“An evangelical Christian suggested in a video posted to Facebook that Christians should fight against gay rights with firearms.” That’s how huffingtonpost.com‘s Gay Voices editor Hilary Hanson sums up Joshua Feuerstein’s message, which has gone viral in the gay community – and beyond! We’re talking more than 244k shares and counting. [Click here to view.] After highlighting a couple of inaccuracies in Feuerstein’s evidence of the left’s war on Christianity – ignoring his factual examples – Hanson reveals her alleged anti-gay money shot . . .
“They are coming after our First Amendment constitutional rights,” Feuerstein puffs. “Well, check this out. This is one pastor that will not bow. Why? Because my First Amendment right is guaranteed by my Second Amendment right.” He then brandishes what appears to be an assault rifle.
“Think about that, ladies and gentlemen,” he continues. “It’s time we finally take a stand and say ‘no more.’ We’re not backing up any farther. We’re not going to allow a tyrannical government to try and strip away our rights as Christians and try to demonize us so that they can make the Bible bigoted.”
Is that suggesting that Christians should “fight against gay rights with firearms”? Once again, the proponents of civilian disarmament see resistance to government expansion as aggression. Once again, they’re portraying conservatives as bigoted, violent insurrectionists.
Have you seen any of those videos where black youths violently attack people and property displaying a Confederate flag? Could we see the day when mobs attack people and property with a pro-gun message? I hope not. But the anti-gun movement has been waging a cultural war against gun owners for some time. And that’s where cultural wars can end-up. Wait. Is that an aggressive statement?
Damn I just hate an idiot with a gun…….. It’s an American Sheepdog’s kryptonite…… Do firearm manufacturer’s have to stamp “Use Responsibly” on firearms now?
No, but my Hk reads something like “read manual before operation” or some bullshit like that.
So does my 10/22
What’s that? A Christian dares to have an unpopular opinion about… morality???? And wait… he’s an American too and he wants to defend his right to practice his faith rather than being legislated out of existence?
Oh the HORROR!! To think that some Christian would actually stand up for religious rights in a day and age such as this…
Queue the anti-religious, anti-Christian, equating-Christians-to-be-the-same-as-Muslim terrorists, all-religions -are-the-same, someone-say-Westboro-fast!, homophobic-shaming comments below.
And you guys call yourselves freedom-lovers. So according to those in the comments below, a vocal group of gays acting like nazis are great, a vocal minority of Christians freely speaking are bad… what a sad commentary on the “enlightened” readership of this blog.
When actual freedom is on the line, many of you are merrily siding with those who would suffocate it. It’s not the speech, it’s the ability to have the speech. Either we have rights or we do not. Either we have the ability to worship or we don’t. That you don’t see this is truly tragic.
Joshua Feuerstein, why do you have to be a gun owner. This guy is a complete click bait idiot. He doesn’t understand even a modicum of science and runs his mouth about evolution every chance he gets. He will keep using this if it gets clicks and will probably come out and say something dumb about his video and dig us and him into a hole.
@TravisP
Exactly what I was thinking.
The backwards baseball cap ruined it for me. Seeing that, I really have no interest in what he has to say.
Really? because he’s wearing a backwards baseball cap?
But in this particular case is he wrong?
1. Is it appropriate to entertain a lawsuit to change scripture?
2. Is it appropriate for someone to get fined for refusing to violate their religion?
I’m not saying he’s wrong, because I haven’t watched the full video. I’m saying he’s an idiot who does not care about the 2 amendment and only does this for attention. Watch any of his videos, he’s an attention seeking moron, who will happily make all gun owners look like homophobes just to get more attention. He hasn’t even figured out how to p[properly film on a cell phone.
No I’m arguing from a position of watching his videos. He’s a terrible rep for religious people, he’s the equivalent of the Kardashians, to him no publicity is bad publicity, and he doesn’t care how he affects Christians, gun owners, or even MLB fans.
So you concede that you’re arguing from a position of pure ad hominem?
1. There is no such thing as a homophobe. Fearing the unnatural is not inherently irrational.
2. Which of his examples are “homophobic”? (Watch the video.)
3. IS HE WRONG? (Again, watch the video.)
Whatever call yourself a human rights denier if you don’t want to be called a homophobe. I just watched a mirror of his video because I won’t give him a click. However no one is taking away his first amendment rights. A lawsuit is a lawsuit, it’s not the code of law, that lawsuit is purely an attention grab, like the guy in California putting the initiative in to kill gays on the streets.
I agree no cake should be forced to bake a cake for anyone, however your solution to this is war with the government? Yes he is wrong, at this point redress does not need to be done with a bullet. Idiots like him will make us all like like human right deniers (Homophobes) when he’s brandishing an AR pistol
So… Marriage is a human right now? Can I expect you to come to my wedding to a second and third wife then?
Sure as long as they are all adults and consenting. Why not? Marriage became a right the moment government started issuing marriage certificates, and making people pay for them, and offering benefits for married couples.
I don’t think you understand what a right is. Government control and licensing of an activity is pretty much the opposite of making something a right.
I don’t know his motivation and haven’t seen his other videos. In this particular video, I’m not seeing anywhere where he’s actually wrong.
Maybe it’s the stopped clock principle. I don’t know. What is clear is that we’ve reached a tipping point. There are too many people demanding resources and respect from others, without having earned either. Meanwhile they’re waging a luke warm war on those others’ rights to speak, think, or do anything in their own peaceful defense.
We’ve all seen it many times before, and it never ends well.
War waged? or War Answered Travis?
That’s rhetorical, you don’t get to decide for him. And yes, strangely, unless he falls under the category of moron or imbecile, he can be as stupid as he wants (not my characterization) and still chuck the rest of our little agreement (not to) when he feels as though someone has, or is going to, chuck some little part of it that he chooses not to live without. It’s not for anyone else to decide for Feuerstein, whether or not our situation has degraded beyond Feuerstein’s definition of “common cause.” Yes, it does mean he can answer with civil war if he feels like it, and No, you don’t have any right to make him ask for your, or anyone else’s permission. Yes, he has the right to direct force on whatever force is being applied on him, yes, that may be tangential, or even a hundred times removed from the prime-mover of that force.
Yes, an attack on his 1st Amendment rights is an attack on this 2nd Amendment rights (and all others, and your pursuit/hold/and exercise of the same as well). Yes, he actually better get after it while he has a heart beat. Yes he has the right to coalesce others to his cause (fu and yours if you don’t want to help, and you need similar help later). No he has not violated any ‘rights’ of homosexuals. No the push-back on homosexual ‘rights’ is not separate from the struggle against his rights. No, the imposition of rights by the Supreme Court are not proper and yes the authority to do so was a whole-cloth invention of the Supreme Court. Yes, a Supreme Court that over-steps the bounds of its authority is capable of anything, cannot be trusted, and should not be assumed to uphold its one job of actually protecting the Constitution. No you cannot equate a percentage of America’s homosexual population’s request to be equated with something that they do not want to uphold or comply with the tenets of . . .
– – [they are not prevented from taking part in the ‘thing’ that is marriage any more than the large portion of heterosexual people who do not take part in it [for other reasons] but that the percentage of homosexuals want to EXCLUDE in order to create the protected class that they can then be attributed [artificially] to]
. . equal to Feuerstein’s desire to prevent his stupid neighbors who need jobs (his government) from attempting to reduce his religious beliefs to that of a superstition [which is the only separation of church and state that exists]. No, human nature and physics have not changed since they were invented. Yes, history has spoken on all of this and has already applied a value to it. No, homosexual people are not a new or untested/unweighted phenomenon. Yes, if homosexuality offered society something better or “equal” to heterosexuality, then society would be beating down its door to get it, and that is not the case and no label of bigotry will ever stick to that [TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012]. No, gun rights (the right to keep and bear arms) [the means of self-determination] is (also) not a new desire of the human heart, or a new untested part of human nature either, and it has achieved a higher value than the other. Yes, this argument will go on past our grandkids, but No, it won’t change any of the outcomes.
Depends, will there be an open bar?
TravisP: “I don’t know what Feuerstein said. But one thing I’m sure of, even though I haven’t listened to him, is that he’s wrong-wrong-wrong and an embarrassing fool as well.”
Feuerstein’s like .. ‘Touche?’ ..
Chris T is correct .. the militant gay lobby, after achieving the confabulation of their mental illness with ‘marriage’, has already re-tasked their top lawyers and lobbyists to defame and dissemble the Second Amendment, and gun owners, so those too might be “fundamentally transformed” .. to quote their bathhouse messiah.
Ah, riled up religious guys brandishing guns… where have I seen this before? Good thing his religion is probably a religion of peace. I’m sure its nothing to worry about.
“Ah, riled up religious guys brandishing guns… where have I seen this before?”
Ok, I’ll play your silly game, where? You could be kneeling in an orange jumpsuit with a machete to your throat typing that, and be surprised by the intrusion.
“Good thing his religion is probably a religion of peace. I’m sure its nothing to worry about.”
Good thing there’s such a thing, again I don’t think you’d be the one to accurately determine that, but…
Come Armageddon, I bet the whiney ones go first, whatever side their on.
There is currently one religion of peace that is currently chopping peoples heads off and shooting down defenseless men, women and children, if your not of that particular faith. Especially if you are christian or jew. Otherwise known as Islam.
The other faith that will murder you for some “collective good” is atheistic in origin. Otherwise known as Communism and all of its iterations.
But this is common for all of history, as Christianity was used once it became the state religion of Rome and since until fairly recently. The powers that be will use any convenient belief system that can rally the “useful idiots” to enforce their brand of tyranny. As the Liberal/progressives are using their communist based belief system currently in this country and western europe to enforce their own brand of faith based worship of and obeisance to the state.
And the powers that be will use a convenient scape goat to focus the hate of the people on the scape goat as the Nazi’s did with the Jews and as the Christians are being used by the liberal/progressives in this country.
Just business as usual by those with power and their “useful idiots”.
If your religion is overly repressive/ hypocritical. I made you evil so that if you dont learn to not be evil I will damn you to the hell I created. This is not limited to christianity by any means, I am just saying.
Also the video seems too Stupid, while I believe there are people capable of that this just feels funny. (the fact that he has no sights is kinda fishy)
Overly repressive/hypocritical?
Interesting. I once thought the same. I was agnostic and thought anyone believing in some kind of higher power was a fool.
Until I felt the presence of the life force, the universal intelligence, the I Am, and it was an unconditional love that transcended anything I had ever felt for another human being.
I explored that connection initially with American Indian Teachings and the Great Spirit.. Then I was guided to the Christ and his teachings. And he said that he was here to reach two things, love G-d with all of one’s heart, mind, soul and body, and love your neighbor, but especially your enemy, as yourself. That is the totality of his message, the rest are the details.
He also teaches the laws of G-d of how to have a strong and vibrant society following the laws of nature and what works to create the culture that supports creating a safe place for protecting women and children and creating a properous and abundant culture.
Follow these laws, voluntarily, and the culture will prosper, break these laws, and in time, the culture will collapse into anarchy and chaos.
Up until the sixties, we followed these laws, and we propered as a country, though imperfectly, as the disenfranchisement of women and the unequal treatment of blacks was wrong. But we had landed on the moon!!
But now that we, as a country, have pretty much rejected the old christian ways and label them as “oppressive, racist, sexist and homophopbic”, we are seeing the results.
Our living standards are dropping, as well as our literacy rates, as well as our standings in science, we can’t even keep a space shuttle funded, we have to use the Russians rockets to get people into space. Suicide is rising, especially among adolescents; anti-depressants are the most common medication prescribed in the US. It is pretty well accepted that we are on the down slope of being an economic power and China and India will surpass us as we age as a population into a geriatric population.
We have gone from a creditor nation in the sixties to a debtor nation today, beholden to the rest of the world to fund our national budget that is mostly being paid out for public “benefits”, almost half of which is borrowed.
A society can not survive if half of thier budget is borrowed. But the old christian way of living within ones means and paying ones way without being on the public dole has also been thrown onto the garbage heap, as we will be, unless we realize the errors of our ways and voluntarily, return to living within the laws of G-d.
So, yes, a person, just as a society, can break the laws of G-d, as someone can break the laws of gravity by stepping off the edge of a tall building, and in the feeling of freedom, they can triumphantly declare these “oppressive” laws no longer apply to them, until the sudden stop at the bottom shows them otherwise.
Every religion is protected the same way in America.
If that bakery wouldn’t serve you because you are a Christian then they break the law.
If you open a service for the public it’s for the public.
Your religion tells you what’s right and wrong. The government protects your right to practice your religion.
The problem comes when we forget or fail to notice that there are other religions in the world. Some believe that their’s is the only true religion.
The second problem comes when we use the government which protects all religions to further the influence of any faith.
If my religion says homosexuality is wrong then I am protected in that practice and belief. I am not protected to demand that others do my same practices or adhere to my beliefs.
Shopping is a public thing we do. We share the doors, isles etc. with people of every nationality and people who have different political religious etc.
We have privacy and protection in our thoughts and when we choose to associate with likeminded people.
This is American law. Without interpretation this is American law. It works because it provides the same rights for everyone. Our European ancestors tried very hard and died to free themselves from religious tyranny.
Again, this is not and has never been the issue. No homosexual was blanket-refused service due to being homosexual.
Want to buy cupcakes? Sure, buy cupcakes. And if the cupcake baker refuses to sell you cupcakes that are offered for sale, then under “right of public accommodation” case law, you were discriminated against in an actionable manner.
Want to force the cupcake baker to custom create cupcakes for your homosexual wedding? Neither you nor the government has the authority, under the consent of the governed, to force the cupcake baker to violate his conscience in that manner.
Enough crap about individuals “giving gun owners a bad name”. Does every moron that says or does something stupid with a car give car owners a bad name? Or everyone who abuses cats give pet owners a bad name?
Rights that are subject to the behavior of individuals are not rights at all.
Is he wrong?
Are the two examples he cited appropriate behavior?
1. A lawsuit to remove homosexuality fromt he bible.
2. A fine for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake with the judge equating the act to rape.
Where does it stop?
The “lawsuit” he’s referring to happened in 2008, before Obama and waaaay before the SCOTUS ruling. And it was dismissed for being silly.
So yes, he’s wrong. Idiots usually are.
The time is irrelevant. The fact that this lawsuit was not thrown out and the filing attorney disbarred is absurd in and of itself.
It was thown out.
Was the filing attorney censured? Was there any recompense to the publishers? No? See the problem yet?
Was Matt Mclaughin censured and debarred? The lawyer behind this, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/23/california-anti-gay-bill_n_6927464.html
No, I don’t see the “problem”, other than the fact that silly lawsuits happen all the time. It’s certainly not a situation that requires a call to arms. That’s an even sillier reaction to an already pointless situation.
He’s after clicks and eyeballs, pwrserge, nothing more. We should be avoiding this louse like the plague, not rushing to his defense. C’mon, man!
Would you like a small sampling of deliciously unhinged anti-gay lawsuits?
1. The suit is from 2008 and was dismissed. It’s already ‘stopped’. Time to calm down, chicken little.
quote: Once again, the proponents of civilian disarmament see resistance to government expansion as aggression. Once again, they’re portraying conservatives as bigoted, violent insurrectionists.
Really, Mr. Farago? Really?! Did you actually watch the video?
This would have been a fine time to call this “pastor” out for being the embarrassment to the pro-2A side that he is. He’s the one doing the “portraying”, after all. All HuffPo has to do with idiots like this is hold them up for viewing, and their actions do all the talking.
He’s the Christian James Yeager, just way dumber
Believe me, he’s not the Christian James Yeager. That’s because Christianity has plenty of James Yaegers. Just check out Westboro Baptist. (A movement of the size of Christiandom will have to, statistically speaking, have a fair number of dufuses in it). Fortunately the overwhelming majority of Christians are nothing like this.
The Westboro Baptists are not Christians. They are a cult, and teach things explicitly contrary to biblical doctrine.
Really? Westboro Baptist? They have around 40 members. Come up with something better than that. Choose someone like Joel Osteen, and then were talking.
And for the record, Westboro Baptist isn’t remotely Christian. Thought I should make that clear.
Such as?
I love how people see fit to pass judgement on who is and who is not Christian. Isn’t there something about judging people in the bible? Maybe somewhere in the back?
Their claim to Christendom is backed up by no more evidence than anyone else’s.
Spoken like someone who clearly has no understanding of the Bible whatsoever.
Meanwhile, Chip, you’ve not answered Grindstone’s question.
Nor will I. If someone is genuinely interested in discussion or seeking truth, I’ll answer questions and discuss all day long. But as a rule, I won’t debate religion, the Bible, or faith with people who have no motive other than to be argumentative and insulting.
In what way have I insulted or been argumentative with you, Chip? You’re ascribing properties that just aren’t so. One might even call it a cop-out.
Indeed.
I included Westboro Baptist because I believed they were extremist Xians. I came to this conclusion by actually going to their website (it’s akin to dipping one’s face in raw sewage, then inhaling) and noting they point to bible verses to justify everything they say. They seem able to back up what they believe out of the same book (other) Christians use; if anything, they seem to have paid attention to more of it.
I got jumped by four different people on the grounds that WBC isn’t “really” Christian, yet none of them will explain why. But I’ve noticed a lot of Christians, faced with appalling behavior (cf. death threats, etc.) by other Christians, will simply claim those people aren’t really Christians. I smell the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, frankly.
So does that make you the Shannon Watts of TTAG comments?
What?
I don’t think Dirk’s ever made suggestive comments about him, so probably not.
Really Andy? So a pastor has no right to be outraged that a lawsuit to remove homosexuality from the bible was even entertained?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/23/california-anti-gay-bill_n_6927464.html
Offense is always taken, never given. Secondly stupid stuff happens all the time, example above.
I wrote nothing whatsoever about what this man has a right to do. What I DID write was that he is an embarrassment to our cause. Stop tying to contort my words.
What’s he gonna do, start shooting people that file BS lawsuits (that are immediately thrown out)?
You make the point for Feuerstein. How many answers to BS lawsuits then = a war on Feuerstein?
Each is a damnable usurpation of his resources, and an un-answered one, or one where he could only afford the junior attorney damns us all to the outcome as precedent.
Fight your enemy at your gate, not your door. Or, better yet, promise to meet him under the tree that he sleeps under, before he wakes up, and then keep all your promises. [TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012]
No one is suing Feuerstein. This whole comment section is becoming a facepalm.
Anyone can file a lawsuit for anything. If I had the money, I could sue Ford for not providing square wheels on their trucks as an option.
And like any lawsuit, it would be “entertained” just up to the point where it was thrown out.
As was this one. Someone “suing to modify the Bible” is just one of many many frivolous lawsuits filed every week. It didn’t go anywhere and it wasn’t ever going to.
It’s not a harbinger, indicator, or trend either. Several lawsuits to change the color of the sky have probably been filed this year.
It really is someone making much ado about nothing.
He has a right to be outraged, for the few days the lawsuit was active. But he’s misrepresenting the situation by implying it’s still an active case.
His point about the bakers is much more relevant. The government has no more authority to tell people they must sell to others than to tell us we must buy from others…oh wait…they told us we have to buy medical insurance. And five apparently illiterate people said it was constitutional.
Why the tar, feathers, and pitchforks haven’t come out as people are forced to buy overpriced insurance because keeping their old plan didn’t turn out to be an option…or as they’ve watched their rates skyrocket….
Yet people are up in arms because two people who never did anything to them, are now legally allowed to call their relationship a “marriage” and get the legal benefits (presumed inheritance and power of attorney and tax breaks). And this is somehow a frigging religious issue?
(I agree the cake baking thing does cross the line, but the outrage didn’t reach todays levels with THAT, it was the “marriage” decision that did it.)
He didn’t even realize that the lawsuit was old. He’s just another idiot who read something on the internet, made a video, and posted it on the internet for more idiots to get upset about rather than doing the smallest amount of research.
There’s a lesson here, someplace…
No, the BS lawsuit was not against Feuerstein, it was a suit brought to support the notion that the federal government has the authority to alter the Bible. Feuerstein has no right to be offended, you have no right to be offended by his offense. Where do you live? Someone might ask the government to ensure that you are offended by Feuerstein’s offense someplace else. Just leave, don’t take your wife or kids, or your stuff, we don’t want there to the chance that someone might become offended by how long it takes you to leave and then asks our government to disturb your whole block to hurry you along.
You may not need firearms. But we must resist the fascist Liberal agenda period on gays on guns and the attack on American morals all together.
If a gay man had a weapon and make the opposite demanded that all obey Obama and love gay sex or he shoot them then would the MSM complain about him????
It’s rrelevant what other people would say in a hypothetical situation.
Is this man a complete jerkwad, or isn’t he?
Yes. And so would the Secret Service.
This “help help, I’m being repressed!” schtick from Christians is so damn tiresome..
Racism, polygamy, and rape are all in the Bible, too as being perfectly ducky as well as a host of other horrible and stupid stuff like not cutting your beard or eating shellfish. Should that stuff all be okay because some superstitious sheepherders said so?
Your right to be a religious homophone (and as to pwrserge‘s laughable idea that it is somehow “unnatural”, you could not be more wrong. Homosexuality occurs all over the animal kingdom. It is literally natural) ends when it hurts other people.
Grow up.
I think I’ve asked before, don’t recall ever getting an answer. could you point to some empirical evidence that “homosexuality is all over the animal kingdom”? It is apparently relatively rare even among people, who uniquely often use sexual relations as something other than a means of reproduction. Among what species is homosexuality common?
BTW, a “homophone” is a word that sounds like another word with a different meaning. Just sayin’.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=homosexuality+in+the+animal+kingdom#
You got me on the spelling mistake.
“Honk if you hate homophones!”
Damn, I should make that bumpersticker.
OK, thanks for the link leading me to google–lol!. Interesting stuff, I’m not entirely convinced, what with expanding the definition of “homosexual behavior” and including hermaphroditic species, but interesting nonetheless.
Don’t know about you, but I use sexual relations as something other than reproduction all the time.
“Homosexuality occurs all over the animal kingdom. It is literally natural) ends when it hurts other people.”
Where does it start helping again? Where has nature/nurture/society/history/or your [apparently equally-weighted] vote from the “animal kingdom” slapped its seal of approval on it?
If homosexuality offered the better idea, the rest of society would be kicking down its door to get it, and that is simply not the case, and no label of bigotry will ever stick to that.
History/human nature/physics has blessed male and female pairings as it blesses History/human nature/physics. Governmental attempts to license or control it are but a momentary interloper on the scene, and have not aided Societies benefit, or the furtherance of it.
Instead of attempting to coopt the mantle something that homosexuality doesn’t want to be a party to, they should do something of-value, and Society will kill to protect it. Equality “IS” or it is-not. It cannot be given nor granted and saying such does not make it so and the ‘push-back’ is 100%. A “person” should hold themselves up as the equal that they are. As soon as they demand equality (demand that “others” ‘find-them’ “equal”) then, in whatever way they are ‘not equal’ they are wholly un-equal, i.e., you cannot demand that I (equate myself) find myself “equal” to you. [TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012]
As long as the subject has been broached, let’s jump right to the end of the argument now.
We are all finite beings stuck on a planet. We have basic human needs that need to be met to survive and basic human desires that are part of our nature. Even laissez-faire attitudes towards homosexual behavior (not the people [which are forever equal as “people”]) cannot pass the bounds of being equated back-across the equal sign. That is, heterosexuals are harmed in their attempts at finding a desired mate, and creating resulting offspring, if they are confused with homosexuals (even the metro’s). “Tomorrow” (foresworn as an empty notion in the Bible, by the way) is hampered in our resulting passage in to-it.
Love (please do really love and care for) who you want, in a way that is mutually (with them) how the two of you want, but that doesn’t really come anywhere near what we are really talking about when it comes to marriage. History/human nature/physics/Society has so-spoken. We can open that argument as many times as you would like, but it’s not safe to ignore that we’ve been here before, and on these tracks we will walk again.
To tie-it-back to TTAG – we’ve been over the “power-grab” that is the ‘gun-grab’ tracks before many times too. Our past is littered with the answer, and it is not just wrong, it is wrongful, that anyone should attempt to drag us through it again.
Please, do everyone a favor and get a Bible and actually read it. Where do you see rape condoned? Your biblical knowledge is laughable. The old covenant was fulfilled in Christ. Read the New testament, and then we’ll talk. Also, I work on a farm, and I can tell you that it is not natural for animals to have homosexual inclinations-it has never happened. And besides, who wants to be compared to an animal? Have a good one.
Judges 21:10-24
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
2 Samuel 12:11-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Judges 5:30
Exodus 21:7-11
Zechariah 14:1-2
Maybe it is YOU that needs to read the bible?
It’s also notable that rape isn’t forbidden in the ten commandments, yet worshipping the wrong god was not only forbidden, it was listed well before “thou shalt not kill.” Nice to see where the priorities lay.
In point of fact the assertion made by many that our laws are based on the ten commandments is sheer twaddle. Only three (or four if you stretch a point) of the commandments actually ban acts that are banned by law, and those particular things were crimes long before the ten commandments were written,.
Steve, don’t forget the omission of “thou shalt not own another human as property”.
Yeah, but our poor interlocutors are still having trouble swallowing biblically-approved rape as a concept. One thing at a time.
Wait: weren’t you just lamenting Christian commenters attacking atheists? Some resident atheists attack Christians and Christianity with impunity – and this comments thread is a prime example, including your nonsense about biblically condoned rape.
@Grindstone , you need to show better reading comprehension. Yours is certainly on the low end of the spectrum. If you need these passages explained, Matthew Henry could do it way better than I. However, I will simply say that you are wrong, terribly so.
This particular chain started when a Christian started puling about a double standard being applied against him. And yes, I am going to feel free to step into an argument when outrageous falsehoods are being bandied about.
Explain how direct commands from God to commit rape are not “biblically condoned rape.”
The picture any objective reader gets from the OT is of a society where if you raped a woman, your crime (if any) was deemed to be against her husband or father, not against her. Said society had the full support of the law as (supposedly) handed down by god, on its side.
So let’s take a look at these citations that supposedly have nothing to do with sanctioned rape:
Judges 21:10-24 – They capture 400 virgins (after slaughtering the rest of the town) and were given away to men of Israel in forced marriages.
Numbers 31:7-18 – Moses awards virgin captives to his soldiers.
Deuteronomy 20:10-14 – General directive as part of the law to keep women captured (after slaughtering all of the men).
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 – A man who rapes a woman pays the father a fine and has to marry her. (Well maybe that was his plan all along and she wasn’t interested. Or her father wasn’t.)
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 – Both the woman and the man are executed for a rape (sounds a lot like the shit that goes on in Islamic countries).
2 Samuel 12:11-14 – God has the daughters of a man raped as a way to punish him. What it does to them doesn’t seem to matter in the least.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 – Another general directive permitting forced marriage of a captive woman.
Judges 5:30 – More plundering of virgin captives.
Exodus 21:7-11 – A man is allowed to sell her daughter into slavery, she can be wedded against her will, and her husband can take another wife, as well.
Zechariah 14:1-2 – God is apparently telling the people of Jerusalem that as a penalty for not worshiping him properly, he’s going to let their daughters be raped.
I know quite a number of atheists who were formerly Christians, but dropped out of it once they read the *entire* book, not just the warm-fuzzy parts that pastors like to selectively teach from in Church.
You’re dodging again.
Did you even read the passages I cited? There’s nothing ambiguous about it. Rape, especially that of captured women, is 100% bible/god approved and even commanded.
Here’s a simple example from Numbers 31:7-18:
Moses, the man with a direct communication to God, commands his followers to capture and rape all the young virgin girls of the vanquished enemy.
Hm, who does that sound like? I think it starts with an “M”…
I don’t see anything about rape there. You must be reading things into the passage. I guess the problem is really you?
Good grief, man. Don’t be a fool. Read the whole Bible. The old covenant was fulfilled by Christ, who instituted the new covenant. As Christians, we are not bound by the old covenant anymore. And besides, the ten commandments forbids both adultery and coveting what is not yours, which is essentially what rape is. Again, rape and racial based slavery is thoroughly condemned by scripture. Now, unless you will be civil in your speech, that is all I will say. Go read Matthew Henry if you still don’t get it.
So, tell me, what do you think “keep them for yourselves” means? Or the context of specifying that they must be virgins first? Are you really going to play dumb on that?
Hell, you haven’t even addressed any of the other passages that specify forced marriage of captured women, or the passages like Zechariah 14:1-2 that explicitly states: “And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished”
In case you’re that ignorant, “ravished” does NOT mean “treated with dignity and consent for sexual intercourse sought out first”.
You have some serious cognitive dissonance problems.
Completely missing the point. Unless you think that everything in the OT is suddenly invalid because the Romans killed a rebellious street preacher, the OT is still the “word of God”, is it not?
Yet the passages I quoted still exist.
Not quite. The rules for rape are basically the man has to pay the woman’s father then marry the victim. [Deuteronomy 22:28-29 ] You don’t think that’s a little on the WTF side of things?
As for slavery, the bible doesn’t say anything like “thou shalt not keep human property” but rather “don’t kill your slaves outright”.[Exodus 21:20-21] Among other things (Exodus 21:2-11). Even Jesus himself doesn’t say not to have slaves, but for slaves to obey their masters [Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Luke 12:47-48] That’s a very far cry from being condemned by scripture.
Nobody here is uncivil. Calm down.
How about you read the bible for yourself instead of having someone else filter it for you?
I have provided direct passages from the bible that explicitly show how rape and slavery is not only supported, but encouraged. You have done nothing but say “read what some guy who had no hand in writing the bible said!”
Keep them for yourself does not imply rape. Maybe in your mind, you sicko.
The use of the word ravished was in regards to what could happen to the women of Jerusalem. It is not an encouragement, this is prophecy.
The person you have been referred to for insight actually has read for comprehension, unlike your own reading.
I have seen plenty of this silliness, even claiming Jesus words out of context.
For the record, arranged marriages still exist today, in America.
A few centuries ago they were quite common.
Your moral equivalence is out of whack for millennia in the past.
Yes, forcible marriage DOES, in fact, directly imply rape.
Oh, excuse me, a prophecy of rape condoned by god is not encouragement? Now you’re splitting hairs.
Again, refusing to directly address the quotes, instead trying to pawn them off to a professional spin doctor.
Slavery still exist, doesn’t make it any less abhorrent.
Says the one pooh-poohing the biblically-endorsed rape and forced servitude of women. I’m not the one playing mental gymnastics trying to weasel excuses and deflections (or outright avoidance) of the uncomfortable truth.
Allowed does not imply approved. Nor is rape implied in keeping for yourself. You like to finish things with your own sick twists rather than read for co pretension.
No wonder you are so messed up.
A professional spin doctor? You are a moron. I, nor most, have the time nor credentials to study the nuances of primitive Hebrew, nor the actual practices espoused by the words. In addition, words were much more generic back then, so context is extremely important. Experts study those nuances, if you want to learn, consult them.
Also the mosaic law applied to the Jews, not to the world.
Then come asshats working with translations, without context, and thinking they have the last word on the subject. Grindstone fits, you are an abrasive blockhead. I guess you have learned a lot today. Maybe tomorrow we can try teaching you about analog time-keeping devices? We can get you past the big hand/little hand problem.
Mathew Henry was not a spin doctor. I am citing him because it is much easier for you to go and Google his commentaries than for me to keep trying to talk you through scripture. Go back and read the scriptures in context, in conjunction with some well founded sermons.
Paul G: Experts study those nuances, if you want to learn, consult them.
Ajax: …Matthew Henry…
It’s amazing that the Son of God couldn’t be clear enough to not require “experts” to interpret what he said. Presumably, he knew that far more people would be reading the words in translation than would ever read it in the original Aramaic (or Koine Greek), so honestly, I don’t buy translation as an excuse for this (supposed) failure.
Likewise Moses, when (allegedly) writing the Pentateuch in Hebrew.
I tend to think the authors of these works meant exactly what they said, and that it’s modern Christians who are being selective about interpretation, because the ethics of modern people have moved far beyond the early Iron Age mores shown in the OT, which remained substantially unchanged during the period of the Early Roman Empire. If they had to face up to what was actually being said, they’d have to choose between behaving like barbarians, or abandoning their faith. (All too many would choose the former, see the man at the top of the page in the video.)
It is readily apparent that you are no polyglot. Context is also vital, and at times
must be gleaned through reference to several other writings.
Similarly, reading chapter 7 of a 28 chapter novel hardly gives a full picture. Even many of the events of chapter 7 need the preceding chapters to be understood.
People quote words Jesus relates in parables as if the words were his opinion, not part of a parable related to impart a lesson. Unscrupulous is putting it mildly in relation to such actions.
I guess if you cannot fathom these simple concepts the rest is probably Greek to you as well. Your comments on morality are laughable.
I’ve had a fair amount of expose to two other languages, though I certainly won’t claim fluency in either of them. I’ve seen enough to note that with very complex concepts, translation can certainly be a royal pain and takes skill. However, I’ll also note that the folks who translated the NIV, NRSV, etc. have plenty of such skill; I misdoubt that was true of the KJV as well (though I suspect they had less knowledge of many aspects of ancient life than modern translators, it doesn’t seem to have had much of an effect on the product as the translations are substantially in agreement).
But you’ll note that I said “complex concepts.” A commandment not to kill or a commandment to stone gays is pretty easy to translate, as are indicative sentences in general, and as I pointed out, Christ, if he truly were divine, would surely have known his words were going to be translated, and to be sure to NOT be obscure. Instead, we see him having to explain himself over and over again to his own followers, who spoke his language.
As far as your analogy to reading a chapter out of the middle of a novel, I’m not sure it serves your argument well to be comparing the bible to a work of fiction. But worse is that I see Christians walk around all the time with “bibles” that are nothing but Psalms and the New Testament. Over two thirds of the bible is *missing.* These are also pushed upon people in an attempt to get them to convert; apparently for that you don’t particularly need the Old Testament. It’s as if one were given chapters 17 and 46-52 of a novel and expected to believe in the entire contents of the novel, sight unseen. Doesn’t the old testament set the context for the new? Or does the new testament just completely over-ride everything in the old testament, in spite of Jesus’ reassurances to the contrary? And if it does override the OT, then why are so many people today adamant about gays being an abomination (yet they have no problem with any of the other situations condemned in the very same chapter)? But even the New Testament contains references to slavery, with not a hint that it ought to be abolished; in fact Jesus (through Paul) admonishes slaves to continue to be obedient. Surely if slavery were actually *wrong* Jesus would have said so, and given slaves to rebel against the immoral circumstances they found themselves in. It being too big a change would be no barrier to the son of god, he had plenty else to say which went against the wisdom of the day.
Your special pleadings that experts are needed to understand this book, in spite of it already being translated by experts (who certainly supplied a lot of footnotes to point out any ambiguities they saw) sound to me like you’re just shilling for spin doctors, to use Grindstone’s term. But spin doctors are needed in order to explain away embarrassments, and there is plenty of work for them to do.
I’ve seen you flatly refuse to listen to subject matter experts when their opinion contradicts your much-less-informed opinion; in fact you do so in a rather snotty fashion. Thus I don’t expect to be able to persuade you that simple indicative sentences and other sentences in the imperative mode mean what they say, reaching for any excuse, finally resorting to “oh but you have to read the whole book to be able to understand any single sentence in it.” Of course there’s no shortage of one-liners quoted by Christians all the time, to people whom (they believe) are profoundly ignorant of what’s in the bible; apparently those sentences don’t require any context at all. But I’ll point out that I have, indeed, read the whole thing, end-to-end. And I have to continue to stand by my original point: If eight hundred thousand words isn’t enough to explain ones self clearly, than one is piss poor at explaining things, rather than being omnipotent. God should have engaged the services of a competent editor.
Familiar is far from being fluent. Even fluency fades when not exercised, and we are discussing archaic forms, no longer in use. Yes, even simple concepts can be misinterpreted. Is it thous shalt not kill, or murder? Big difference, huh? Isiaih 40:22 is often held up by atheists to prove the silliness of the Bible. The reference to the circle of the earth proves they thought they earth was like a pizza pan. Never mind the metaphoric nature of the verse. Worse, don’t know that the word for circle is used elsewhere to indicate the shape of a pregnant woman’s belly. Are those athiests stupid, insisting pregnant women have pizza pan shaped bellies? Or is it just an archaic word, and mistranslated even slightly, making a difference?
There is quite a lot about slavery in the testaments. Of course slavery was a fact all over the world until relatively recent times. Also, it was western Christians that agitated for, and to a large extent succeeded in, ending the practice. The slavery issue is much more complex than the simple views you present. At the least, it can be asserted that treatment of slaves was expected to be fair in the Christian testament.
Disagreeing with “experts”, especially in the legal realm, is hardly a similar comparison . Indeed, if you have taken time to study ancient Hebrew and hash out the original meanings, and connect the various strings tying together the various parts of the narrative, feel free to educate me. If not, the works of others who have done such work can be helpful. They are presenting facts, not opinions. That an ancient word could be translated two ways is hardly a difficult concept to believe. That translators could make errors, or have chosen better words is a daily reality. Ask anyone at the UN.
Do you regularly carry a copy of the Magna Carta, or perhaps the Articles of Confederation? Or does a copy of the Constitution, and maybe the Declaration of Independence, fill the bill since we are Americans, and those are currently relevant?
Christians look to the OT for primarily historic reasons, the NT is the relevant guide.
Reading is not the same as comprehending. Comprehension quite often entails much more than a simple read.
As a Christian I agree with what he was saying. However, no one will stand with us. I will fight and die if need be for my beliefs, just as I would my second amendment rights. I will not fire the first shot, and neither will any other true Christan.
Not necessarily true. The Presbyterian commentators of the 16-1700’s believed that Christians may resist tyranny, and didn’t say that they may not fire the first shot. However, they did stress the point that they must first exhaust all other recourse. But I do agree with your sentiment. Cheers!
Eh our Religious rights are being trampled, but being forced by the .gov to bake a cake probably is not worth shooting folks.
On a personal level I agree. However, it might be pointed out that “forcing someone to bake a cake” generally entails ruining their means of livelihood if they don’t. It’s a little bit more than a minor annoyance.
True, but the Bible does promise that worse persecution will happen.
Then again the .gov taking complete control of commerce could be considered “the mark of the beast, without which you cannot buy and sell” (paraphrased from Revelation iirc)
I don’t need to watch the video… The 2nd supports the first. If churches are forced to violate their beliefs then I say the 1st has failed them and yes the 2nd applies. Call it what you will but when you look at what the Constitution and Bill of Rights say… It’s pretty clear that certain things were specified and certain things were. Freedom of religion was specified and so was the right to bear arms. The right of a homosexual to force a religion to change is completely against the 1st. If the left really thought so much of their live and let live stance they would just form their own church. It would be a lot like scientology which funny enough has little basis in science(which is why it fits the liberal left so well).
You can relax, then, because none of those things are happening.
Is it Fox news that’s filling your heads with the idea that the SCOTUS ruling has anything whatsoever to do with religion? It doesn’t, at all.
God, Scientology. Don’t get me started. A f-ing religion that was literally started as both a joke and a way to see how much a hack novelist could sucker from the rubes.
Turns out, it’s a lot.
Hack novelist? But I liked Battlefield Earth!
All other religions are based on the same joke anyway… They’re just older!
Fred Durst has really hit rock bottom.
LOL!
Maybe he just needs something to break?
ehh, that guy looks like a major douche. I don’t like see people like that with guns either.
OK I don’t think a religious person who disagrees with the practice of gay marriage should be forced to marry someone they don’t want to when the person getting married could just as easily go down to their local government office and get legally married. However for all those religious people who are equating religion with marriage at least in legal terms, which is the part the state cares about and the part that was fought, for need to calm down. U can have a pastor priest imam or whatever perform a marriage ceremony u can cut the cake and kiss the bride guess what you are not married yet. You aren’t married till you sign some paperwork and submit it to the state, from a legal standpoint that is. Religion has nothing to do with your state recognized marriage. So feel free to deny them a ceremony at your church but that has nothing to do with a marriage contract and two gays marrying infringes your religious rights in no way its only a legal contract nothing more. At no point in our nation’s history since the issuing of marriage contracs by the state did you need religion to get married that’s part of the Constitution too separation of church and state some people forget about that part.
Marriage contracts?
Yes, marriage contracts. A marriage is a contract, as you will find out if you are ever divorced.
Poor use of words on your part. No state I know of grants marriage contracts. All honor the signature of a religious officiant as valid to certify a marriage, clearly violating your misunderstanding of separation of church and state.
Stick to topics you understand.
I’m pretty sure Ralph has a law degree and some experience practicing law. What about you?
I don’t get why religious people think the concept of marriage has a religious origin. Marriages came about as a way of legally codifying inheritance and property transfers. That’s all the gays want out of it now.
How many marriages has he contracted?
I made it quite clear his choice of words was bad.
A marriage is a contract, as you will find out if you are ever divorced. Very correct in the eyes of the government.
Go tell your county clerk you want a marriage contract.
Let me try to explain it to you, Paul. I’ll start with an excerpt from Wikipedia:
“Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them . . .”
When two individuals marry in the United States, they are bound by the marriage laws of the licensing jurisdiction. This is the contract, detailing the rights and responsibilities of the parties. Some rights can be changed by mutual agreement; some cannot. Property rights, legitimacy, inheritance etc. are all prescribed by law.
You fundamental misunderstanding that you know nothing of contracts or of marriage. When you get divorced, which you will if you can find someone impressionable enough to marry you in the first place, you will learn better.
Gee, wiki? Looks like you have proven my point.
Sorry, I am certain that both of the women who once married me (one still my wife) are way out of your league.
You might have been closer with Black’s, but wiki-authority will not come anywhere near the timelessness of “marriage.” A ‘marriage’ does not even fully meet Black’s definition, as to its enforceability [a judge will make you roll your Petition and cram-it if you attempted to sue for specific performance], but SOCIETY (wherever there are two individual people) will uphold it. All law requires a formidable amount of “Paired Societies’ [TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012] to uphold it. Marriage is one of the few ways you can gather enough of the rabble to even disseminate that you thought that there even ought to be a law. NEITHER Government nor any of its citizenry [doesn’t matter where on the planet or in what period of human history you care to discuss – even if GOD allows us to branch out into the universe in the future] cannot get its little-toe under the turtle that is human nature and physics, and those things [again, and only UNDER GOD] solely support and define “Marriage.”
No religious officiant signed my contract between my wife, myself, and the state recognizing our legal union.
Maybe you don’t understand what you’re talking about?
Nowhere was it claimed that clergy were the sole persons who could certify a marriage. But their eligibility invokes the church in what you claim as a state matter. Ya gotta keep em separated.
How valid is a contract without terms? A license is different.
Don’t bother, Ralph. Paul G is immune to instruction and has been since the first grade.
Not at all. If someone has intelligent commentary to add, great. Kinda excludes you I guess.
Their eligibility has nothing to do with their religion. It’s a state ordainment. Being clergy doesn’t automatically grant religious marriage ordainment, just as being ordained doesn’t automatically make you clergy. Hell, in Alaska, all you need to be is 18 to ordain a marriage.
The terms are that we’re joined in legal union. A contract is not required to be a quid pro quo document. This is a legal agreement between myself and my wife that we are united and share in the legalities as such.
Hell, the language on the marriage application explicitly calls it a contract:
“That said parties are not of the relationship prohibited by law and may lawfully contract and be joined in marriage.”
Didn’t you claim that Ralph didn’t know what he was talking about when it comes to marriage documentation? I think it’s fairly obvious that you’re the ignorant one here.
Now you are just plain wrong. Very few municipalities regulate clergy, none that I am aware of have “state ordainment”. Vegas and NYC stand out in my mind as tougher regarding ministerial laws, they require a written document attesting to a minister’s ordination be registered with the city. But they do not ordain anyone.
In the majority of the USA anyone can get an Internet ordination and officiate weddings, the government recognizes the religious ordination.
Interestingly, Michigan law says any minister of the Gospel may perform a marriage, which actually disqualifies rabbis and imams. So much for separation.
“A contract is not required to be a quid pro quo document”
First you argue for it being a contract, then you contradict yourself. LOL
Is English your second language? You seem to have some reading comprehension problems. A contract is an agreement between multiple parties at it’s most basic level. That’s not contradictory. You’re just ignorant.
English is my first language, and I comprehend it quite well. The ignorance is in your inability to do so.
I have never signed a marriage contract, but I have signed marriage licenses. That nuances of language are lost upon the dense. That would be you.
Kudos to the pastor for standing up for his beliefs, and the Constitution as written, not as it is interpreted by the rainbow nazi’s and the big gay hate machine.
The SJW’s of the world are oblivious to their own fascist predilections, and the adults are growing weary of their nonsense.
He doesn’t represent anyone but himself. I saw this yesterday on huffpoo and my reaction was “crazy”.Fun comments too… I kept waiting for the connection to westboro “baptist” coven…er church.
So the anti-gun loons seem unduly concerned with the size of penises, and the anti-gay loons seem unduly concerned with how penises are used.
Frankly, I don’t see a lot of difference between the two.
+ 1 googol. (and yes, that’s the corrrect spelling of the number’s name, in case anyone doesn’t know that.)
Seems to all come down to the dicks. Glad I have one and hope I don’t become one.
I’m not sure the manner of it matters, just that a connection between genitals and weapons demonstrates a person is seriously messed up and no sane person cares what such a person thinks or says…
The best part about all of this? The lawsuit is from 2008 and was dismissed. But all these poor, “persecuted” Christians are losing their sh!t over literally nothing. Somebody pass me the popcorn.
Well, my daughter was accosted by the local cops and threatened with arrest for standing and praying in the public right-of-way across the street from the local abortion-mongers. When I heard about it I didn’t much feel like munching popcorn. In other words, there’s more to this than a 7-year old dismissed lawsuit. OTOH–if that’s the best this guy can think of to rant about, he probably doesn’t merit much serious attention.
Then maybe she shouldn’t have been breaking the law?
I’m not EVEN going to wade in to an abortion debate, but you guys are wrong about that, too. There is no such thing as homunculi, and screaming at a woman going through an extremely difficult physical and emotional procedure is atrocious behavior that any loving Christian should be ashamed of.
That’s the point that you apparently totally missed. She wasn’t breaking any law. I think my post was pretty clear that she was standing in the public right-of-way, next to the street, where the sidewalk would be if there was a sidewalk there. What led you to the totally erroneous conclusion that she was breaking the law?
Oh, and where did you get the idea that my daughter was “screaming” at anyone? Again, I think my post was clear that she was standing in one place and praying. She does not scream when she prays. And again, she was across the street, not interfering with anybody coming in or out. Maybe you should invest in a little reading comprehension before you start shooting off baseless comments.
Another Robert, the Supreme Court would probably decide in favor of your daughter. The controlling case is McCullen v. Coakley, where the Court struck down MA’s “buffer zone” law as an impermissible restriction of First Amendment rights.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1168_6k47.pdf
Again, Swarf and a few others are not playing the argument out to the end in their head, and they are pretending like society/history/nature/nurture have left this as an “open question” yet to be decided by some higher-thinking individuals.
Bottom-line the argument. If a woman does not value the life of an individual that exists by her own invitation [her baby] then she cannot convince me that she values my life, or values anything else that I have placed a value-on.
If we do not value each other, than all other arguments are over, and every other “argument” (discussion) should be assumed to be accompanied by violence.
If the woman’s will was usurped by rape [not sure why ‘incest’ is usually thrown in here (must be a blue-state/evil house of (D) fantasy or something)] OR, if the continued carriage truly threatens the continued life of the woman, then Society cannot not expect anything else from her. A Woman (and Women in general) cannot be forced to carry Society’s children, as that devalues the woman’s life in return.
If the tobacco settlement money buoys the U.S. economy enough to make the sh_t-a_ _ Bill Clinton feel like a hero, and the government gives a smallish fraction of that money to Planned Parenthood who then goes and uses it to kill nearly 50% of everyone that comes through its doors, and that’s not damnable? Then F all of you, pray nightly that my soul is not remanded to hell, for you will be my b_tch there too.
Another Robert
You’ve been nothing but courteous in this weird ass thread, so I will do you the courtesy of publicly (whatever that means on an internet blog where I go by the name Swarf) cop to the fact that yes, I did misread your comment. I thought you said she was standing in the road.
What was she charged with?
Litterin’
Littering and..?
And creatin’ a nuisance.
But all these poor, “persecuted” Christians are losing their sh!t over literally nothing.
But their persecution complex is all they have. People are quitting Christianity in droves, mainly young people who see the sheer asshattery of the homophobia we are seeing right here, and the Christians can no longer *force* people to respect their authority and pretend to go along with it, nor are they being allowed to continue having government pretend you have to be a Christian to be an American.
So they throw a pity party.
But you agree that the “cake-baking thing” is crossing the line, right? Are you aware of any other religious group whose businesses are being shut down by the government because they are adhering to their religious principles? And while you are at it, are you aware of any other religious group that has had RICO suits filed against them for engaging in First-amendment protected activities? Or have been labeled by the DOD as potential domestic terroristst? I’ll concede that a lot of folks are caterwauling about dangers more perceived than real, but that doesn’t mean there is no religious discrimination going on.
No. No businesses are being “shut down by the government” over this. You’re parroting talk-radio nonsense.
Sweetcakes by Melissa voluntarily closed up shop and took their business online. In no way, shape, or form did the government force them to close. They did so because their actions cost them too much business. Ain’t the “free market” a bitch?
When you include this kind of idiotry into your posts, it taints the entirety.
The cake crosses a line because someone is being forced to do business against his will. My objection to it has nothing whatsoever to do with his motivation for not wanting to do business with the couple in question.
Are you aware of any other religious group whose businesses are being shut down by the government because they are adhering to their religious principles?
I’m aware that Hobby Lobby got a religious carveout from Obamacare. Every other employer of that size has to buy a one size fits all insurance policy (or pay a penalty). But whine about how it violates your religion, and you get a partial break. What about people who think it’s abhorrent to be forced to buy shit for other people but *don’t* have a rationale that invokes something a god allegedly said 3+ thousand years ago?
And while you are at it, are you aware of any other religious group that has had RICO suits filed against them for engaging in First-amendment protected activities?
Citation, please–both for Christians–qua Christians–being sued and other religions getting off scot free for doing the same thing under the same circumstances.
And OBTW, if it’s for telling people how to vote from behind a pulpit, that’s a violation of their 501c3 status. It’s illegal for any non profit to do this.
Or have been labeled by the DOD as potential domestic terroristst?
Citation, please. And show that it’s because they are professed Christians, not because they are talking about breaking the law.
I’ll concede that a lot of folks are caterwauling about dangers more perceived than real, but that doesn’t mean there is no religious discrimination going on.
Even if I were to stipulate that what you said above is true, you would still get the understatement of the century award, everything from:
* People puling about a store clerk saying “Happy Holidays,”
* Righteous indignation about removing religious displays from government property (a violation of the Establishment Clause)–even though there’s a perfectly good church right across the way that can host that display.
* People complaining because you’re not allowed to lead (i.e., force) a *government* school class full of a random cross section of American children through a Christian prayer even though not all of the students are Christian. Again, our government is required to remain neutral on these issues. Those who don’t like their kid (and mine!) *not* being force fed religion in school can pull him out, send him to a private school. But whining about being persecuted because you don’t get to *impose* your religion on everyone else at taxpayer expense? Puh-lease!
People who complain about the latter two sorts of issues (yes, they crop up incessantly even though the case law was made clear decades ago) have to do so anonymously because they will otherwise be subjected to death threats and other forms of harassment.
So just who the FVCK is being persecuted here?
Sweetcakes by Melissa isn’t the only business that has had this kind of incident. Bakers and photographers and pizza parlors in various different states have closed down after being unable to pay fines and penaties, or have shut down rather than pay them. Using a single example to make an exclusive conclusion about the whole situation taints your whole argument. As does assuming I listen to talk radio, which I don’t (what is it with you guys and talk radio? kind of like anti-gunners and penises)
Now, you caught me on the RICO in a sense. RICO suits were filed against various anti-abortion groups, but then, you don’t necessarily have to be Christian to be anti-abortion. Hobby Lobby managed to get a Supreme court ruling in their favor, true, but then they had to go to the Court in the first place because the .gov was hell-bent on forcing them to go against their religious principles in the first place. And if you want to go on about people complaining about “Happy Holidays” instead of ‘Merry Christmas”, fine, but that doesn’t mean that the parent of a kindergartner who was told she couldn’t say grace over her snack doesn’t have a legitimate complaint. Oh, the DOD and DHS have been caught several times using training curricula obtained from the Southern Christian (imagine that) Leadership Conference that labeled “Christian fundamentalists” and Catholics as well as military veterans, as likely domestic terrorists.
Another Robert, when a business refuses service because of factors such as race, religion, sexual orientation etc., that’s usually a violation of state law since state laws usually prohibit such types of discrimination. I don;t have a problem with that. But what I have a major problem with is a six figure fine for not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding in Oregon.
Excessive fines violate the very language of the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution. Unfortunately, the prohibition against excessive fines has not be incorporated so as to apply to the states. However, the Oregon Constitution does prohibit excessive fines. Is six figures excessive? I think so, even if it’s a civil fine.
Hi Ralph–Yes, I understand about the state laws, but the fact that it is the states and not the feds has no significance in my view, it still is a massive government overreach. And in a way, Steve has “caught” me again ( with an assist from yourself), in that you don’t necessarily have to claim to be a Christian to oppose either homosexual marriage or being forced to bake a cake for anyone for whatever reason. I will note that so far I have not heard of any government agency at any level moving against, say, a Muslim bakery for refusing to do the wedding cake thing for a homosexual couple, which might explain why some folks see it as an anti-Christian kind of thing.
They violated Oregon law. If they had refused to bake the cake and cited it was because of the race of the couple, it would be illegal under the same law.
Is this about Mars Hill? From what I’ve seen, the charges come from a former Deacon, not the government.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the guy in the article above was on a potential domestic “terroristst” [sic] list, considering he’s advocating armed insurrection. I’m a veteran with right-leaning politics, yet somehow I’m able to have a clearance and a job with the DOD.
There really isn’t, though. You’re still free to hate gays. You’re still free to attend whatever church you want. You’re still free to believe whatever you want. But forcing your beliefs into government and legislation is where it end. That is not “discrimination”. That is true freedom. Freedom from YOUR religious tyranny.
Hobby Lobby managed to get a Supreme court ruling in their favor, true, but then they had to go to the Court in the first place because the .gov was hell-bent on forcing them to go against their religious principles in the first place.
LOTS of people tried to get this law overturned. They ALL had to go to the court. So having to go to court isn’t evidence of persecution (unless everyone is being persecuted by Obamacare…a point of view I would not be unsympathetic towards). ONLY the religious argument succeeded. You got yourself a special carve out, and have the gall to claim it as persecution?
If ever there was a time to resurrect the “owned” meme, now would be it.
I did watch and listen to the video unlike some people on this Web page. He is correct. Homosexuals are against civil rights. Unless its Nazis then homosexuals will support their civil rights. Libertarians whatever orientation, use the nazi card to prove they support the 1st amendment. But is does not apply to christians does it?
Now we can start a watch for gay Web sites who call for disarmament.
You say ” it can’t happen here!!!”
I can tell from your collection of posts that you have no idea of the concept of Libertarianism.
Send me links to libertarians who support christian free speech. Educate me.
You’re confusing free speech, with not allowing a certain religion to enforce their religion on you. Libertarians live and let live.
To Travis P
No religion is forced on you. This is American. You don’t have to attend any church. You are a confused libertarian. You do not have to listen to the musings of people who believe in invisible beings.
But libertarians can get government force to take a bakery away from private citizens who say things you don’t like. There are many comments of support for this government bakery take over.
Send me your libertarian links. Educate me.
Well you can start by dropping your bullshit assertion that Libertarians want to force people to bake wedding cakes.
http://reason.com/archives/2014/03/06/nobody-gay-or-straight-has-the-right-to
http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/19/libertarians-gay-marriage-and-freedom
The Awesome thing about Christianity is that Salvation is available for everyone.
The most horrible problem with Christianity is that anyone can claim it, and the Holy Bible has so much to it that it is not that difficult to cherry pick anti-this and anti-that verses, ignoring the Big picture:
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, was buried and raised the third day according to the Scriptures. OK, it’s not what WE DO it’s what HE DID.
My pastor brought up a good point over the weekend regarding SCOTUS and gay ‘marriage’ and related-
he asked, why is it that Christians think that NON-BELIEVERS are going to act like believers?? If we gave up this thought and just started living holiness and preaching the Gospel, the stupid moronic stuff the anti-Christian government does will not have to make sense.
Amen PeterW-and not so long ago government/law enforcement labelled perverted behavior “vice”. I don’t think in GODS eyes gay marriage is any worse than other “sins”.” And such WERE some of you”…we are all without excuse-especially in America…this “pastor” has no clue about redemption…
It is indeed what you and I owe GOD. But you have to live [be able to live] long-enough to ‘live without a care’ or ‘live as though what your a-hole neighbors needing jobs (your government) does, doesn’t matter.
I could type a long list of martyrs that died badly (individually, and as an entire “people”) that espoused that pastor’s plan, I believe WHOLLY, that plan (may have) also ‘served the will’ of GOD.
I feel imbued with the notion that I exist not a whit outside of GOD’s love and mercy, but I don’t have the sense that the entirety of my existence is to Wallow in GOD’s MERCY.
So, wallow in GOD’s MERCY, but don’t pretend that your pastor’s very sermon stands on the bones of many who did not (although also not without GOD’s MERCY, as GOD has somehow not also permitted its own hasty self-destruction).
If today is not meant to be the end, it’s safer to hold-out that you will give-in, that you are willing to ‘chuck’ your Christianity, and a portion of your humanity in order to beat back the encroachers. [I believe] Some of what America was founded on was exactly that.
So, in conclusion, I say, “Poop to that.” Fear me beotches, and cower in silence. If my GOD returns before I pass from this life, reach his bosom before I reach you. Ask nothing from me but violence, question nothing of me but your path to your shortest end.
At my end, I will ask my LORD (HE WHO IS, THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA, QUIS ET DEUS??? – nought!) for forgiveness, but always strive to be the last one to ask St. Peter if he has a ‘spare mag.’ ; )
What kind of keyboard do you use? I like how durable your caps lock is.
If you ‘read’ it, and didn’t just ‘look at the pictures’ then. . .
mischief managed.
Trust me, us non-believers would seriously appreciate this.
He appears to confuse our Republic where our Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion and prohibits the establishment of a state religion with a theocracy. You may freely practice your faith but cannot oblige others to engage in religious practices contrary to their conscience.
As a member of the LGBT community, I prefer to hold onto my ARs instead of banking on civilian disarmament in order to protect against radicals.
^ + infinity
^cosign on that.
It blows my mind how much I see Christians rallying behind this guy, and they tend to forget Jesus flipped tables and whipped people for making money off the religion, and that’s exactly what this guy’s clickbait does.
If you are going to dislike people based off a book written 3 thousand years ago, in which the first human man coupled with every animal until God created a demon wife thing named Lillith, perhaps you should follow all of it.
He has a plastic lower, what’s he gonna do? Break a gun in protest?
In all fairness this guy is an idiot. I can’t believe he has so many people that follow his Facebook page. The only thing I’ve ever heard him say anything of any sense is when the 2nd Amendment is involved. Christians are not and have never been persecuted victims in the United States. How can the majority be persecuted? Are they doing it to themselves? It’s never clear just who the persecutors actually are. It’s just not happening.
When the avalanche has started it is too late for the pebbles to vote…..
You see an idiot yammering on making us all look bad. Tomorrow it will be one of us(yes, YOU) that has just plain had it and does the same thing. When will you people get it through your head that it’s too late to fix all of this any other way than bullets? Your vote doesn’t matter. THE PEOPLE YOU VOTED FOR PUT IN THE BUREAUCRACY IN THAT HAS DONE ALL OF THIS.
And they already proved over and over that they are not gonna get rid of any of it. No Federal programs ever end. The cronies in the war industry(like Boeing) are milking America dry with among other things a turkey that can’t turn, can’t run away, and can’t fight(and gets beat 100% of the time by an F-16). It’s just been revealed that Planned Parenthood sells baby body parts from babies that are supposed to be illegal to abort but they do it anyway with no consequences, and I noticed no one seems to be able to say just who is buying them and for what exactly, just some nebulous “research” purposes. The taxes aren’t enough so they are getting ready to add a VAT to everything and your state is going to implement a black box on your car so that you can be taxed by the mile and lock you in you car if the government ever wants to send you to a camp. And because they know they can’t trust the military they are building better and better robots to replace the military so that they don’t have to trust them. The race thing is going to tear America apart and when they get done there will be enough illegal latinos in the key electoral states so that the conservatives never stand a chance again. Then they vote your gun rights away.
It’s too late to fix it legally. It’s been too late for at least a decade and rather perversely the better we do on the gun rights front the worse they are going to hound it until they get the votes for “Mr.s and Misses America, turn them all in” as Diane Feinstein once said.
Bottom line, get ready for war because there’s one on it’s way and it can’t be stopped.
Travis, just to slap all that down, no, wrong, too many ways to hit them all here. The Bible may mean nothing to you, but being right/correct/true should. None of what you just threw out there is in the Bible.
Nobody, that I read here, is attacking people with the Bible. Someone wholesaled you some bunk on the Bible’s contents, but don’t cut it here and try to distribute it.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. . . until
Geneisis 3:23 Adam and Eve leave the garden
Geneisis Chapter 5: We already read of Noah
Genesis Chapter 6 God destroys all of creation on the surface of the earth but Noah, his family, and the animals with him
We attempt to avoid returning to what causes our ruin, some of which is also definitely hate, but we hate that which constantly hammers us with what hasn’t previously worked.
How have you never heard of Lilith. You can probably my quote Levictus to meet your prejudice but can’t do a single bit of research? I went to a Christian Academy and we were taught about Lilith and the old testament
Travis, no.
Not in the bible, not in your Christian Academy. Don’t listen to anyone selling Lillith/Lilith, what-have-you.
Don’t get your Bible from a box of caramel covered popcorn and peanuts.
Like/believe in the Bible or don’t, but slap yourself with a large-type version of one before spreading falsehood about it.
I’ll tell you what on the 2A issue…if atheists who like guns, gay activists who like guns, and evangelical Christians who believe every word in the Bible to be inspired and who also like guns can’t stand arm in fully armed arm with one another opposing civilian disarmament, and in favor of free speech, even if a group may think it’s “hateful” free speech (because, hey, if you’re LGBT and pro-gun, a lot of your own community would consider your own 2A love to be “hate speech”), because we are too busy insulting and arguing with each other on things other than guns, we can all just keep on disagreeing without our guns, because divide and conquer will be a perfect strategy for the enemy, and one day the statists will take ’em. Once again, both sides of this issue posting here would rather be sanctimonious and contemptuous of their opponents, and would, in essence, rather be what they consider to be “right” than to be successful politically on 2A rights preservation.
I’m perfectly willing to work with people on 2A. That’s what a “coalition” is.
But if someone comes in here and starts blasting away on other topics, I am going to respond. We can’t go a week without somebody pulling in abortion from out of the blue, or someone bitching about gays and cakes. We have prolific commenters who ONLY show up to fagbash. And I’ve seen more than a few who just, out of the blue, start beating up on atheists, then wonder why the hell WE are so touchy.
If the topic stayed on “guns,” I assure you no one here would have any idea I was an atheist.
Yeah well every few weeks the “guns / christian / anti-gay / abortion debate / OFWGs-only-may-apply” package deal assertion rears its head again.
They aren’t a package.
Yes, yes, I’ve heard the wind-around-the-long-way-round arguments as to why they are, and I still call bullshit on it. I understand it’s getting closer to election time, or something, so it’s time to put “Gays, Guns and God” into the same basket as is usual.
2A and firearms: I’ll rah-rah and agree. All. Day. Long. And yeah, everyone has their right to bitch and moan about the “moral decay” because Adam and Steve aren’t being stoned to death, but come on.
Gun owners aren’t monolithic or homogenous, nor should they be. Yet there’s always people crowing that “you must be this tall to ride this ride”, and believe in a set of non-2A values to “really” be the “right kind’ of pro-2A.
I know this may blow some people’s minds, but the same goes for LGBT folk. “Well your community says–” “Well your people think–” Nuh uh. Sure there are groups of ‘like who associate with like’ and become activists. That doesn’t mean that a given loudmouth on the West Coast speaks for me.
If “Other LGBT people think the 2A is hate speech” well rooty-toot for them, I disagree, I think they’re wrong. What’s your point?
Also “My own community” goes beyond just people who have similar sexual preferences. Nor does it include all of those who do. As should be the case for most people. I generally don’t associate closely with committed anti-gunners though. I know it’s REALLY convenient to just fit everyone into boxes with labels of ingredients on the sides, but that’s not how it works.
+
Fucking-a-men.
This article is just more proof that “The Firearms Blog” is a far superior website about firearms. 90% of this site is Farago ranting about absolute nonsense. Dan Zimmerman and Nick Leghorn are the only reason I still visit this thing.
Was I the only person to notice that he does not have sights on his gun?
God is my co-witness? LOL
This is ridiculous, fighting for gay rights with guns. this will lead into devastating situation.
I believe the word you’re looking for is ‘against’.
Other than that, Steve’s right. It is ridiculous, and it will lead to a devastating situation (should this clown decide to put his money where his pie hole is).
Christians are allowed to use weapons in self defense (Jesus brought swords with Him into the Garden of Gethsemane, where He prayed). However, first, gays are not our enemy, but even if they were, Jesus said love your enemies. I do not believe God has said for us to kill or shoot gays just because they’re gay, so this guy, if that’s what he suggests, is not one of us. That would make him a fringe lunatic.
I thought god said to stone the gays?
Nope.
So Leviticus 20:13 doesn’t exist, then?
He did, as they are an abomination to God. However, it is not a private citizen’s place to be a vigilante.
It’s also not biblical. But don’t let that get in the way of the rip-roaring Two Minutes Hate taking place in this comments thread.
(Comment in reply to a comment that apparently got deleted?)
Guy looks like heis a beer pong champ
sorry but feurestein is a bible thumping insane dipshit to high off the smell of his own self righteous shit. look up his go fund me and see what he did with the money. he likes watches, i’ll say that.
ARs are NOT Assault Weapons………
ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE ‘AUTOMATIC’ WEAPONS
AR = Armalite Rifle
Assault Rifle = the rifle gun-grabbers should use to violate themselves with (that’s why they are so against attachments).
If a bakery only wants to do business with Christians, they should only sell their products in churches. Once you open your doors to the public, you must abide by anti discrimination laws. Why do we have those laws? Think back to the “No Irish or Dogs Allowed,” the debate Congress held on whether or not Italians should be considered “white,” the Whites Only water fountains and lunch counters. That’s why we have anti discrimination laws-to protect human dignity.
Furthermore, all the arguments for “religious freedom” make me laugh. We have the freedom to worship as we please in this country. We won’t be rounded up and shot in a soccer stadium for being a Pentecostal, we won’t be denied a job because we’re Catholic, we can publish religious literature and record/broadcast television and radio shows as much as we wish. We can even distribute those items to nonbelievers without fear of being sent to prison and/or executed. That is religious freedom.
You do not have the freedom, as a religious person doing business in a public forum, to deny someone services due to their perceived difference from you and how that difference may conflict with your religious beliefs. If you want that choice, like I said above, you should only do business within your religious community.
Which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Had someone walked into the store, requested to purchase a cake off the shelf, and been refused, I would agree with you; but that’s not what happened. It is not a matter of refusing to offer a product or service to someone because the person is homosexual; rather, it is not wanting to participate in a homosexual wedding by baking a cake for such a ceremony.
It has nothing to do with discriminating against homosexuals, hating homosexuals, or repressing homosexuals. It has to do with freedom of conscience.
Change that to “freedom of association” and I’m fully with you.
One should be able to decide whom to do business with, for whatever reason. Infringing that freedom and then making an exception for someone making religious claims just creates a carveout and obscures the real issue, it’s not “freedom of religion,” it’s the broader freedom to run one’s own life as one sees fit as long as he respects the rights of others.
And on that point, I agree with you fully, regarding how things should be. But that train has left the station (thanks to judiciary-discovered “right of public accommodation”); how do we make it return?
Damfino.
One thing I don’t think would be helpful, though would be to give powerful groups a carve out. If they get that, then they cease to care.
He has a backward fitted baseball hat and a goatee. So at least we know he’s cool.
Actually (assuming you’re not being sarcastic), we know what YOU think is cool. That says a lot more about you than about him. 😛
I bet he can play a couple of songs on his acoustic guitar. Assuming he brought his capo. And his Trinity ankle tattoo shows that he knows how to party.
Cooooool preacher.
(Not sure if I can get more sarcastic in print :D)
Josh is just another religatard. He’s becoming somewhat ‘famous’ on Youtube for being nuts. He’s nuttier than a squirrel turd.
“This too shall pass.”
To SteveInCO
Thanks for the links to Reason links. I read them already. I was hoping for more than one writer Scott Shackford.I noticed he does not use the word “wrong” to describe what is happening to the Christians bakery. Most so called libertarians don’t either. If I missed the word “wrong” in either pieces let me know.
I’m not concerned with angry or passionate white Christians with guns or angry or passionate New Black Panther party with guns. To me it seems the race of the person holding gun and the religion of the person holding the gun, seems to change opinions of others on their acceptable 1st amendment speech.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/08/robert-farago/anonymous-guide-huey-p-newton-gun-club/
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/08/robert-farago/black-panthers/
He might not have used the precise word “wrong” but I think it’s pretty clear he thinks it is an incorrect use of government power. Heck, one of the two articles’ entire purpose is an explanation of why he (and other Libertarians) believe that gays have a right to be married, but NOT to have a cake baked for them. That plus the libertarian belief (also stated there) that the ONLY proper purpose of a government is to secure rights (sounds a bit like the Declaration of Independence, no?) should make things pretty clear–According to libertarian (and Objectivist) beliefs, government has no fucking business forcing the baking of cakes.
Let me repeat that (for maximum reassurance as to where I stand, if nothing else). Government has no fucking business forcing the baking of cakes.
And the Libertarians I used to associate with would have invariably agreed with him (as would Objectivists, students of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, highlighted in Atlas Shrugged–who are adamant that they are not libertarians, though many positions coincide (I consider them a specific subspecies of libertarians, and boy do they get pissed when I tell them that)).
The only further reason I can see for potential confusion on your part is that there is a guy who sometimes comments here who calls himself a libertarian, but doesn’t even believe in private property. (That’s about as absurd as a socialist believing it’s OK to be a billionaire, or a four sided triangle.) I’ve called him a liar, requested he quit trying to hijack the word from people who don’t try to justify thievery, and I do so again here and now.
Other than that, I confess that I just can’t see why you are so hesitant to accept these explanations of libertarianism’s position on the Great Gay Wedding Cake Baking Clusterf*ck of 2015.
It is not your right as a Christian to inhibit the rights of others based on your religious preferences. It is not right for these groups to say this mans statement to fight to keep their first amendment rights to voice his opinion by utilizing the 2nd amendment as an attack on gays (damn strawmen). All this is is another piece of DRAMA bs of a religious person thinking the government not inhibiting one persons rights as inhibiting another, which is ludicrous. A gay couple getting married does not affect a hetero married couple. However twisting someones words to fit a narrative for an agenda should be deemed illegal. Some of you that know laws probably could explain why its illegal (libel? defamation?)
What an utterly chilling thought. You would advocate the government acting as the arbiter of truth, and of the government enforcing that arbitration.
Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution. It is therefore always open to Americans to challenge a law abridging free speech and assembly by showing that there was no emergency justifying it.
– Louis Brandeis, Whitney v California
Homophobic video cunt seems not to realize that gay people (and pro-gay straights like myself) can get guns just as easily as Evangelical Christians. Join Pink Pistols, and give these clowns the one-way trip to heaven they so desire.
Comments are closed.