Tag Archives: Politics

•

First question:

As we look to the next election cycle, the "war on women" narrative is still in high gear.  So is the war on marriage.  How do we choose who "our" candidate will be?

Who does the MSM (main stream media) want the GOP to run?

Response:

DO NOT RUN HIM.

Consider Chris Christie.  For a moment, he rubbed shoulders with all the right people, the right people liked him...the media seemed to like it.

But (my opinion) is that they turned on him too soon.

Oh, it would have happened eventually, but it would have been more effective for the liberal party if the media had waited until the GOP had set their path.

•

There's a case in Michigan that just had closing arguments on Friday; the judge will rule within a couple of weeks on whether or not Michigan will become the next state to fall to this madness.

Part one:

In an article from February 24, this caught my eye

"Nothing says family like a marriage license," DeBoer told reporters before entering the courthouse hand-in-hand with Rowse, her partner of eight years.

I've worked in public schools for a number of years and I've seen many (politically correct) books say that this is NOT true.  We've been pushing the idea that "families come in all forms" - if a child is being raised by a single mom, that's a family.  If a child is being raised by a single dad, that's a family.  If a child is being raised by his or her grandparents, that's a family.  If a man and a woman (or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or a person and their cat) are living together without children, that's a family.  Mom and boyfriend/Dad and girlfriend...family.  You get my drift.

What a surprise to find out that it's a "marriage license" that says "family!"

What about faith?

The point of this madness is not to give gay folks the "right to marry" - it's not only to normalize that which has never been "normal."  It is to GLORIFY that lifestyle choice, and to force EVERYBODY to accept it, applaud it, normalize it.

remember the Borg?  "You will be assimilated."

People of faith who do not agree that "government sanctioned gay relationships" are wrong?  Via Tammy Bruce

Having been a liberal “community organizer” in my past, I immediately recognized the strategy being employed. This is an effort to condition the public into automatically equating faith with bigotry.

To make faith in the public square illegal and dangerous, you need legal cases and publicity. Voila, lawsuits against small business resting on the notion that acting on genuinely held faith is bigotry per se.

Under these rules, freedom of conscience is squashed under the jackboot of liberals, all in the Orwellian name of “equality and fairness.” Here we are dealing with not just forcing someone to do something for you, but forcing them in the process to violate a sacrament of their faith as well.

If we are able to coerce someone, via the threat of lawsuit and personal destruction, to provide a service, how is that not slavery? If we insist that you must violate your faith specifically in that slavish action, how is that not abject tyranny?

And now, we wait.

• 1 Comment

•

Government sanctioned same-sex relationship edition (since I can't bring myself to call it "marriage") - we can shorten it to GSSR

BRUCE:Why the veto of Arizona’s religious freedom bill is alarming:

To make faith in the public square illegal and dangerous, you need legal cases and publicity. Voila, lawsuits against small business resting on the notion that acting on genuinely held faith is bigotry per se.

Under these rules, freedom of conscience is squashed under the jackboot of liberals, all in the Orwellian name of “equality and fairness.” Here we are dealing with not just forcing someone to do something for you, but forcing them in the process to violate a sacrament of their faith as well.

Refusing to Photograph a Gay Wedding Isn't Hateful:

Some opposition to same-sex marriage is rooted in bigotry and some isn't. Assuming otherwise is itself prejudice rooted in ignorance.

Thwarting the Wedding Cake Fascists Passive Aggressively

Maybe the response for florists, bakers and photographers is to tell gay couples if they hire their services for their weddings that they will be donating 100% of the profits to a sanctity of marriage group.

Drops the bomb right into the laps of those who for whatever reason want to force religious bakers to bake cakes and photographers to take pictures.

Religious Freedom Reframed So Gay Rights Trump Them:

“Freedom loses when fear overwhelms facts and a good bill is vetoed,” he said in a statement. “Today’s veto enables the foes of faith to more easily suppress the freedom of the people of Arizona.”

Business and Conscience:

Yet Christ's call to servanthood is for us to yield our desire to live for ourselves and instead submit to him, in doing so we live for others. But this is not a call for others to demand of us what they desire.

What will be the terms of our surrender?

Douthat is right. What unfolded last week reveals that this latter scenario is the most likely outcome. Gay activists and gay marriage supporters seem to have very little interest in a live-and-let-live diversity of opinion on the issue of marriage. They are making sure that the government imposes coercive sanctions on anyone who fails to affirm the moral goodness of gay unions. As last week revealed, the press has been happily passing along the propaganda of gay marriage supporters without any thoughtful consideration of the other side of the argument. They are backing us into a corner.

• 1 Comment

•

I'm not a fan of the show, but I do (did) watch shows on A&E. The internet is flooded with articles...pro- and con-

So...I'm weighing in, not so much of what Phil did and said, but on how he's now being treated.

The ungodly scream that he's wrong about gays (actually, vile and hateful.) So evangelicals pile on and say, "And he was wrong about African-Americans too!" - IOW - shooting our wounded.

Jared Wilson wrote "Duck Dynasty”: Let’s Deal in Real Reality

point by point...

1. It will be difficult to prove a case of censorship, marginalization, or oppression when you can’t walk into a mall, grocery store, Wal-Mart, or sporting goods store without running beard-deep into the Robertson clan’s gigantic faces and assorted “Duck Dynasty”-branded trinkets and googaws.

Question: if the Robertson family gives up the show, do they give up rights to the merchandise franchise? Unless or until you can answer that question, you should not be making the above statement.

Bottom line: It assumes that the discrimination will end with the removal of Phil from the show and that has yet to be seen.

2. We ought to remember that the first amendment does not guarantee anyone’s right to have a show on cable television.

True. But if discrimination can take place by an employer based on race, sex, religion, and the government has an interest in protecting those classes of people, why not here?

Bottom Line: Robertson articulated his religious beliefs in the public square and was disciplined for it.

3. What Phil Robertson said about homosexuality to Gentleman’s Quarterly magazine is something nearly all so-called “gentlemen” used to believe, including the part where he said black people were happy before the Civil Rights movement and he never saw racism in Louisiana growing up.

Yes, he said that.

Actually, no. He did NOT say that.

He said the Blacks HE KNEW...

I grew up on a farm in the rural "Thumb" of Michigan. Blacks were not the minority I grew up with.

Looking back at my life growing up, I would have said that the minorities that I rubbed shoulders with were happy, and that I saw no racism.

Now I know better, because somebody who wasn't there, didn't live my life, and may not have a clue about how I (OR Robertson) grew up...will tell me that I'm wrong, or need to deal with reality or some such thing.

Bottom line: if you weren't there, you might be wrong.

(part of #5 - Wilson skipped #4, a misprint, I'm sure.) The firing of a millionaire reality show participant isn’t just a first world problem — it’s a one-percenter problem

This made me really, really angry.

1) Is discrimination okay, as long as the one discriminated against is wealthy?

James 2:2-4 ESV For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

Is the opposite also true?

If you deem a wealthy man unworthy of protection against discrimination because "that's a one-percenter problem" - "have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?"

2) one-percenter...really? Does not Wilson understand that to a lot of the world, if you know where your next meal is coming from...you're wealthy! Do you have a car? Television? You can turn on your computer and get instant access to the world?

Bottom line: You, Jared Wilson, are part of the 1%

Now...my views...

I believe that the political gay lobby has the goal to marginalize people of faith who disagree with them. Make them afraid to speak out. Silence them. Take away their jobs, their livelihoods, their careers, their businesses.

I've blogged here about bakers, caterers, photographers, doctors, who chose to not participate in gay celebrations through providing services. Who chose to not participate in gay celebrations and have been successfully sued.

If Phil Robertson, one of the largest cash cows on television, can lose his job for voicing his Christian beliefs about gay behavior, how much more so the single-proprietor photographer or baker?

The agenda - to normalize gay behavior and to make those who disagree silent and marginalized, and to fore those who disagree to act against their religious beliefs.

This is another step and we should recognize that this is not about Phil Robertson, how rich he is, who he grew up with, or how much money he makes A&E. It's about GLAAD and where they are steering our country.

• 1 Comment

•

Yesterday I wrote about what a "license" does and what it means for marriage.

If...

  • A license grants you permission to do that which is otherwise illegal....

    • then...

  • (in non-common law states) it is illegal for Christians to marry unless they gain the state's permission first.

    • The Gospel Coalition asked a couple of years ago

    Should Pastors Separate the Christian Wedding Ceremony from the Civil Rite?

    It seems to me, that at this point, the state has the right to divorce the civil from the religious (courthouse wedding, etc.) but the religious does not have the right to divorce the religious from the civil (it is illegal to have a Christian wedding without the state's permission.

    (caveat: common law states have specific criteria to be met in order to qualify as a "common law marriage. There are a couple of states that require that in order for a common law marriage to be "official" it must be registered with the state [but with no prior permission from the state needed] In common law states, one could have a religious ceremony without having to get the state's permission, thus divorcing the religious from the civil)

    I have made it known that I refuse to be married in a state with a "gender neutral" license (such as California.) I am NOT "party B"

    I believe the time is coming when the definition of "marriage" as required by the state, will be so far astray of the definition of "marriage" as defined by God, that Christians will, with clean conscience, reject civil marriage.

    The question is: do we provide "test cases" now? or wait until persecution begins?

    •

    This article at the Gospel Coalition was written nearly two years ago.

    TGC Asks: Should Pastors Separate the Christian Wedding Ceremony from the Civil Rite?

    In the last few months, we've been discussing this a lot. At what point does the state give up the right to define marriage for Christians? If the state forfeits that right, by defining "marriage" in such a way that it no longer resemble's God's definition, is a Christian obligated to have the state's permission to call themselves "married"?

    Let's start with the "permission" part.

    In Michigan,

  • there is still a law on the books against cohabitation - a heterosexual couple may not live together without being married
  • a heterosexual couple is required to have a marriage license before being married.
  • it is illegal for a pastor to officiate in a marriage ceremony unless the couple has a state-issued marriage license.

    • In order to live together in marriage, a couple in Michigan must have a marriage license; they must have the State's permission to marry.

    Why do I use the word "permission"? It's the word "license"

    What does a driver's license to? It gives you permission to drive and it's illegal to drive without one.
    Hunting license? It gives you permission to drive and it's illegal to hunt without one.
    Concealed Carry License? It gives you permission to carry a concealed weapon and it's illegal to carry without one.

    Through a license, the States grant you permission to do something that is otherwise illegal.

    With that logic, it is ILLEGAL to call oneself "married" unless the State has given you permission to do so.

    At what point did the State get the authority to define marriage in such a way that we must have the State's permission to marry?

    The "State" has married the Christian wedding ceremony and the civil rite to the point that you MAY NOT have a Christian wedding Ceremony WITHOUT the civil rite.

    TGC Asks: Should Pastors Separate the Christian Wedding Ceremony from the Civil Rite?

    •

    Since I Rob Bell's Mars Hill is only a few miles from where I live (he's gone, church is still there), I sort of keep an eye.

    Here is Michael Kruger's review of Bell's new book, "What We Talk About When We Talk About God"

    In the end, my overall concern about this volume is a simple one: it is not Christian. Bell's makeover of Christianity has changed it into something entirely different. It is not Christianity at all, it is modern liberalism. It is the same liberalism that Machen fought in the 1920's and the same liberalism prevalent in far too many churches today. It is the liberalism that teaches that God exists and that Jesus is the source of our happiness and our fulfillment, but all of this comes apart from any real mention of sin, judgment, and the cross. It is the liberalism that says we can know nothing for sure, except of course, that those "fundamentalists" are wrong. It is the liberalism that appeals to the Bible from time to time, but then simply ignores large portions of it.

    ~~~

    How To Read a Book

    Not so much for the "how to read" but the "how to review" if the "answer these four questions" segment:

    1. What is the book about, as a whole?
    2. What is being said, in detail, and how?
    3. Is the book true, in whole or in part?
    4. What of it? What's the significance, and how?

    ~~~

    Same sex "marriage" round up

    The Witherspoon Institute focuses not on the "marriage" but how it will affect religious liberty

    ~~~

    abortion / gun rights (yes)

    "A Good Question" via Gay Patriot

    “Many Democrats, when they were arguing for gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting said even if this saves one life it will be worth doing. Why not support this bill then, if it undoubtedly will save lives of babies that have been carried throughout 5 months of pregnancy?“ Many Democrats, when they were arguing for gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting said even if this saves one life it will be worth doing. Why not support this bill then, if it undoubtedly will save lives of babies that have been carried throughout 5 months of pregnancy?”

    • 1 Comment

    •

    Christian who is politically conservative?
    Christian who is theologically conservative?

    My Political Views
    I am a right social moderate
    Right: 3.54, Authoritarian: 0.54

    Political Spectrum Quiz

    I am, first and foremost, Christian.

    Theologically, I am 100% Reformed.

    Based on the chart here, I'm a theological conservative, but on others, I miss the mark on 7-day creationism.

    I find it interesting the (generally and broadly) those who fall mostly in the "liberal" description are not willing to identify with that descriptor.

    But if a person who fall into the "conservative" side gets called "conservative, their reply is more likely to be "thank you."

    I started this post a few days ago, and honestly don't remember where I was going with it.

    Probably because I do post on theology and I do post on politics.

    For me, "conservative" is a handy way to let folks know up front what mind set I'm working from.

    • 1 Comment

    •

    This debate is "heating up" because of the battle over same-sex "marriage" - and some folks are saying the one of the problems with legalizing same-sex "marriage" is that it could lead to polygamy. (Reminds me of a joke my husband used to tell: Why does Bob Jones University forbid dancing? It could lead to sex standing up)

    I have read in both blogs and their comments section that "homosexuality and polygamy are equal (sins).

    ~~~

    (side note: 1 Cor. 6:9-10: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality(**), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God

    **or Old Testament patriarchs

    ~~~

    First: I am not "pro-polygamy" in the sense that I believe it's the right think for everybody.

    I am not (NOT) pro-polygamy in the sense that it's what I want for myself.

    I simply cannot call "sin" what Scripture does not call "sin." I'm happily (and truly) Reformed and the first Sola is "Sola Scriptura." Scripture is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct. We must not call evil...good. But we must also not call "sin" that which God does not call "sin."

    Our Holy Father does not regulate "sin" - He forbids it.

    Like all things, polygamy can (and is) abused, but if we call all things "sin" that some people abuse...we would not even be able to eat!

    Our Holy Father does not describe Himself, even in metaphors, that portray Him as doing anything that is "sin.". Isaiah 3:6-10 gives us Jehovah and his wives, faithless Israel and treacherous Judah. I believe that polygamy, in and of itself, cannot be "sin" or Jehovah would have chosen a different metaphor.

    Our Holy Father does not give us sinful things. in 2 Samuel 12 we read that Jehovah had delivered Saul's wives into David's arms. One can hardly say that polygamy made David commit adultery and kill Uriah! Greed and Lust did that.

    God could have put an asterisk after the Leverite marriage law...but He didn't. The God who told His people not to wear cloth made out of blended linen and wool, could have told His people to take only one wife...but He didn't.

    God didn't forbid business, He regulated it.
    He didn't forbid marriage, He regulated it.
    He didn't forbid polygamy, He regulated it.

    If you want to make an argument that it leads to bad things (so does parenthood, if you ask Abel,) that's fine. But that's not the argument I see being made.

    If you want to make an argument that in the New Testament, leaders are forbidden to have more than one wife, that's fine. But that's not the argument I see being made.

    Don't call "sin" that which God does not call "sin."

    •

    "No more illegal wiretapping of citizens, No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary. This administration acts like violating civil liberties is a way to enhance our security. It is not…There is no short cut to protecting Americans”.

    -- Senator Barack H. Obama, 2007