity have inquisitorial features, it will provide penalties, it will create complicated machinery. Under it men will be hailed into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the tax payer. An army of Federal inspectors, spies and detectives will descend upon the state . . . Who of us who have had knowledge of the doings of the Federal officials in the Internal Revenue service can be blind to what will follow?"
Likewise Old Vet- you ignore history, facts, and any over evidence. Both your marxist liberal ideology and your lack of knowledge of basic fundamentals of Christian doctrine and hermeneutics demonstrate you aren't ready for serious debate.
More from Madison's 1792 Essay on Property- it seems you are ill informed on the subject
Definition of property
This term in its particular application means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage. In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.
In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.
He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.
He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.
He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.
Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions. Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause. Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.
More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.
Founder John Dickenson on taxation from his 2nd Letters from a Countryman
There are two ways of laying taxes. One is, by imposing a certain sum on particular kinds of property, to be paid by the user or consumer, or by rating the person at a certain sum. The other is, by imposing a certain sum on particular kinds of property, to be paid by the seller.
When a man pays the first sort of tax, he knows with certainty that he pays so much money for a tax. The consideration for which he pays it, is remote, and, it may be, does not occur to him. He is sensible too, that he is commanded and obliged to pay it as a tax; and therefore people are apt to be displeased with this sort of tax.
The other sort of tax is submitted to in a very different manner. The purchaser of an article, very seldom reflects that the seller raises his price, so as to indemnify himself for the tax he has paid. He knows that the prices of things are continually fluctuating, and if he thinks about the tax, he thinks at the same time, in all probability, that he might have paid as much, if the article he buys had not been taxed. He gets something visible and agreeable for his money; and tax and price are so confounded together, that he cannot separate, or does not chuse to take the trouble of separating them.
This mode of taxation therefore is the mode suited to arbitrary and oppressive governments. The love of liberty is so natural to the human heart, that unfeeling tyrants think themselves obliged to accommodate their schemes as much as they can to the appearance of justice and reason, and to deceive those whom they resolve to destroy, or oppress, by presenting to them a miserable picture of freedom, when the inestimable original is lost.
Dickenson's explanation is quite clear and relevant to the income tax. This is not a users tax, but an oppressive tax
From a letter by Samual Adams which provides insight into the view of another founder on taxation of property (by which the founders included income)
Samuel Adams: Massachusetts Circular Letter, February 11, 1768
SIR,
The House of Representatives of this Province have taken into their serious consideration, the great difficulty that must accrue to themselves & their Constituents, by the operation of several acts of Parliament imposing Duties & Taxes on the American Colonys.
That in all free States the Constitution is fixd; & as the supreme Legislative derives its Power & Authority from the Constitution, it cannot overleap the Bounds of it without destroying its own foundation: That the Constitution ascertains & limits both Sovereignty & allegiance, & therefore, his Majestys American Subjects who acknowledge themselves bound by the Ties of Allegiance, have an equitable Claim to the full enjoymt of the fundamental Rules of the British Constitution. That it is an essential unalterable Right in nature, ingrafted into the British Constitution, as a fundamental Law & ever held sacred & irrevocable by the Subjects within the Realm, that what a man has honestly acquird is absolutely his own, which he may freely give, but cannot be taken from him without his consent:
Larry--You are an ignorant, hypocritical, arrogant old fool who apparently cannot read. You cannot address simple questions. You know nothing of my ideology but your supreme arrogance leads you to make false assumptions. If you actually knew anything of hermeneutics, you would know that there are many, many interpretations of scripture. Any fool knows that. Finally, do not even dare to tell me what a Christian is, because you, sir, are not one by any stretch of the imagination.
from John Locke 2nd Treatise on Government
What is property
Chapter 5 Sec. 27. "Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.
I would ask you what all your cuttings and pastings here had to do with whether the Founders thought that the Federal government they created had the power to levy direct taxes or tax property, but you would respond with yet another irrelevant screed. Get someone to read to you Art I, Sec. 2 ( ". . . direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States . . .") and Art. I Sec. 8 ("The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect Taxes . . ."). It doesn't say, "but no taxes on property." That they thought taxing property was a good idea is proven by the fact that one of the first taxes passed by Congress was an excise tax on whiskey and whiskey is, by any definition, property. Hence, your argument is non-factual and nonsensical.
Larry--Based on your inability to rationally interpret the documents you have pasted, none of which has anything to do with the Founding Fathers views on whether the American government could tax property, I have serious reservations about your ability to interpret anything, including scripture.
@Old Vet-462462 I believe it would be best to stop feeding Larry. I believe the whole point of the myriad of nonsensical, off-point, and out-of-context snippets was to scatter your attention... basically a chaff grenade for someone with no backing and no facts.
This just demonstrates that NOM doesn't get it. They keep hammering on the "God hates gays" argument. They can't evolve their argument to have sound logic. They can't fabricate data showing gay marriage is bad for the economy or something. They fail terribly.
Very poor strategy. Gays and blacks will still vote democrat
michael,
Who's talking about mob rule, other than you?
Whoops! I bet NOM sure didn't foresee that particular memo being broadcast to the entire English-speaking world. How embarrassing for them to be publicly exposed for what they really are: a bigoted hate group. They can gift-wrap it in all the pretty paper they want, but the true ugliness of what they stand for is laid bare in this internal memo. Seems like gays and blacks are pretty much equally despised by these intolerant folks, while Latinos are hated almost, but not quite, as much.
Anyone want to guess which party's lever every NOM member pulls in the voting booth on election day? Anyone?
I doubt th efigure of black supporting gay marriage are real.
Generally black and Latinos are not very gay friendly. AMong hispanics often the "TOP" even though have a sed with same gender is not considred gay adds complexity.
Black fundamentalist in southern Ohio voted for Bush and against Kerry on gay and abortion issue. It did nto come in theri way in voting for Obama;
Ultmately changing nature of soceity by technology will make most of sexual issues irrelevent.
Pretty generalizing statement there. Not all people of any race feel the same way on any issue
why does this even get covered by the news? It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Why?
The next time the marriage issue goes to the polls, in NC & MN, the signs should read:
Unfortunately for them, Black people are not all NUTSO about this. I really doubt they give a damn about gay marriage. Leave it to white people to try to use people when they need to.
Lobo,
Conservatives aren't ever going to praise the President for ANYTHING, except dropping dead.
They vote against their own bills if he supports them.
Skrekk, CCMNXC is being nice and you denigrate him, if he had been disdainful, you would have denigrated him more. So, what you are really saying is that even if someone doesn't agree with you, you are the one that denigrates anyone who is against your own beliefs. As Jesus put it, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." God will repay each and everyone according to our deeds. Remember that. God bless America, we sure need His help for this country is really going to the wolves.
I suggest you reread his comment, where he said he would "respectfully" inform gays that he thinks they're sinners.
I merely suggested a way he could do that. I'm sure most gay folks would appreciate hearing the opinions of a bigoted religious extremist.
These people have a real unhealthy obsession with homosexuality. Is this all they think about? Why do they think about it so much? I'm not gay. I think about women alot. Sometimes too much. Maybe I should ban hetrosexuality. I'm uncomfortable in my straightness.
I sure hope you aren't lusting in your heart for other women, that's a sin too, and we'll have to make it illegal!
One last thought (unless Larry comes back on): Obama got 'don't ask, don't tell" repealed and has spoken against the proposed North Carolina amendment outlawing gay marriage, so he has the gay vote. Gays, with the exception of the Log Cabin Republicans and who knows what's going on with them, can hardly vote for the homophobic Republicans. Obama also has the African-American vote because, well, he's African-American and African-Americans can hardly vote for Republicans (who knows how Michael Steele really votes). See http://blackvoicenews.com/commentary/more-commentary/47431-black-americans-and-mitt-romney.html for African-Americans and Romney.
what does your comment have to do with me? Obama has proven that he is not a disciple of Jesus.
Now THAt is bigotry, Larry. Just because someone doe snot interpret Christianity exactly like you do, does not mean that their faith is not legitimate. Not that it should matter anyway.
Larry--So now you, and you alone, determine who is a disciple of Jesus? You arrogant old fool. You and your kind do more damage to Christianity than all the pagans put together. I will pray for your soul because it needs prayed for. You are an insult to good Christians and diligent pastors everywhere.
Are you going to respond to my 102.11? Are you afraid to? It does rather expose your hypocrisy.
Larry, Jesus said VERY clearly in Matthew 19 that if anyone wants to follow him, that they must sell everything they own and give the money to the poor. It's a clear, unambiguous statement, and -- like many of Jesus' other statements -- is utterly ignored by those who profess to by Christians.
I would posit that, based on that requirement alone, that NO ONE (including you) is a "disciple of Jesus." Since you're most likely sitting in a comfortable home on your personal computer with an Internet connection, it's quite clear that YOU have not sold everything to give to the poor and follow Jesus.
I suggest you spend a bit less time judging and condemning others. Your god is imaginary, anyway, so just try to enjoy your life because it's really all that you have.
Old Vet- I have never said that "I alone determine who is a disciple of Jesus". The standard is given in the scriptures; I merely repeat what Jesus has already determined.
as to the other, I responded to you in 102.14
Chad,
You engage in a common use by those who do not understand scripture, you misquote out of context.
The quote in Matthew 19 is addressed specifically to the rich young man who Jesus brought out by His statement, cared more about his money and material belongings then to love and follow Jesus. So Jesus told him basically He would have to give up what he loved more than he loved Jesus in order to follow Him. There are no credible Bible commentaries that say that we are to give up all of our money to follow Jesus. That would make Jesus a hypocrite because He also promises to bless us we material prosperity when our hearts are right and He is our first priority.
Jesus who is God does indeed bless the faithful with material blessings for His namesake and to be glorified through us who love and serve Him
“And you shall remember the LORD your God, for it is He who gives you power to get wealth, that He may establish His covenant which He swore to your fathers, as it is this day.” Deuteronomy 8:18
“And He will love you and bless you and multiply you; He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your land, your grain and your new wine and your oil, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flock, in the land of which He swore to your fathers to give you.” Deuteronomy 7:13
“If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples.” John 14:7,8
“For the kingdom of heaven is like a man traveling to a far country, who called his own servants and delivered his goods to them. And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, to each according to his own ability; and immediately he went on a journey...
“So he who had received five talents came and brought five other talents, saying, ‘Lord, you delivered to me five talents; look, I have gained five more talents besides them.’ His lord said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant; you were faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.’ Matthew 25:14-21
Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers. 3 John 1
And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work...Now may He who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have sown and increase the fruits of your righteousness, while you are enriched in everything for all liberality, which causes thanksgiving through us to God. For the administration of this service not only supplies the needs of the saints, but also is abounding through many thanksgivings to God” 2 Corinthians 9:8,10-12
Discrimination, plain and simple. This NOM-inal organization is no different than any other persecuting organizations. Ignorance and religious fanaticism feul their motivation. They should be put on a watch list just as any other group that tries to coerce, or provide funding against, any subset of the population whose beliefs differ from their own. We all believe in different things, but it should not be acceptable to impose those beliefs upon others.
To get married, you need to get a license from the state government.
Gay people should be able to do the same as straight people.
It's ONLY a right that belongs to everyone!
To deny rights to anyone is a foolish idea.
Religion is really a sick trick on the people. All these anti women, anti gay, anti progress zealots are some of the most ignorant and hateful people around and you can't reason with them at all less they be professionally deprogrammed. This legendary leader named Jesus Christ all the while is this gentle and forgiving pacifist with long hair and wearing sandals and a piece of cloth whose most notable activity was denouncing the very same zealots of his day. I don't feel guilty or sorry about hurting the feelings of this gentle bearded man when I call out the right wing for what it is. A cult of pro slavery dominionists who if given the power will kill millions who don't tow the line. These child worshiping, voice hearing lunatics need to be pushed into obscurity and out of political power once and for all along with all the other destructive cults that have made life miserable for millions throughout human history. When is this human race going to grow the hell up? Stupid fairy tales from the middle east still confounding our politics in 2012! England and Europe are laughing their tails off at us today as we crumble to the ground with the blessing of all the damn churches they gave us.
If it's not environmental collapse, disease, or some type of 'space' event, it will be religion that will destroy this world. It's time for athiests and agnostics to come out of the closet and fight these ignorant monsters before they destroy us all.
No matter where you stand on the gay marriage issue, a racial wedge strategy is wrong. That being said first, I truly don't understand the gay marriage issue. The fact that conservatives oppose the issue makes no sense. Gay people who are in a committed monogamous relationship with each other area threat to heterosexuals? How? In fact they should be,at least viewed as less a threat to the homophobic. If they are with each other, how are they athreat to you? A stable couple with dual incomes,and affordable healthcare is fiscally responsible. A state recognized relationship that allows for share property ownership and implied estate rights is also financially responsible. The alternative is single individuals, living together with no financial interdependence, which is inherently less stable. Gay marriage is pro family so, I'm not sure how this isn't pro conservative. On most issues I'm pretty right of center. In fact, I'm a registered republican, though it's no longer the party of Linclon. I just don't get it. Lower taxes, sure. Balance the budget, you bet. Lower gas prices? Probably not in my lifetime, but please give it a shot. Protect our sores and populace, absolutely. Legislate morality, from a standpoint that begins and ends in bigotry? Please not in my name, and I will tell you so with my vote. Stay out of people's bedrooms.
It's not about logic with these people. They are afraid God is going to smite them and the nation if they don't stop everyone from sinning. It is pure fear that stems from their own lack of faith in the programming they have mentally invested in.
I'm so happy that I am an Atheist. Zealots seem to have miserable lives.
Lol, how stupid can they be? African Americans don't get married!
Do you really believe that?
Show me a political group that doesn't divide the population into various groups and tailor their campaign to the particular group. The "racial wedge" tack this article's author has taken is nothing more than a pro-homosexual tub thumper.
The women of this country may wake up one day and realize that the very same arguments being currently used to argue for homosexual marriage will be used in favor of polygamous marriage.
joe, that is impossible, because the main argument for gay marriage is that some have access to monogamous marriage and some don't. Since nobody has legal access to polygamous marriage, the same equality argument simply cannot apply.