Liberals Redefining Hatred

Comments

Thank You!
[this is good]
Absolutely right, especially the last paragraph! Allowing Socialists to take over the schools by default is the blunder that enabled the other problems to materialize.
[this is good]
Exceptionally good writing!!!
[this is good]
[this is good]
Yes, I get labeled all the time for my beliefs. May God have mercy! Good post, and very true. Thanks for this. -Jim
[this is good]
Great post!!
[this is good]
Great points!
Among the many things of questionable validity scattered throughout your essay, I'd like to point out a few that I find to be either untrue or based on biased research.

Reading the section on homosexuality, I was reminded of something that happened over 200 years ago. During the Enlightenment of the 1700s, some scientific researchers examined the differences between races. Using their skewed logic, they determined that Africans were physically and biologically inferior to the Western Europeans. This meant that the massive slave trade that was going at the time was morally justified, because the slaves were sub-human. If you fast-forward to present day, many similarities can be distinguished between the research of the African slaves and the "studies" that show that homosexuality causes"shortened life spans...and increased sexually motivated criminal activity". Perhaps you could use that logic to say that being male should be outlawed and/or discouraged because men have lower life spans (Why Women Live Longer).

Also, in your section on Intolerance, you act quite hypocritical in your description of America. You say that the media should not silence Christian voices, yet you (a member of the media) preach loudly against Islamics. I realize that there are many Islamic extremists that use their religion as an excuse to kill Christians and Jews, yet our country guarantees the right to freedom of religion. This means that until an Islamic man or woman violates a law in the United States he/she should not be prosecuted or have his/her rights violated in any way.

In another part of the Intolerance section, you state that Christian values shaped this country in the beginning. I would to respond to this with a special quote I found a while back.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."

This is one of my favorite quotes because it dispels any argument that Christianity formed our government. The lad that said this was not a blogger or a liberal columnist. It was someone that liberals and conservatives can all agree was a great man, Thomas Jefferson, the man who wrote the declaration that allowed us such great freedoms. One of his good friends, John Adams, also signed, as president, the Treaty of Tripoli which stated "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with them on this issue.

-Sam
[this is good]
What can I say Good POST !!!!!!!1

Right on,Judge!Every word in this post rings true,and you're right,

We should be able to voice Our opinions just the same as the liberal pinkos do,

and not be branded with foul names for doing so.I believe they call

that the 1st amendment!

Dan

actually, i disagree with the definition of homophobe.
[this is good]

Vox should something that is way beyond "this is good." This post is awesome! It is excellent! It is whatever superlative beyond good one can think of.

The problem is I have to admit in the intellectual realm I get steamed with Liberal provocative comments based on inaccuracy and downright deception. I have to admit I have fallen into the low brow tit for tat exchanges you have described.

Your post hopefully will enable me to reach a higher plain of blog/comment exchange.

I think your comparison of the scientific evaluation of the slaves at that time being similar to the evaluation of homosexuals today is very skewed. No, it's plain wrong, and not even close to the reality. We don't label gay people as "less than", or "sub-human", and we certainly don't think it moral to deny them the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. It is a scientific fact they have shorter life spans, and there are many reasons why that is so. AIDS being one of them. Multiple partners and a dissatisfaction with life being another. There is a higher incidence of illegal drug use also. The gay lifestyle is not a very healthy one. The real victims in today's world, as far as being labeled "sub-human" are the unborn, but that's a whole different topic. Homosexuality is not normal. If allowed to grow, it is a real danger to society. JudgeBob is absolutely right.
Your response to the media bias as it concerns Christians is curious also. You wrote:"I realize that there are many Islamic extremists that use their religion as an excuse to kill Christians and Jews, yet our country guarantees the right to freedom of religion. This means that until an Islamic man or woman violates a law in the United States he/she should not be prosecuted or have his/her rights violated in any way." And I have to ask, "When have Muslims been denied their right to express themselves, or their religion? When have their rights been violated? As a matter of fact, the politicians in this country bend over backwards to try and avoid offending Muslims. But, Christians are fair game. Islam has earned every bit of bad rap from Americans and other nations. It is the Islamic followers of Jihad who are murdering innocent people world wide, and oppressing citizens of any society in which they have great numbers. And what do the so called "moderate" Muslims do about it? Aside from some protest from a handful of Muslims, NOTHING. Their silence speaks volumes. But is we Christians who are not waging war, or terrorizing, or murdering, that are always getting media bias to the negative. Damn right we are screaming for Islam to stop the killing, and stop the terrorizing. But when we do, we get responses like yours. Why do think we should remain silent and invisible? Until the Muslim population, who supposedly are peaceful, and against killing, speak up and admonish their brothers and sisters, they too deserve to be taken to task. As Christians we would not tolerate murder in the name of God. And yet we are the ones the media wants to banish and silence. THAT is hypocrisy my friend.
Finally,
Thomas Jefferson also wrote: " God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? ... I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."
This country was founded on Christian principles. Our country is saturated in the history of biblical principles. Fought and paid for by the blood of patriots. It is the liberal agenda that is the real threat to America.
[this is good]
Amen Sister! Well said!!!!

I would also like to add, if Sam wants the Christians removed, silenced as he seems to think they should be, who will be there to help him when the jihadi's come after him and all of those he loves.

Sam - the liberals will be the first the jihadi's will go after under Sharia Law. The liberals lifestyle and agendas are everything they hate and they've brutally murdered millions for far less!

You all must think appeasing them will get you cudo's. It will not, it will get you used until they are through with you and then death.
Sam, I don't make it up. I have served in the ministries toward who seek recovering from gay behavior patterns. I am no novice to the topic.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality#Homosexual_Murders_and_Brutality
This is a definitive article on the topic replete with links to a multitude of research done from all sorts of references like medical journals and main stream news agencies.
The way Christians treat the topic of homosexuality is hardly comparable to the way slaves were treated. This is dishonest comparison and redirection from the main topic. (redefining hatred)

[Perhaps you could use that logic to say that being male should be outlawed and/or discouraged because men have lower life spans (Why Women Live Longer).] Now that appears to be comparable on the surface, but come on. Gay men have lower life spans compared to straight men based entirely on unhealthy behavior patterns.

[You say that the media should not silence Christian voices, yet you (a member of the media) preach loudly against Islamics.]

That's right, I say speech should not be silenced and I preach loudly against Islamic calls to silence criticism with violent threats and threats of monetary ruin via libel suits in our courts. I also call for a reaction to the attempt of Islam to inject their religious law into our legal system. Laws that entail dual standards, and corporal punishment and no go areas in our free country. I am for corporal punishment, but on an equal basis under universally accepted system of law. I am not calling for a close of their right to free speech, well except for their illegal calls for violence against the rest of us. It would be hypocritical if I preached for their universal silence, instead I am calling for them to speak against the ruinous actions of their own. Once again, you fall back to calling a name (hypocrite) based on false charges.

[prosecuted or have his/her rights violated in any way.] and what prosecution have I called for? Once again, I am calling on Muslims to use their free speech to do the right thing instead of the wrong thing. Currently, the vast majority are using it to do nothing unless its the wrong thing. That's not silencing, that's a call to credibility.

["Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."]
["the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"]
OK, first, I don't claim that Christianity is supposed to be common law or that the government was or should have been founded on Christian religion. What I claim is that the government is run and was formed on the values of the Christian religion. There is a huge difference here even if you want to believe they are essentially the same thing. Now since you like quotes so much, why don't you look at any, and I do mean any other quote from the founders and presidents about the application of these values in government, in the nation's populace and military, and try to explain away every intent from George Washington to George (who can hate him most) Bush? It takes quite a lot of research and a whole lot of twisting to get the message you want out of their letters and documents. What is the source for the legislation of separation of church and state being translated as meaning protecting the government from the church? Is it the Constitution? achack... Was it a record of Congressional debate? achack....It was a private letter sent from France to Washington criticizing the fact that they hadn't ensured the rights of the people. (prior to the amendments) This is why Conservatives had to regain control of the courts. They were trying to redefine our founding fathers' intentions. This Supreme Court is finally confronting the rough interpretation lower courts have given to the 2nd amendment.

No, you don't agree with the founding fathers, you agree with your interpretation of the founding fathers and that based on somebody else's information of what they said. Let me recommend a new book for you. Its called "Under God"

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0764200089/ref=_dp_top?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1


Why? I took it from the online dictionary. What is your definition?
I know that that is the definition that everyone uses, but let me explain my position. I am a Christian and although i think homosexuality is a sin, I am not afraid of homosexuals. As to my definition, i think one should use root words from the same language when combining to form new words. In the existing definition, two different languages are combined. Phobe is from the Latin for fear and Homo as used in homosexual comes from the Greek meaning same. To be intellectually correct, if we use homophobe, we should use Latin and Latin, which would mean a homophobe is someone who is scared of humans and if that is the case, a homophobe would encourage homosexual behavior as that would result in fewer humans for him or her to be afraid of.
Ok, so you aren't speaking to the main point of the paragraph, only the dictionary's use and intention as being intellectually impure.

I have no argument with you on that. I think the editors of the dictionary include the term because it is used the most in English to communicate the definition they gave and I quoted. I used the term only because that is the term used by Liberals to charge Christians with some huge moral sin. According to the Liberal thought process, we are judgmental and that's wrong, against gays and that's wrong, justified by faith in a made up religion and that's wrong.
Yes. I was just nit picking. As to the main point of your post here, I do agree totally. The liberals in this country preach tolerance while being totally intolerant of Christian views and beliefs. I don't hate or fear homosexuals. I do believe that their life style is wrong in God's eyes, but it is their choice. Several years ago, i was able to witness a discussion between an orthodox Jewish rabbi and a very liberal "minister". The minister was trying to tell the rabbi that the verses against homosexuality in the old Testament were mistranslated. The rabbi replied, "Madam, I have read the Old Testament in its original language. There is no other way to translate abomination." For some reason, she had no reply to that
LOL, no I wouldn't think anybody could respond to that. My judgment on homosexuality is based on secular reasoning for the purposes of this blog, but it is God's word that informs me of what to be aware of.
[this is good]
Very well stated.
Liberals, especially those that love to quote Thomas Jefferson out of context, do the following:

Look up the meaning of "Common Law" and learn about its history. Common Law has nothing to do with the Constitution. Common law is best written as "common sense law". Common law was the means whereby the judiciary would judge in matters not specified by written law. It was judging on matters of "moral common sense". It is a centuries old method traced even as far back to the Magna Carta. Steal a farmer's cow, then you owed him a cow and society a recompense for the immoral act. The Constitution was intended to prevent the judiciary from doing what Jefferson feared they would do, and that is legislate from the bench and make up or change common law. The three branches of government were made equal to prevent tyranny of the other branches, including the judiciary. The Constitution was also to prevent the government from organizing its own national religion. It says nothing about belief in God or religion in general having to be separated from the state itself. The various symbols and such of the early government attest to the fact there was not such thing as a "separation of church and state". It was only that the state could not have its own church (ala: the Church of England or a "Church of America"). The Constitution never denies the existance of a divine being, it just makes sure you had the freedom to worship one (or not to) in any way you deemed fit.

It is conservatives that do not want judicial tyranny and judges making up laws and "rights" because someone cannot get them made laws or rights legitimately done though the legislature or populace. The judiciary was never intended to be what liberal appointments have made it. The Constitution was always intended to be concrete and sure, not a "fluid document" as liberal judicial tyrants claim it to be (Ruth Ginseberg for example).

The judiciary was never intended to be a means of making law nor a business for making money which the ACLU has turned it into. The federal government was never intended to be a surrogate caregiver. In fact, the purpose of the revolution was to get the tentacles of government out of the people's pockets and lives. It was only to be there to protect from an enemy, make sure local governments didn't tyranize, promote (not control) the common welfare of the nation, in other words find ways to help and inprove commerce and freedom. The preamble of the Constitution gives the sole purpose of the federal government. Yet, it's the liberals that just can't keep their hands out of other people's pockets and lives.

Liberals don't like the idea of morality or moral laws. They think it holds them back. They deny the fact there are obvious con sequences for immoral actions, and that no amount of denial (or demanding new "rights") is going to change the fact. Immorality brings sorrow, broken families, can lead to disease, lost childhoods, lost educational opportunities, unhappiness, loss of self-respect, loss of respect of others. Simply a life of unhappiness due to the consequences of immoral choices.

Moral laws don't hold you back or limit you as most liberals try to convince others of. They are the way to happiness and more freedom. Moral laws are like a string to a kite. A liberal would argue that the string is holding back the kite and limiting its freedom. The conservative knows the string is what is allowing the kite to soar even higher by giving it direction and self-control.

Who's happier?

The drug addict getting free needles, or the person who either didn't do drugs in the first place or the one that cleaned their lives of the habit?

Who's happier?

The woman that has sex with just about everyone that says their cute and wonders why their life is unhappy and men don't respect them, or why their husband left them because they could always find someone willing to put out? OR.. The woman that had high moral standards and not only insisted on a chaste relationship before marriage, but chose a man that did as well, both treated pro-creation as a sacred power and not an animal urge that had to be satisfied with just a little booze to get them started, and they had a family and taught their children the same respect for themselves and a future spouse. How many truly happy divorcees do you really know?

Consequences for immoral actions can be:

* Venerial disease or worse.
* Alcoholism
* Drug addiction (seriously, not many happy people choose to do this)
* Broken families. Broken families breed broken kids, and usually many have anti-social and even criminial behavior. Children need stability not be at the whim of selfish people who complained about THEIR needs not being met.
* Mental disorders (beyond the scope of this post).
* Loss of childhood. Suddenly Susan has a baby, or Johnny can't go to college any more as he has mouths to feed.
* Interference with other lives. Susan's mother can't retire as now she has to help raise two children now.
* Should abortion come into play, the life long psychological and emotional consequences of such a cruel act. The "choice" is exercized at conception, not just because you can find a doctor that knows how to suck a fetus out of your uterus.
* Leads to selfishness. Ever met anyone who commits immoral acts not thinking about themselves? The act itself, in the way it's so calously done, is selfish. It's only for their pleasure, and when they can't get enough they move on to the next victim.

My own brother is gay. I have never seen so much selfishness in my life until I saw his downward spiral. First there was the usual manifesto telling eveyone he knows why he is right and you (and everything you believe in) is wrong, being his parents and brothers and sisters, and his wife (yep, I said wife). He just absolutely had to have a mans penis in one of his orifices every day that it didn't matter what happened to his children or his now rejected wife. He changed not her. He made a point of ridiculing everything she held dear and what she thought he did when they got married. Nevermind the fact he made a promise and that he had five great kids. No, oh no, to let the world know he was gay had to be done now, it was the only thing to make HIM happy.

You see, had had already made choices and commitments in marriage, and even took on the greater responsibility of children. Now, he doesn't want to fulfill his promises or responsibilities of giving his children a stable home with a mother and a father. No, he's under the dillusion he's getting what he wants now and that only that way can the family be happy.

A real man would have kept his mouth shut, raised those kids in a loving home, and then when they were grown he could go off the deep end all he wanted. Nope, he came first. So, simply said, he was selfish. His selfish desire to have an immoral relationship just for himself alone. Nothing benefitted those kids. They now are confused (learning conflicting moral standards), have troubles in school, and yet he can't understand what the problem is. He thinks he's a good father.

Morality is a protection not a limitation.

Jesus spent most of his time teaching the prostitutes and "others of grievous sins" because they simply were not happy, not just because they were "sinners". His analogy that a doctor needs to help the sickest first still holds true. Jesus never berailed the sinners, he always expressed love and kindness to them and always told them to change their ways. The ones he "chewed out" were those using their authority to usurp the people's freedom for gain and power (by making up rediculously limiting laws), and those blaspheming the sacred (like the temple). For example, there was a time when the leaders wanted to catch-22 Jesus and brought a woman before him caught in the act of adultery (where was the man?). They slyly asked him what should be done, knowing the law said she was to be judged and stoned to death. Jesus taught them a good lesson (one many militant anti-gay activist Christians fail to remember). He said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone at her." Shame and realization saved her from her accusers. Nevertheless, Jesus asked her where her accusers went and if the accusation was true (it was obvious), she, didn't deny it, he didn't stone her himself, nor did he chew her out nor threw her out of her house and home, nor did he put a scarlet A on her to wear. He simply said "...go and sin no more", meaning don't commit adultry ever again.

Far too many so-called "Christians" try to force judgements on people they have no right to do so. They are suppose to give opportunities to teach (not tell everyone they are going to hell), but remember everyone has the freedom to make bad choices and not listen to their message. On the other side of the coin, just because you may not wish to aknowledge homosexuality or other immorality is a sin, doesn't give you the right to force that point of view down the throats of my children through government sanctioned control or intervention. That my liberal friends is the establishment of your liberal religion by the government and forced upon me and my family.

For a Christian (and many other religions),
Adultery is a sin.
Fornication is a sin
Homosexuality is a sin
Any sexual act outside of marriage is a sin.
There are serious and real-life consequences resulting from immorality.
The sexual act, inside marriage, is sacred (not a sin as is misunderstood by non-religious types) and to be used with love, imagination, and respect with your spouse. It is fulfilling God's first and foremost commandment "Be fruitful, multiply, and replenish the earth".

That being the case does not mean a Chrisitian conservative with those beliefs, is any sort of bigot or homophobe. To them it's a matter of right and wrong, not fear of the unknown, which bigotry tends to be fueled.

Bigotry usually ends up being directed to those that are religious, not the other way around, and history demonstrates that. All a result of misunderstanding and misinformation, and fear stirred up by those enjoying power.

Jewish people can tell you something about this, as wel