Vox Day gets it right, as usual:
Vox gets it right, I think. We tried tolerance. It has brought repression with a celerity that surprises even those of us who predicted it.
While the lavender lobby is celebrating their latest corporate scalp, the worldwide criminalization of their perversion proceeds apace:
A U.S.-funded health project in Uganda has suspended operations after police arrested a staff member on suspicion of promoting homosexuality, highlighting the mounting legal risks confronting the gay community in the east African state. Uganda enacted legislation in February that strengthened punishments for anyone caught having gay sex, imposing jail terms of up to life for "aggravated homosexuality" - including sex with a minor or while HIV-positive.We hear a lot about Uganda's and Russia's new laws.
We don't hear quite as much about the fact that Uganda is the 38th African nation to criminalize what the Bible describes as "abomination". While the actions of a single judge are supposed to be indicative of progress, the democratic actions of entire nations are being ignored.
In the end, it is pretty simple. Reversion to the historical mean is the logical bet. And the USA is far from the first empire in decline to give itself up to sexual chaos.
A San Francisco homosexual comments on the matter: "You'll forgive me if I dont' feel any heartbreak for your kind finally being run out of town."Vox makes an excellent point. The slide to Gomorrah is not a world-wide phenomenon: quite the opposite. Around the world, nations are fighting back against the gaystapo, quite effectively.
Vox gets it right, I think. We tried tolerance. It has brought repression with a celerity that surprises even those of us who predicted it.
You have two choices, Americans. Either criminalize their behavior and force them back into the closet or be run out of town yourself. There is no middle ground. Other nations have reached this conclusion; I expect it is only a matter of time before Americans do too. We tried toleration. Despite our honest efforts, it has failed, and failed abysmally.Time for the push-back, and the return to sanity, which is, alas, less "tolerant" than we would wish it to be. There is no middle ground. We can cut no deals with these bastards. Either we, or they, will win.
Back on the booze, Egnor?ReplyDelete
Just what America needs. Criminalise victimless activities and add to the burgeoning population of American prisons which is already larger than that of Stalin's gulags.ReplyDelete
It would help America more to have prosecuted the Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers who precipitated the GFC by criminal actions, costing trillions.
Here's an interesting map.ReplyDelete
The most interesting thing about this map, to me at least, is that it's not an over-generalization to say that nations of the world most likely to tolerate homosexuality are nominally Christian nations, and particularly nominally Catholic/Lutheran/Anglican ones.
Given the expressive intensity of gay hate for Judeo-Christian culture, it would appear we have a case of of "biting the hand that feeds you". A risky undertaking in the best of times.
Egnor, good news, your brothers in Christ from the Westborough Baptist Church announced that they’ll be picketing UMass Amherst soon. That’s only about a 3 ½ hr. drive for you. Finally you’ll be able to be around people who share your strong Christian views.ReplyDelete
Westboro Baptist folks are Democrats (Phelps was a life-long Democrat who ran for elective office as a Democrat), and I am quite reluctant to endorse Democrat politics.Delete
Egnor, your blog has attracted the atheo-fascist communists. These are people who want nothing more than to criminalize the practice of Christianity and dissenting opinions by means of "anti-discrimination laws" and judicial fiat. They must try to portray themselves as victims of oppression, when in reality they're waging a war against our civilized society. This is how totalitarianism begins its ebb and flow.ReplyDelete
Vox is right, of course, and we're going to win this war.
Have you seen the public opinion polls? Assuming we remain a democracy we’ve already won the debate. But war? Is this why you guys want all those assault weapons, high capacity magazines, and tons of ammo?Delete
[Have you seen the public opinion polls? Assuming we remain a democracy we’ve already won the debate]
KW, you make my point so beautifully that it's hard to believe that you aren't doing it intentionally. The public opinion polls suggest majority support now for SSM-- that does not mean that you've "won" the debate, any more than the polls a few years ago means that Christians "won" the debate. In democratic countries, debates aren't "won" or lost in any final way-- debates continue, and policy changes continuously, in accordance with majority opinions.
Only in totalitarian countries are debates really "won"-- the thugs in power declare victory, and the debate ends. Ya know, it's your motto: "One man, one vote, once".
And that addresses the second part of your remarkably revealing comment-- about Second Amendment rights. We conservatives and Christians know that as long as we can protect ourselves, you totalitarians can't really declare the debate "won".
Popeye, my pinheaded friend, the reason pollsters poll constantly is the results are constantly changing. Consider the popularity of, say, BO (the imPOTUS, not the dog). It's never "over".Delete
And as far as the guys who "want all those assault weapons, high capacity magazines, and tons of ammo", it's the government - i.e., NOAA SWAT teams, Homeland Security, Department of Education, Agriculture Department, HUD, Office of Personnel Management, Social Security (!!), EPA, etc [source: Wall St Journal]- who are buying billions of dollars worth of weapons, tons of hollow point ammunition, and surplus armored vehicles. Why? For what war?
It's more appropriate to say that Egnor and company are losing the debate. Public opinion polls show a steady gradual shift toward wider acceptance of gays and lesbians.Delete
Enjoy your day, losers!
How am I intolerant?Delete
Egnor says down with tolerance and you don't seem to object to that. Speak up if you're against that.Delete
However you slice it, gramps. Egnor says no to tolerance and you clearly agree with him. That makes you intolerant.Delete
So be a man. Wear your colors with pride, like Egnor does!
KW, if your side winning over the majority then explain why 31 times that SS'M was put to popular referendum it was shot down?Delete
Fascist activist judges overturning the majority vote doesn't constitute "winning" anymore than someone throwing over the chess board after losing is "winning." The only way your side can make political gains is through corruption and deception, because the majority opposes you.
P.S. "90% of Americans polled oppose homosex." See what I did there? The same thing that the MSM does anytime it wants to convince low-information viewers that they're winning: create the illusion of victory. Neither I nor anyone I know personally has ever participated in any of these (skewed) polls. It's no small coincidence how practically every time there's an article pertaining to homosexuality, the majority of commentary is in opposition to it.Delete
Popeye: "There is no silent majority being bullied into submission that will ultimately prevail"Delete
No one said there was, Popster. Put the bong down.
Oh, and please do keep it up with the “We need to be more intolerant and make black lists” strategy. I can’t imagine a better way to drive people away from the Republican Party and Christianity. Thank You!Delete
Conclude whatever you like, Toots. You don't know whether I agree or disagree. I haven't declared my view on that.Delete
Are you back on your Dr Fraud kick, reading minds, interpreting dreams, and sussing out "projection"?
Back to the discussion: Do you think tolerance means intolerance of intolerance?
Now, should I "conclude that you agree with [that statement]"? You haven''t declared yourself.
KW, remind me again: which side just forced a CEO to resign on account of their fascist intolerance?Delete
Gramps, you know full well that I disagree with Egnor on many things, and this one is no exception. So in case your dull brain can't grasp that,Delete
I hereby declare that I disagree with Michael Egnor who calls for being intolerant.
Now your turn, gramps. Do you agree or disagree with Egnor?
Please note, Michael, that said CEO was forced out because he supported a constitutional amendment on gay marriage that prevailed in a democratic election 52-48% and was overturned by a gay judge.Delete
If an election isn't a poll, I'm not sure what is.
Different question, Toots.Delete
Here's the question: Do you think tolerance means intolerance of intolerance?
Yes or no works for me.
I've already answered that, gramps.Delete
I repeat, for the stupid, that I don't think one needs to be intolerant of the intolerant. One just can disagree with them. Disagreement isn't intolerance.
So answer my question, old fart knocker.
Toots: "I don't think one needs to be intolerant of the intolerant."Delete
Well, that a pretty sorry-assed half-answer, but I assume it's your best effort given your limitations. I'll invoke the Dodo Bird Rule ("Everybody has won and all must have prizes") here just to move the ball down the court.
So, in the interests of time:
I disagree with Egnor on this issue. I really don't care about sodomy laws one way or another. If gay men want to have sex in a sewer, it's [ahem] no skin off my ass. Since homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end anyway (that molecule pulling the strings inside the gigantic lumbering robot must be really pissed off), I'm not too worried about them taking over the world.
Good on you, gramps. It's fine to disagree. Egnor has been so far off his rocker lately that even his buddies find him extreme.Delete
Boggs, them "taking over the world" is an unrealistic concern. What is disconcerting is that the "equality," "anti-discrimination" laws are inherently discriminatory towards anyone who doesn't cater to them or they find offensive (i.e. thought crime). Their recent activity is fascist and unacceptable, let alone something to be tolerated. We're not their doormats.Delete
I never minded disagreeing with anybody. I could never have been a good Proglodyte. You guys are way too monotonal and intellectually undifferentiated. But having said that, I don't find the Doc extreme at all. I find him to be a very loving and sincere guy who wants the best for people. Much more so than me, I must admit.Delete
Doc, I like a lot of what you say here. But this is bullshit and you know it. Christian witness isn't propped up by blacklists; it's facilitated by open and honest discussion. Just because some fascists want to make a war of it doesn't mean we need to oblige them.ReplyDelete
KH: "But this is bullshit and you know it. Christian witness isn't propped up by blacklists; it's facilitated by open and honest discussion. Just because some fascists want to make a war of it doesn't mean we need to oblige them.."Delete
"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
Quoting Douglas Wilson: Too Thick to Deal With -- "... We are a generation that, in the words of Dabney, are simultaneously sentimental and inhumane. The only way we react with moral outrage anymore is if someone insults our bizarre and disjointed sentimentalist taboos.
But this is not mindless behavior on their part; it is a play they are running. They are running it very successfully. They arbitrarily make more and more things offensive to say, and then well-meaning Christians who want to “maintain a good witness” volunteer to police the boundaries of their new prohibitions. Orwellian double-speak abounds, with Christians who really should know better serving as the double-speak cops. They do this, thinking it our duty for the sake of the witness, when our real duty is to put our foot through the side of every double-painted lie."
Don't be one of those foolish "well-meaning Christian who want to “maintain a good witness” [and so] volunteer to police the boundaries of [the leftists'] new prohibitions", who are in truth enemies of Christ.
I have no problem with the Christian stance that we suffer quietly as martyrs. That is one way of following the Lord, and a very honorable one.
There is another way of following the Lord, which is to defy and to crusade. It also has an honorable history (in many respects).
We are different parts of His Body, and we each contribute in our own way.
What is not honorable is to pretend (or to be so foolish) to believe that passivity in the face of serious evil will inevitably and directly vanquish that evil. I have great respect for Christians who opposed Nazism by prayer and non-resistence. I also have great respect for Christians in the Resistance who fought the Nazis.
I have little respect for Christians who believed that passivity would cause the Nazis to become nice guys and that passivity was enough to defeat them.
The question I'm raising here is related: is "tolerance" and general nice-guy-ness an effective response to the gaystapo? I think not. If you want to pray about it, and not defy it, fine, but don't pretent that it will prevail in this world.
There are many ways to holiness, and many kinds of stupid. I suggest that some forms of passivity in response to the gaystapo is stupidity (perhaps even cowardice), not holiness.
I'm not even remotely suggesting passivity. I'm objecting to the tactic of suppressing those who disagree with you. You don't do it on your blog (for very good reasons, I imagine.) Why would you want Christians in general to do it in society at large?Delete
There's a difference between fighting against attacks on my own freedom of expression and attacking the free speech of those who disagree with me. One upholds open and honest public dialog; the other makes a mockery of it. To pretend that our only two options are submission to scare tactics or commission of the same is to propose a disgusting false dichotomy.
I agree for the most part with your sentiments, but when you think about them hard, it's not so simple.
Would you suppress people who disagreed with you about the desirability of genocide? If someone asserts that killing all Jews or blacks or whatever is good and necessary, would you "suppress" them?
Would you let them speak (probably yes).
Would you hire them to teach in your local school (probably no).
I have no objection to letting people who disagree with me speak their mind in the general forum. They have a Constitutional right to do so.
But the gaystapo repression is advancing so rapidly that a thoughtful person has to ask: should we be so tolerant of the radical homosexual agenda in our public square? We have been tolerant, and it's coming back to bite us in a substantial way.
At what point do we say that the radical gay agenda is so closely linked to repression and anti-Christian bigotry that we need to resist its empowerment, via blacklists, etc, just as we properly blacklist people advocate genocide from many positions in our society?
I ask: at what point is intolerance a good thing? And you cannot argue that intolerance is always bad-- it plainly is not. A healthy intolerance of Nazis and Bolsheviks would have been the right thing to do, and would have saved a couple hundred million lives.
Regarding my tolerance of commentors like KW, Hoo, troy etc, I do believe in an open discussion of most issues, and welcome their comments.
However, if KW etc were applying for a position as president of my university, and I had a vote on the matter, I most assuredly and unapologetically would vote against them, because of their viewpoints. I don't want assholes running my university.
We need to ask: how much do we want to empower homosexual activists? At what point does their empowerment threaten our liberties and our society? Even some gay commentators (Andrew Sullivan) are beginning to wonder if we've heading for a bad place.
I would suggest that we have empowered them too much, and it is time to pull back. Certainly the gaystapo tactics we've recently witnessed would lead a reasonable person to ask that question.
@Ilion: Christians should be slow to wage war and even slower to adopt immoral means when they do. And as this issue does become a war, remember that our battle is not against human beings, but against bad ideas. St. Paul doesn't say to outfit ourselves with spite and malice and the tools of persecution, but rather with truth, righteousness, and the gospel of peace.Delete
We don't have to use the devil's weapons to fight him; in fact, it's a sure-fire way to play right into his hands.
Anonymous, for Christians to do nothing or, worse, affirm immorality (evil) under the guise of "equality" is to be passively complacent to its rise and acceptance, thereby lending it support through our inaction. We're called to put on the Armor of Christ and be His warriors in truth and love, not to be doormats. We're not engaged in a mere "war of ideas," we're engaged in spiritual warfare against Satan.Delete
Popeye [aka KW], applying for a position as university president? Our Popeye? Egnor, dude, that's not funny. In fact, it's in very bad taste.Delete
Besides, Popeye tells us he was Head Technician in the reactor room on an aircraft carrier. What he doesn't tell us is that Head Technician referred to the head, not to a leadership role.
Please. No jokes about Popeye running anything. OK? He has enough trouble managing his EBT cards and his porn subscriptions. Don't put ideas in his... head.
Egnor, you have to admit that what you're saying applies to right-wing nutcases, feminista loons, vaccine wackos, animal rights nazis, and so on and so forth ad infinitum as well as what you aptly and correctly call the gaystapo.Delete
But you must admit, not all gay men and women are like that. It's doesn't "come with the territory".
You can't "criminalize" (Vox Day's words) private behavior and enforce those laws without making one hell of a mess. As much as I hate to admit it, even the normally witless blankfield had a point about American prisons and the effects the "War" on Drugs has had on this country.
Where I think we need to draw the line is at the point of intersection. If a company or person supports the gaystapo agenda, starve them of money. If the gaystapo attempts to ruin a business, support that business. Witness the success of Chick-fil-A.
And never shut up. Never stop poking them in the eye. One of my favorite quotes is from the opening chapter of Sometimes a Great Notion:
Never Give A Inch.
And ecotards. I forgot ecotards in that opening list.Delete
Senile old fart,Delete
Please don't ever agree with me again, even grudgingly. Having your stamp of approval with your disagreement makes me certain that I'm right.
@Dr. Egnor: The problem with blacklists is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime - the response isn't proportional to the action. What party-liners have a hard time grasping is that discrimination is sometimes appropriate and sometimes not. For instance, it is appropriate to discriminate between a blind person and a sighted person when issuing driver's licenses, but not when registering someone to vote. The reason for that is that blind people are not able to drive, but are perfectly capable of forming opinions about social issues and casting votes accordingly. By the same token, I'd have no qualms about hiring gay men to work on one of my delivery teams - their sexual tastes have nothing to do with how well they can deliver good software. But I wouldn't want them taking my sons camping.Delete
When it comes to ideology, I hate Marxism as much as anyone. It's inhuman and evil. If I discovered a man was a Marxist, I'd treat him accordingly: I'd be opposed to him teaching my kids history or making public policy decisions, but I'd be pretty much OK with his teaching my kids geometry or running the local supermarket. I'd even buy mushrooms and cauliflower from him if his store stocked good produce.
And people who advocate genocide? I work with those people on a daily basis! I live and work in the San Francisco Bay Area, where a very sizeable majority of people support legal abortion. Now I wouldn't vote for any of them. And I wouldn't send my pregnant daughter to them for advice. But I also wouldn't try to run them out of a completely unrelated job (like CEO of a tech company.) Shocking as it may seem, even people who hold revolting ideas have a right to do meaningful and valuable work, and to make a living at it. I would oppose them if and when they tried to implement those ideas. But I wouldn't opppose their simply trying to work and make a living, especially when they're doing a good job.
Anything else seems to me to be profoundly unjust.
My point is that it makes sense to oppose bad ideas, and to prevent them from having an impact on society - to keep Nazis out of public office. It doesn't make sense to persecute a person for holding bad ideas - to pressure a manufacturing plant to fire a Nazi with no record of on-the-job discrimination.Delete
JH and Commissar:Delete
I basically share your views. I don't (and won't) try to drive colleagues who support abortion or math teachers with a fondness for Marx out of their jobs. I've been engaging in a bit of hyperbole.
But we must consider this: we are facing a cultural catastrophe, already in progress, with a long way to fall yet to come. There is no question that public Christian praxis is under direct attack, with real fines and jail time for serious Christians. And our most malicious enemies control the organs of our society-- government, entertainment, education, academic, many businesses. "Tolerance", however principled, has been a loser of historic proportions.
At some point, you have to ask: is tolerance an idol? Are we providing our enemies the rope they will hang us with?
You can be assured: there will be no tolerance whatsoever for us.
"I've been engaging in a bit of hyperbole."Delete
Michael Egnor folds like a cheap table.
Is tolerance an idol? No, it's a civic virtue - one that enables people with different opinions to share a country in peace.Delete
Is it more important to be afraid to hurt someone's feelings than it is to tell them the truth? Of course not. But it is more important to respect the dignity of each individual person (by permitting them to form their own opinions free of coercion and allowing them to earn an honest living even if they hold mistaken ideas) than it is to score points for our ideological tribe and pat ourselves on the back for "winning."
JH: do you personally tolerate people who advocate genocide? Do you buy them coffee, invite them into your home, refrain from criticizing them, introduce them to your friends?Delete
"Tolerance" is a big thing. Some tolerance is good, some is bad.
Tolerance is an idol.
'Tolerance' means to put up with something which is otherwise unacceptable.Delete
You've got to appreciate the irony of fascists telling us Christians how we need to conduct themselves in order that they consider us socially acceptable, according to their PC ideology, all while openly mocking our Christian beliefs and traditions and encroaching upon our liberties whenever they think nobody's paying attention. That's why they get pissed whenever they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar and then retreat into the corner when the overwhelming majority creates a backlash against them.
When Chik-Fil-A's president stated that he believes in traditional marriage, the gaystapo staged a boycott, a "kiss-in protest" to justify exhibiting their sexual depravity, hoping that people would fall in line with their pathetic display of intolerance against opposing views. It backfired: Chik-Fil-A has just surpassed KFC in profits. When A&E teamed up with the bullies at GLAAD to attempt to force an apology out of Phil Robertson for the "thought crime" of disagreeing with homosexuality, it backfired: the majority turned against A&E/GLAAD and sided with Phil. When OKCupid protested (former) Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich's contribution to Proposition 8, Mozilla capitulated and attempted to make Eich apologize for his political donation in support of traditional marriage, which he refused to do. So they made him resign. It backfired: a huge percentage of Firefox users abandoned ship. Every time the gaystapo attempts to punish someone for non-conformity, it backfires because Americans despise fascism. Homosexual activists are not victims of oppression, they're bullies attacking our freedoms.
There is no question that public Christian praxis is under direct attack, with real fines and jail time for serious Christians.Delete
Agreed. And the attacks should be opposed as such. We should point out and object to the injustice, not adopt unjust tactics ourselves.
JH: do you personally tolerate people who advocate genocide? Do you buy them coffee, invite them into your home, refrain from criticizing them, introduce them to your friends?
Yes. As I said, on a daily basis. I even love some of them deeply. They think I'm wrong for taking my family to the Walk for Life. I think they're wrong for donating to Planned Parenthood. We eat Thanksgiving dinner together. If and when the subject comes up, I speak my mind, but I don't generally bring the subject up myself, as it would be a pointless conversation. In the workplace, the subject doesn't come up at all.
a huge percentage of Firefox users abandoned ship.Delete
I haven't been able to find these figures. Do you know where I can, or is this statement just conjecture?
JH, people were keeping close scrutiny upon Mozilla's feedback forum which was showered with thousands of negative comments post-purging, to say nothing of the massive widespread outrage elsewhere. I'm just one out of many who made the switch to a new web browser (Pale Moon, in case you're wondering).Delete
I don't subscribe to the notion of 'political correctness.' Its true purpose being to regulate free speech in order to control opinions and squash dissent.
I made the switch myself (to a combination of Opera and Chrome.) And I monitored the input page too (and left a comment of my own.) But 30,000 "sad" pieces of feedback is a drop in the ocean. Firefox counts 450,000,000 users around the world, and 30k is less than one hundredth of one percent of those users. I'd love to see some evidence of a precipitous drop in Mozilla's numbers, but the comments I saw on the Mozilla input page are not it.Delete
JH, surely you're intelligent enough to realize that just because people boycott doesn't mean that everyone who does is going to drop by and leave them feedback. Many people are either not good enough with computers to know how to switch web browsers or simply don't care enough to be bothered either way, even if they don't like what happened. Since Mozilla controls its own forums, that means they're free to rig their own statistics. I mean they're not exactly impartial in this debacle, as their actions have already shown. It's akin to relying upon a homosexual activism webpage to accurately represent the general consensus on SS'M.Delete
Let's be realistic.
Just wondered if you were aware of any concrete figures. What I've seen doesn't tell me anything of value. Until we have that, I'd be hesitant to declare it a catastrophe for Mozilla.Delete
"We tried tolerance. It has brought repression ..."ReplyDelete
That's because tolerance was *never* what the "gay" leftist-activists and their sheeple wanted.
What do we want?Delete
What all totalitarians want. Absolute compliance, on your terms, and a rejection of God.Delete
Too bad, Egnoramus. Gay marriage will prevail everywhere, and it won't affect heterosexual marriage in the slightest. Everyone will be tolerant and happy and in another generation people will scratch their head and wonder what all the fuss was about. And you and your Chistofascists will be scorned and then forgotten. So sad for you!Delete
Anonymous, SS'M will not prevail because evil will ultimately be blotted out forever by God. Even if the gaystapo overrides the will of the people everywhere in America with their activist-communist judges, the majority will never ackowledge nor accept their evil mockery of marriage. They cannot win over the hearts and minds of the majority, neither with force nor by playing the victim card, because you cannot erase the revulsion at their immorality.Delete
I love this. Allow me, if I may....Delete
"Everyone will be tolerant and [...] you and your Chistofascists..." [sic]
Michael loves to use the word "gaystapo", doesn't he? Ironically, that term seems more apt for Michael's spiritual leaders, the homosexual cabal that runs the Roman Catholic Church at all levels of organization. Perhaps Michael has experienced personally the, um, physical dimension of a priest's love for his flock. Did he make you swallow, Michael? Is that why you are so angry with the "gaystapo"? It's OK, you can tell us.Delete
You're just jealous, troy.Delete
Popeye: "you’re not in the majority anymore"Delete
What do you have against minoriies, Poploid?
KW, although you say that "[I'm] not in the majority anymore," judging by the popular vote and general consensus with regards to SS'M, clearly that's not the case. Since you progressive are incapable of rationalizing why society should turn a sacred institute on its head in order to appease the vocal minority, it is necessary that you resort to victimhood and slander. "Homophobic" is a nonsensical contrived slander implying fear where none exists. Social progress does not depend upon giving legal recognition to the perversion that is sodomy.Delete
Troy: just another atheo-communist who must resort to ad hominem. For the record, less than a fraction of a percent of Catholic priests have been prosecuted for sexual abuse. Conversely, a child is over 100x more likely to be a victim of sexual abuse in any of the secular government's corrupt public schools which are filled with progressive atheists. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Josh Marshall warned last night that the House leadership’s “last gambit” may be “to blame the Foley debacle on a cabal of gay staffers who hid and/or enabled Rep. Foley’s behavior for years.”
Geraldo Rivera suggested that Janet Napolitano and a "lesbian cabal" are leading a "same-sex takeover" of the Department of Homeland Security.
The hidden cabal ruled by Rothschild always make sure a Zionist politician—be he Democrat or Republican—is sworn in as President of the world’s greatest superpower.
--- texemarrs.com (Power of Prophecy)
The Black Goat Cabal: Satanists against dogma-based definitions of "Satanism"
I love cabals, man. I do. Really.Delete
Tnx, troi. That was fun.
Michael, Isn't it your whole point that you fear damage to society from homosexuals and their agenda? Isn't the word that we use to describe someone experiencing fear “afraid”? If you're not afraid of homosexuals and gay marriage why don't you want to allow them to marry?Delete
They simply want to have the same rights and privileges that the law grants to strait people. They are under no obligation to follow the divine ordination of your god. It's irrelevant what your god or any gold has to say on the matter if it's not their god and their understanding. Theirs is the only god that gets a say in their decisions they make. That's religious liberty.
Sure, Michael. I guess that's why Catholic priests are about 6 times more likely to have AIDS than a member of the general public.Delete
While I'm writing this, I see on the news that another Dutch bishop has confessed to abusing boys. I'm surprised this is still considered news.
The town is a nation and civilization that belongs to the people. The people can decide these issues. The people can debate, argue, contend and vote and vote again.ReplyDelete
If the courts rul on these issues then its not the people or God who rule.
First take back God and the peoples unconditional right to decide if Homosexuality is moral, legal, or gay marriage permissible.
The liberal establishment will prevail with the liberal judges'.
They just watch carefully for timing.
Its first about who decides and then fight out the decision.
No excuses . The creators of America left Americans with the tools to fight and do the right thing.
If some dumb Judge decides then its Americas fault.
Bull Run, Pearl Harbour etc etc all teach its about imposing ones will over a war period. never mind lost first battles.
The good guys need to do better lawyering The bad guys can get away with average lawyering.
How can GOD, historic mankind, and American free citizens in the past and today be told THEY DO NOT DECIDE what is right or wrong or who can be married???
Whence come the authority to make marriage in the first place???
Come on Yanks. Canada here makes no pretence to the people being the boss. you guys do.
If I didn't know you were real, I would think that you were invented.
What is it that makes you dislike apostrophes so?
America makes the pretence that the people are in charge. They're not.
As Matt Taibbi notes in 'Griftopia' and his latest book 'the Divide', American politicians, both Republican and Democrat, exist solely to get donations for election campaigning. Serving politicians spend a major part of the working days seeking donations and wondering whether their voting record might cheese off potential donors.
The actual work they're paid to do - considering legislation and voting - is almost a trivial afterthought, with representatives voting for legislation of which they don't have the slightest idea.
And then Egnor thinks it's a good thing that SCOTUS has removed all restrictions on donations. I don't know how long it will take to reach a 2 billion dollar election - 2016 perhaps?
Elections will go to those able to afford them - and their rich backers.
It's not that Byers dislikes apostrophes, it's that he's too stupid to find them on the keyboard.Delete
So many of Egnor's fans are incapable of forming complete sentences.
Thats not true and a old tired claim.
Many politicians on any side of anything care or greatly care or don't care about what they vote on etc etc
Thats the point here.
Pro gay politicians are passionate to impose a pro gay society on North America . Many politicians that oppose the immoral and even oppressive gay agenda are also passionate.
Likewise in many issues. As a long time observer of poltics it would be seen as poor analysis to see them as just surviving in their jobs. They want to matter and change things one way or another. Good or evil they care more then most people about how nations are ruled.
Still continuing your war on apostrophes, eh? It's "that's" not "thats" (my spellcheck tried to make 'thats' correct)
Agreed - politicians originally go into politics to make a change, but then the constant pressure of getting donations to get reelected eventually wears them down.
The adage that when you're up to your waist in alligators, you forget that your original intention was to drain the swamp applies.
Do you have any evidence that politicians vote for legislation they might disagree with for reasons other than ignorance or lack of time to understand the legislation?
' Many politicians on any side of anything care or greatly care or don't care about what they vote on etc etc'
Well, that seems to cover all the possibilities, doesn't it? Illiterate as usual. Do you have dyslexia or is English a second language?