Theocratic Treachery

[Emproph]

My intent for this thread is to keep it open for any items of interest that may shed light on how the religious right is spinning their attempts to promote a theocracy and undermine American Democracy.
__________________


I’m in the process of dissecting the interview that spawned this article in another thread (FOF/Citizenlink) and haven’t gotten to this part yet but I thought this was important enough to post separately.

From the article (http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000003215.cfm):

KING: It's in the Bill of Rights.

DOBSON: It's not in the Bill of Rights. It's not anywhere in a foundational document. The only place where the so-called "wall of separation" was mentioned was in a letter written by (Thomas) Jefferson to a friend. That's the only place. It has been picked up and made to be something it was never intended to be...

Many Americans continue to believe the phrase "separation of church and state" is found in the U.S. Constitution...The phrase from an 1802 letter President Jefferson wrote...
They link to the letter itself, but obfuscate (confuse) the fact that Thomas Jefferson quoted and described the first amendment [I]as a "separation of Church and State."

From the letter (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html) they link to:
.., I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

From Mel White’s Religion Gone Bad:
Fundamentalist Christians wish with all their hearts that Jefferson had never written those words, because they leave no wiggle room for those who oppose the separation of church and state or state and church on the shaky ground that our forefathers didn’t use those exact words in the constitution.
From the article again:
...it's accurate to say, as Dr. Dobson did, Jefferson felt the First Amendment protected the church from government interference -- not the opposite."
There’s plenty to comment on, but what I'm getting is that they’re attempting to devalue the meaning of the first amendment by equating it with the words used to describe it.

The tactic itself isn’t surprising, but it’s usually reserved for the ‘tried and true’ anti-gay or anti-whatever rhetoric. Am I missing something here or do you think my assessment is accurate?

I’m just having trouble believing they’re trying to confuse their own base so openly and obviously. Is there any other way to interpret this?

[Zerbie]

t.
I’m just having trouble believing they’re trying to confuse their own base so openly and obviously. Is there any other way to interpret this?[/QUOTE]

I'm far from expert on this issue, but consider that if someone wants power and has to distort and lie in order to seize/maintain it, why would they not mislead their own base who does not want to know they are being lied to?

[Emproph]

I’m just having trouble believing they’re trying to confuse their own base so openly and obviously. Is there any other way to interpret this?

I'm far from expert on this issue, but consider that if someone wants power and has to distort and lie in order to seize/maintain it, why would they not mislead their own base who does not want to know they are being lied to?I'm not an expert either, so that's why I want to be sure.

If you lie, you know some people are going to catch those lies. That's why this to me seems particularly cannibalistic.

I guess I'm wondering, are they that desperate now that the dems are in power, or are they just trying to put a positive spin on his blatantly anti-American wordage from the interview.

It would seem that the latter is the case, I just want to be sure before referring to him as a traitor (from now on :D).

[Daniel]

t.
I’m just having trouble believing they’re trying to confuse their own base so openly and obviously. Is there any other way to interpret this?

Hmmmm. I think Dobson has to confuse himself first before he confuses anyone else. After all, perception makes for projection. Ya see- and don't see- what ya want ta see. That's the power of the blindness of 'belief' at work.

Gay people don't really exist in his world. We're all just malformed heterosexuals.

It's really not a big leap for him to see the Constitution- not as it is- but as he wants it to be.

But as they say: reality bites.

[Emproph]

It's really not a big leap for him to see the Constitution- not as it is- but as he wants it to be.That much I get. I'm trying to assess why they would risk coming across as anti-first amendment with those they supposedly respect.

They didn't mention or have articles about anything else in the interview. They seemed almost gleeful about this particular point though.

DOBSON: What it has become is that the government is protected from the church, instead of the other way around...

KING: I'm going to check my history.

And well he should... illustrating the need for a better civics education.

[Daniel]

My brother, who is a missionary btw, repeatedly yammers on about how evangelicals arepersecuted by government.

Ergo: I think their thinking about the matter goes something like this.

1) Christians are persecuted/discriminated against by government.

2) America was founded on biblical principles and men of God.

therefore

3) that first amendment stuff isn't what they really meant- that's just the view of those who are persecuting us.

A 'logic'- if you can call it that- that is circular and self-sustaining.

[Emproph]

My brother, who is a missionary btw, repeatedly yammers on about how evangelicals arepersecuted by government.

Ergo: I think their thinking about the matter goes something like this.

By "their thinking," you mean ALL of them think this way, not just those spinning the "news." This is something they all have in common, like in the authoritarian thread (generally speaking of course).

In other words, of course it'll work! They'll believe anything we say, in fact we prepared for this kind of interview mishap years ago. Ergo - regarding our base - our formula of deception is self renewing. Those we lose can easily be replaced.

1) Christians are persecuted/discriminated against by government.Now this sounds juicy. We've got two persecuted minorities. One officially percieved to be persecuted and the other not.
.....
.....
.....
They think their persecution of gays is just "another" piece of the puzzle because the flak they get from it is too close in intensity to the flak they get for everything else.
2) America was founded on biblical principles and men of God.

therefore

3) that first amendment stuff isn't what they really meant- that's just the view of those who are persecuting us.
But isn't religious persecution the reason why we white-folk left England in the first place?

......ooooooohhh, I get it now..
A 'logic'- if you can call it that- that is circular and self-sustaining.Apparently not circular enough, if that's possible, and apparently it is.

[Daniel]

Emproph- my head is spinning! (no, not as in Linda Blair in the exorcist)

You have a fine sense of pychology- that's for sure. I can't keep up! :lol:

Yes. I was insinuating (nice juicy word that!) that there are fundamentalists/conservatives that have as much a 'ghetto' mentality as gays or blacks do. We all have the ruts we like and the ruts we don't like. And we can't see that the rut we are in is as much a rut as the other guy's rut.

rut rut rut rut rut

It is strange, considering that Puritans came here to excape persecution, that conservative/fundamentalists (being of the same cloth as those Puritans) now feel they cannot freely exercise their religious freedom. However, if my memory of American history serves me, the Europeans were awfully glad those Puritan's left. They couldn't stay out of other people's business.

http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/puritans.html
The Puritans believed that the Bible was God's true law, and that it provided a plan for living. The established church of the day described access to God as monastic and possible only within the confines of "church authority". Puritans stripped away the traditional trappings and formalities of Christianity which had been slowly building throughout the previous 1500 years. Theirs was an attempt to "purify" the church and their own lives.

I see this as a simple case of not being able to keep track of one's projections.

And what do modern conservative/fundies want to do now? The same thing. 'Save' America. If left unchecked, we will have (if we don't already) the American Taliban on our hands.

THANK GOD FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

[Emproph]

http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/puritans.htmlExtrapolating from that article, their persecution complex is literally genetic. The only thing they couldn’t outrun was their DNA. I take it that’s the meaning behind the phrase "puritanical streak."

We’re through the looking glass here people..

[Daniel]

We’re through the looking glass here people..

Mushrooms? Isn't that what Alice ate? :D

[BruceChris]

Guys, one argument that I haven't seen here is this. Courts, at all levels, when the law is somehow not clear, are always looking for original intent. Original intent is often looked for in transcripts of testimony, from when a law was being drafted. Jefferson, having the status of a minor diety to some scholars, was clearly expressing original intent.

On a constitutional scale, Supreme Court candidates are often judged as to whether they are strict constructionists.

Yeah, I know, the world changes, and the law needs to change with it. But we are dealing with people here who are in denial of change. It might be said that if someone is truly in denial, they cannot be said to be hypocrites. And what is worse, is that to the believer, denial is indistinguishable from Faith.

Hey, I'm still in denial about no longer being 17, but I try not to take myself too seroiusly.

P&L, BC

[BronzDragon]

They link to the letter itself, but obfuscate (confuse) the fact that Thomas Jefferson quoted and described the first amendment as a "separation of Church and State."


» Thom says: ☛ Interesting, isn’t it? They cry “There is not separation between Church and State!” and yet when the state imposes some tax or other law on the Church, they cry, “Leave us alone!”


Actually, they address religion in three parts of the Constitution. We most readily know of the First amendment. Some even understand the sixth article with allows for an oath of public office, but forbids using religion as a test of qualification for that office.



And I noticed as I am reading Religion Gone Bad, where the preamble is presented: We the people of the United States … do ordain this Constitution. ~«

[Emproph]

We all have the ruts we like and the ruts we don't like.Nope never. My rut is better than their rut, period! Neener Neener Neener!

Mushrooms? Isn't that what Alice ate? :D What are you implying? :D
THANK GOD FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!
I missed that little gem of oxymoronica the first time around. Good one, I stole it you know.. :shifty:


It might be said that if someone is truly in denial, they cannot be said to be hypocrites. And what is worse, is that to the believer, denial is indistinguishable from Faith.I think that last part is a profound observation.

I think (from much recent experience) that kind of “faith” is indicative of the sincerest form of idolatry. To the extent that one’s faith is based on denial, it is based on the acceptance of only that truth which one chooses, or wants to believe – making the final authority of truth, one’s own self judgement. Ergo the 'worship' of one's own ego.

They are unrepentant idolaters, blind to their own sin. Sound familiar? Even if we were what they claim we are, we don’t hold an unrepentant candle to them. Heartening news I know..

It seems to me that there’s little hope of getting through to them as long as they’re in their element – surrounded only by those who reinforce the delusion.

[left] » Thom says: ? Interesting, isn’t it? They cry “There is not separation between Church and State!” and yet when the state imposes some tax or other law on the Church, they cry, “Leave us alone!”
Don't mean to spoil the ending but, From Religion Gone Bad:
During the first stages of the current fundamentalist takeover of church and state in America, fundamentalists loved the First Amendment's Establishment clause...They used it as a shield to protect their growing influence from laws or ruling that might limit their rise to power. Now that they have a majority in Congress, they want to withdraw that shield of protection from the rest of us.They might have a point had they put a "clause" within the Establishment clause, stating that it was time/political-power sensetive.

[Daniel]

I missed that little gem of oxymoronica the first time around. Good one, I stole it you know.. :shifty:


Ah.....I now have the most fabulous drag name.....thank you!


Q: What's your name dear?

A: OXYMORONICA......but you can call me OXY. (Batting false eyes-lashes)

[Emproph]

Ah.....I now have the most fabulous drag name.....thank you!


Q: What's your name dear?

A: OXYMORONICA......but you can call me OXY. (Batting false eyes-lashes)What could I add? It's perfect.

[BronzDragon]

They are unrepentant idolaters, blind to their own sin. Sound familiar? Even if we were what they claim we are, we don’t hold an unrepentant candle to them. Heartening news I know ...

» Thom says: ☛ I have learned a definition for Idolatry that might apply here. Idolatry is not the worship of false images. There is no such thing as a false image. Images are artistic representations, and like myth are conveyers of truth.

Idolatry is the false worship of images. Interesting twist, that. :o As I said, an image is an artistic representation. Like saying a one dollar bill represents one dollar in gold or credit. It doesn't really, it represents (at minimum wage) about ten minutes of work. By focusing on the dollar we miss the effort that went into earning it.

I expect that we intended many of the earliest versions of divine icons as artistic representations of the divine relationship with the artist or society, and the god or daimon that image represented. Subsequent generations failed to see that, and so simply never got past the statue to the god it represents.

I read John Bunion’s Pilgrim’s Progress some years back. I came away with a lot. One point I came a way with is, Pilgrim did indeed get to the Cross, then he went beyond it. I expect a lot of Christians get to the Cross, and stop. When Christ got beyond, he died and awakened from death. Like Woden, he sacrificed his self to his Self, and there-by gained the world.

Yes, I ramble sometimes, and accidently say something interesting. There it is.

[Daniel]

Idolatry is the false worship of images. Interesting twist, that. :o As I said, an image is an artistic representation. Like saying a one dollar bill represents one dollar in gold or credit. It doesn't really, it represents (at minimum wage) about ten minutes of work. By focusing on the dollar we miss the effort that went into earning it.

I expect that we intended many of the earliest versions of divine icons as artistic representations of the divine relationship with the artist or society, and the god or daimon that image represented. Subsequent generations failed to see that, and so simply never got past the statue to the god it represents.


Some years ago I started 'writing' (they don't call it drawing) an icon in the Byzantine style/school- the earliest style actually. The interesting thing about them is that there are no straight lines contained within the figures represented. The representation of an earthy 'object'? Yes. Divine 'object'? No. As such, from what I have gleaned, they are considered within the tradition- historically speaking- representations of mystical experience.

My own musings on the matter immediately went to the difference in how the brain processes information.

It seems to me that idolatry is straight line -point A to B -kind of thinking. Left brained, you might say. "Do it this way or else." The experience of the divine is something alltogether different, right-brained, curvy, full of nuance and global in scope. No set limitations. In fact, the absence of limitation it what it's all about.

[Zerbie]

Ah.....I now have the most fabulous drag name.....thank you!


Q: What's your name dear?

A: OXYMORONICA......but you can call me OXY. (Batting false eyes-lashes)

:D
Omigosh, Daniel, that's awesome!! :love:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[novaseeker]

Guys, one argument that I haven't seen here is this. Courts, at all levels, when the law is somehow not clear, are always looking for original intent. Original intent is often looked for in transcripts of testimony, from when a law was being drafted. Jefferson, having the status of a minor diety to some scholars, was clearly expressing original intent.

On a constitutional scale, Supreme Court candidates are often judged as to whether they are strict constructionists.

Yeah, I know, the world changes, and the law needs to change with it. But we are dealing with people here who are in denial of change. It might be said that if someone is truly in denial, they cannot be said to be hypocrites. And what is worse, is that to the believer, denial is indistinguishable from Faith.

Hey, I'm still in denial about no longer being 17, but I try not to take myself too seroiusly.

P&L, BC

It's an odd argument, really, because generally the kinds of folks who are supporting the kind of agenda that Dobson et al support tend to be aligned with the strict constructionist (ie, text only) or original intent (ie, text + gloss as to what original drafters meant) crowd ... unless of course the evidence of the original intent isn't in favour of their own perspectives ...

The establishment clause has a long jurisprudential history, and can't reasonably be read on the basis of the mere words alone, 200 years after they were written (or on the basis of what Jefferson wrote, either, really). I think in general the attitude reflects a profound disagreement with the concept of judicial review because this is seen as "anti-democratic" ... but alas without judicial review, we are simply left with majoritarian goodwill as the guarantor of minority rights, and of course that doesn't work very well, as we all know.

[Daniel]

... but alas without judicial review, we are simply left with majoritarian goodwill as the guarantor of minority rights, and of course that doesn't work very well, as we all know.


In other words:

"In my opinion the main evil of the present democratic institutions of the United States does not arise, as is often asserted in Europe, from their weakness, but from their overpowering strength; and I am not so much alarmed at the excessive liberty which reigns in that country as at the very inadequate securities which exist against tyranny."

Words written by Alexis De Tocqueville in his Democracy In American 1835. Chapter XV: Unlimited Power Of Majority, And Its Consequences - Part II

As far as judicial review is concerned, I believe our rights will not be furthered, as has been noted by many scholars, until gay people are considered a distinct 'class' - as blacks were in the attainment of civil right.

[BruceChris]

Like Zerbie, and me, and who knows all else. -- BC

[Daniel]

Like Zerbie, and me, and who knows all else. -- BC

Please forgive me for not using GBLTQ. I had no intention of leaving anyone out. That was not my point.

What I was alluding to the specific reason why several recent court decisions (NY gay marriage case comes to mind here) were decided as they were.

In a majority of them, the bar was set too low. These courts used a lower standard of judicial review. I sum, these rulings said: ""You aren't a class or a group so we can't give you the right you want here.

Let me restate: Until GLBTQ persons are recognized as a class in the courts in the United States of Amercia, they won't have any civil rights.

The attainment of marriage rights will, I believe, open the door to pretty much everything else. That's why conservatives fear it so much.

[novaseeker]

In a majority of them, the bar was set too low. These courts used a lower standard of judicial review. I sum, these rulings said: ""You aren't a class or a group so we can't give you the right you want here.

Let me restate: Until GLBTQ persons are recognized as a class in the courts in the United States of Amercia, they won't have any civil rights.

The attainment of marriage rights will, I believe, open the door to pretty much everything else. That's why conservatives fear it so much.

I agree on the last point that marriage is a critical, critical thing for us. The anti group is very aware of this, and that's why they're so up in arms about it.

On the legal issues, I agree that things would be far easier for us if we were treated as a suspect classification for purposes of equal protection. That's been a huge stumbling block in many places because, as you probably know, if we are not a suspect classification, the law is considered constitutional if it meets the "rational basis" test (which is easy to meet). Although I would say, editorially, that in my view the Court of Appeals of NY came up with an extremely odd rational basis for NY's restrictive law ... it had the appearance of clutching at straws, to be honest, but a rational basis test permits that.

From my perspective, I think we still have a good shot under a "substantive due process"/fundamental rights analysis, regardless of whether we are a suspect class or not. In other words, the line of cases from Loving v. Virginia to Zablocki are pretty solid on the idea that marriage is a fundamental right such that restrictions on it are subject to a high degree of scrutiny. When you read those together with the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, it isn't hard to reach the conclusion that because marriage itself is a fundamental right, statutes that operate to bar access to that right based on sexual orientation are not constitutional. In other words, if Lawrence stands for the proposition that the state cannot make it illegal for gay people to have sex (on the basis that sexual intimacy is a fundamental right), and Loving and so forth stand for the proposition that marriage is a fundamental right ... it's not hard to conclude that the state cannot make it impossible for gay people to have access to marriage (or, arguably, something the same as marriage in terms of benefits but called something else) because marriage, like sexual intimacy, is a fundamental right. I think that this argument has some "legs" constitutionally, as evidenced by Justice Scalia's fears expressed in his dissent in Lawrence. The main problem I see with it (other than the issue of whether the court were to view it as an equal protection or substantive due process issue) is that it may not have enough votes given the current Supreme Court lineup, a lineup which may very well have reached a different conclusion in Lawrence were it the lineup at the time.

Ugh, a bit of a technical post, but alas some of these issues are a bit technical.

[Zerbie]

Thanks Nova, I'm glad you posted that.

I hope you're right, and I hope it happens that way. The obvious hurdle with regard to the protected class status is the political furor clouding the very issue of gay persons (LBGTQ persons) as a class with distinct, immutable characteristics (hence the intensity of the "ex-gay" campaigns.)

[Daniel]

Nova- thanks for your missive. I see I was missing a good deal of the argument and the possibilites regarding "substantive due process". Not being a legal scholar - and it sounds very much as if you are- :D - I appreciate your take on the matter.

With this in mind, I guess it really does come down to legislative efforts (that is what's left for us in NY now- and the hope is that our Governor-Elect- Spritzer- will get that ball rolling shortly) as well as the right kind of case presented in just the right manner.

As always: 'timing is everything'?

And Zerbie- as you know more than enyone else: when the stakes are high the fight can be intense. Glad you are on the frontline in your state!

[novaseeker]

As always: 'timing is everything'?

Indeed so, Daniel. And who knows when the timing will be right ... we'll just have to see.

[Daniel]

http://365gay.com/Newscon07/01/010507divorce.htm

Group Behind Virginia Anti-Gay Amendment Now Targets Divorcing Straight Couples
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: January 5, 2007 - 3:00 pm ET

(Richmond, Virginia) The organization that mounted the successful bid to amend Virginia's constitution to block same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partner benefits says it will now concentrate on making it more difficult for straight couples to break up.

Voters approved the gay marriage ban in November. Now the Family Foundation of Virginia has begun a drive to end no-fault divorce in the state.

No-fault allows either partner in a marriage to get a divorce without specific grounds. That person can then apply for full custody rights over the couple's children. It currently is available in most states.

The Family Foundation says it makes divorce too easy to get and disadvantages children. It is supporting a proposed bill that would require specific grounds - such adultery - for couples with minor children.

"Right now, one spouse can unilaterally end [a marriage], and not only is their spouse unable to stop the divorce, their abandonment does not preclude them from having custody of their child," Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation told a news conference this week.

She said that statistics have shown children suffer more from messy divorces than they do from unhappy parents.

So far the Foundation's bill does not have a sponsor in the General Assembly, although the Assembly will consider a motion to examine no-fault divorce.

When the organization was pushing to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage LGBT advocates said the group should be spending its time addressing the state's high divorce rate.

Cobb referenced that argument at her news conference.

"While they used this argument to divert attention from the matter at hand, we couldn't agree more with their point," Cobb told reporters.

In 2004, the most recent year the Virginia Department of Health has full statistics on marriages and divorces in the state, there were 57,510 marriage licenses issued and 29,411 divorces.

The agenda seems pretty clear, though I wonder if Virginian's are going to start to realize that totalitarianism of this sort has no end. As well, the comments by GLBTQ activists made earlier, I venture, had little to do with making it harder for being to get divorced. More to the point are the reasons why marriages become unsustainable. That is a whole other matter. And a nuance which fundamentalists do not seem to get.

The proposed law- a requirement of adultery- harkens back to the Victorian Era. Do we really want people spying on each other again?

Why is it that these kind of proposals are always recidivist in expression?

[novaseeker]

hopefully people in Va (especially Northern VA) will wise up and see the connections.

We're outnumbered by the rest of the state.

In the recent vote on the marriage amendment, Northern Virginia, Albemarle (where UVA is), Richmond City and bits and pieces down near Norfolk voted against, and everyone else voted for. The power of Falwell and Robertson here (they're both based here) is extreme, and the influence on the General Assembly is extreme.

Having said that, if this even does come to a big political issue in the Assembly, it's extremely unlikely that the law would be changed in this way. There would be hell to pay politically for the legislature to do this without some kind of referendum. And a referendum would be unlikely to generate the same participation from the fundamentalists and other conservative evangelicals as a vote on gay issues (nothing gets them more motivated than the opportunity to cast their vote against gays, so that they can get on God's good side in terms of the way they look at Sodom and Gomorrah).

So while I think it's a thoroughly regrettable idea from these folks, I doubt they have anything near the political traction on this issue that they did on the anti-gay vote last November.

[Emproph]

The proposed law- a requirement of adultery- harkens back to the Victorian Era. Do we really want people spying on each other again? It harkens further back than that. Biblically speaking, I believe that divorce due to spousal adultery is the ONLY way one can legitimately remarry without it being considered adultery.

Matthew 19:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:9&version=31)
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
~~
I’m glad you posted that Daniel, I’ve been using Luke 16:18 to argue that remarriage is adultery, but I Googled Jesus on divorce, and this site lists four other places in the Bible where it’s also said, some interesting footnotes too.

http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jlc/stuff2.html

~~
Why don’t we just pass a federal anti-hypocrisy law and cover all our bas...oh that’s right, we already have one, it's called the constitution. Including such freedoms as the equal protection clause, freedom of religion, all men are created equal...etcetera...etcetera...etcetera...

[BronzDragon]

... lets just start referring to them as what they are (using the biblical term) Pharisees! (or if you prefer... neo-pharis. pronounced: nee-oh-fairies):D

PS: I think my messages are getting lost in the group spam folder again. :'(

» Thom says: ☛ :lol: ¡Watch it! I have a Fairy, and I know how to Use her! (Elven Proverb)

:lol: ¡Watch it, the Fairies are loose, and they are carrying Dragons! (Elven Humor)

Actually, I would say they are simply Sad. Do they really think that two adults fighting like cats is going to be a pretty sight for their children? I can say from personal experience, NO!

[BronzDragon]

» Thom says: ☛ It looks like 2007 is going to be a year of desperation for the religious Fascists. On one hand the strength they felt they once held is crumbling. It might even be that the Religious Fascists are losing relevance on the middle ground of moderates and thinkers from the head.

Well, I now know what side of the “GLBTQ” question Charisma OnLine is.

A Prophetic Word for 2007: Changing Priorities and Paradigms
This is a year for bold, drastic measures. The American church must change, or change will be forced upon us.

2007: A year to challenge apostasy. Don’t be shocked when people you consider evangelical Christians embrace blatant heresy. Some will begin to preach a gospel of universal salvation. Others, even in the charismatic camp, will join the chorus of “gay-affirming” ministers, because they care more about being relevant to culture than to God’s Word. Just as in the days of Jezebel, many will bow their knee to Baal. The American church must have the courage of Elijah in order to challenge this spirit of idolatry and depravity. Though we must seek to be culturally relevant, we must also be willing to be criticized as “old-fashioned” when it comes to biblical morality. » Thom says: ☛ And yet, they say nothing about education, the homeless, the sick, those imprisoned for no good reason, those we imprison but might not have been had they had better choices available to them. Where is the Justice? Where is the Mercy? Would it be violent to call these fellows Sodomites in light of the following?

«As I live» — declares the Lord יהוה — «your sister Sodom and her daughters did not do what you and your daughters did. Only this was the sin of your sister Sodom: Arrogance! She and her daughters had pleanty of bread and untroubled tranquility; yet she did not support the poor and the needy. In her haughtiness, they committed abonimation before Me; and so I removed them, as you saw.
Ezekiel 16:48-49