Faith 2016 News

5 faith facts about Mike Pence: A ‘born-again, evangelical Catholic’

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, left, and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump wave to the crowd during a campaign stop at the Grand Park Events Center in Westfield, Ind., on July 12, 2016. Photo courtesy of REUTERS/John Sommers II

(RNS) Indiana Gov. Mike Pence will be presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s running mate.

Trump made it official Friday (July 15) — fittingly, in a tweet.

Pence became governor of the Hoosier State in 2013. Previously, he had worked as a lawyer, president of the Indiana Policy Review, political talk radio show host and U.S. congressman.

He has described himself as a “pretty ordinary Christian” and as “a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order.”

But he also once said, “I made a commitment to Christ. I’m a born-again, evangelical Catholic.” That’s not a combination you hear every day, as journalist Craig Fehrman, who has covered the Indiana governor for Indiana Monthly, has pointed out.

Here are five faith facts about Pence and how his unusual faith mix has shaped him as a politician.

1. He was raised Catholic and later attended an evangelical megachurch.

Growing up in an Irish Catholic family that reportedly revered the Kennedys, Pence served as an altar boy and went to parochial school in Columbus, Ind., according to Fehrman.

Pence has said he made that “commitment to Christ” while taking part in a nondenominational Christian student group in college, according to the journalist. Pence had told The Indianapolis Star that he and his family attended Grace Evangelical Church in the 1990s, but by 2013, he told Fehrman they were “kind of looking for a church.”

2. He supported causes important to evangelicals as a congressman.

As a member of the U.S. House from 2000 until his election as governor, Pence had a  “reputation as a culture warrior (that) was unsullied,” according to Roll Call. The website lists his bona fides: He opposed the expansion of abortion rights and federal spending on embryonic stem cell research, pushed a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage and briefly cut off new federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

3. He clashed with the Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis over refugees.

Late last year, Pence clashed with the Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis when he halted state support for efforts to relocate refugees, citing security concerns.

The archdiocese defied him by welcoming a Syrian family to the city anyway. In the end, the governor said that while he disagreed with the archdiocese’s action, he would not block food stamps and other state aid for the family.

On the other hand, he came out against Trump’s plan to halt all Muslim immigration to the U.S., tweeting last December that “calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional.”

4. He supports Israel.

Pundits have said one reason Trump may pick Pence is that the governor’s strong pro-Israel sentiment would shore up Trump’s shaky relationship with Jewish voters. Speaking before AIPAC in 2009, then-Rep. Pence linked his support for Israel with his faith:

“Let me say emphatically, like the overwhelming majority of my constituents, my Christian faith compels me to cherish the state of Israel.”

He backed that up last December at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s conference when he said: “Israel’s enemies are our enemies, Israel’s cause is our cause. If this world knows nothing else, let it know this: America stands with Israel.”

5. He signed Indiana’s controversial “religious freedom” law.

Last year, Pence found himself at the center of a storm when he supported Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which would have allowed businesses and individuals to refuse to do business with some people based on their own religious beliefs. In his 2016 State of the State address, he added:

“I will not support any bill that diminished the religious freedom of Hoosiers or that interferes with the constitutional rights of our citizens to live out their beliefs in worship, service or work. … No one should ever fear persecution because of their deeply held religious beliefs.”

His stance on the issue made him the darling of evangelicals and other conservatives, and he signed the bill into law in March. But a week later, he had to sign a revised version after major corporations, organizations and celebrities vowed to boycott Indiana.

Five Faith Facts 770x150

About the author

Emily McFarlan Miller

Emily McFarlan Miller is a national reporter for RNS based in Chicago. She covers evangelical and mainline Protestant Christianity.

About the author

Kimberly Winston

324 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Mike Pence is a bigoted lying turd who attempted to derail his state’s economy to institute religious based segregation.

    Thank you Donald for giving me more reasons not to vote for you.

  • What the hell is a born again catholic, except a stupid label a power hungry politician calls himself?

  • Perhaps you can move to Nice, France, to escape Trump and Pence when they get elected. I’m sure you’ll be safe from religious bigotry there. Oh, wait…

  • “He has described himself as a ‘pretty ordinary Christian’ and as ‘a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order.’ ”

    Given Mike Pence’s glaring failure to include “American” in his self-description (not to mention his anti-American opposition to constitutional freedoms and Supreme Court rulings), I’m sure he’ll be a valuable asset to Donald Trump’s passionately divisive campaign.

  • Some people think that, if a person opposes Democrats, that automatically means he/she supports Republicans.

    Such people apparently don’t get out much.

    Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat, too. A fine example of Democrat “sanity.”

    Democrats have gotten “better.” Of course. The question is: Better at what?

    Democrats are among the biggest promoters of abortion, which disproportionately snuffs out the lives of millions of African Americans and Hispanics in the U.S.

    Heavily funded by white, privileged Democrats (Reps, too).

    Yes, that’s “better.”

    In fact, it is the most insidious form of racism possible because said Democrats have duped non-thinking people into thinking that they are not racists, all the while supporting genocidal eugenics.

    Instead of lynching African Americans, privileged whites now abort their babies so they’re saved the trouble.

    Yes, that’s “better.”

    Margaret Sanger, the foundress of what eventually evolved into Planned Parenthood, was racist to the core, not to mention an admitted admirer of Hitler.

    The self-absorbed are not interested in the views of others, but another viewpoint can be read here. It is from one of “them.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/02/african-cardinal-demands-apology-abortion-genocide-black-babies-u-s/

    Don’t forget to inform all your Muslim neighbors that you will be enabling candidates who want to force the wives and daughters of Muslims to use public bathrooms with “transgenders” and force Muslim owned businesses to serve gay weddings, et cetera.

    But that’s not bigotry of course.

  • For someone claiming not to be following the party line of the GOP, you are very unconvincing. You are parroting an entire fetus worshiping screed they adopt wholeheartedly.

    If people like yourself could give a sh1t about those already born, we wouldn’t have to talk about abortion because all pregnancies would be planned.

    Your bigotry against both Muslims and LGBT people is also pretty much the GOP line now.

    I’m not going to derail this discussion any further with off topic discussion of your contempt for the lives of women, Muslims, or LGBT people.

    Bless your heart and bye bye

  • If Pence cared about religious freedom, he would have vetoed the bill.

    If similar minded Christian folk were honest, they would not be calling attempts at religious segregation “religious freedom” nor would they claim the 1st Amendment which bans religious based discrimination has anything to do with their position.

  • Pence’s religious syncretism, which most evangelicals otherwise would find dubious but will get a pass because of She Who Must Not Be Named, seems less and less unusual. Rubio had a similar approach (grew up LDS, became Catholic, now goes to Southern Baptist and Catholic churches). It should not be surprising. The evangelical vote and political evangelicalism’s influence is shrinking. As Mark Silk pointed out yesterday, the Catholic vote gap between support for Republican and Democratic candidates is shrinking. This may be Trump-specific, maybe not. Either way, increasingly GOP candidates want to be all things to all people religiously.

  • Why would any sane middle class working man vote Democrat? For at least the last fifty years, when the Democrats have held majority power in government, the middle class has not done nearly as well financially as they have when the Republicans have held the majority. But the Communist unions keep clamoring on.

  • It sickens me to see the importance of religion takes on running the government. We have watched as republicans did nothing positive for the USA for the last 8 years. All republicans were concerned about stopping anything President Obama presented. They were a congress of hate. Now republicans are waving the Christian flag as a reason they are fit to run the government. I see nothing but the smiling face of satan. There is nothing Christian…just a bunch of odd looking men doing the work of satan. The more they work for satan the stranger they look with faces looking like actors in a horror film. Trump is a perfect example. Look at a young Trump and look now. Natural aging? Hardly! His face is a contorted mass of skin.

  • Pence for veep? Horrors! In addition to the items listed above, Pence is opposed to women’s rights of conscience on abortion and favors the diversion of public funds to special interest church-run private schools through vouchers, all of which means that Pence is extremely unfriendly to religious liberty, church-state separation, public education and Article I, Sections 4 and 6 of his own Indiana state constitution. He and Trump are a match and hopefully their campaign will go down in flames and take a bunch of other reactionaries with them. — Edd Doerr

  • If he still calls himself an evangelical (Roman) Catholic, it means that even the simplest, most basic and essential concepts are too complex for him.

    Which I guess makes him a perfect match for Trump, the “Christian” who never needed to confess sins to God.

  • Hugo Black renounced the Klan by 1940. And championed Civil Rights for his entire time on the Court.
    A lot of people joined the Klan in the 1920s, including apparently a young Fred Drumpf.

  • So you were frozen in a block of ice since 1987? The GOP has done everything in its power to undermine people who work for a living. Gutting regulations which protected consumers, people with mortgages, who went to college or have families. They help to make healthcare the leading cause of bankruptcy for the middle class. Raised taxes on the middle class while lowering them on the people most advantages by the system. Organized labor is about the only thing keeping the working class from outright peonage.

    That’s not even going into howconservatived have destroyed the two main sources of middle class wealth: market traded securities and home ownership. Small government means corruption bending the middle class over a barrel.

  • “No one should ever fear persecution because of their deeply held religious beliefs.”

    …but feel free to go ahead and persecute those whose beliefs don’t agree with yours.

    How can any adult feel good about the idea of their religion validating their bigotry? This man cannot be trusted, but that’s no surprise considering the source of the decision.

  • Notice the last paragraph of point #5. Translated, that means he talks a good game but when the going gets tough he collapses like a wet noodle. He may have convictions, but he lacks the courage.

  • The Republicans practice “fetus worship”?

    Do some research, look up the name “Harry Blackmun,” and then get back to us with the information as to which political party he affiliated himself with.

    And then do some more research and get back with us as to what, if any, documents he put his name to, say, in January 1973.

    This might help: 410 U.S. 113.

    You might also want to tell us which political party Justice Anthony Kennedy affiliates with. Does the name “Obergefell” ring a bell?

    Oh, and of course YOU, a Catholic hater, aren’t a bigot. Oh, no. My goodness me.

    Only people who don’t adhere to your pet issues are bigots.

    Yeah, that’s the ticket.

  • Sorry not playing along with wingnut takes on history with their glaring inability to get up to 1968 and beyond. BTW nobody is fooled by such a patently blinkered argument. If you are too ignorant and dishonest not to see the glaring problems of such arguments, I am not going to waste time correcting you. You don’t care.

    Calling me a bigot doesn’t make me so. Unlike the braindead conservative mantra, “you are playing the bigot card”, I refute the label. I have no problems with any religious belief of any stripes. My beef is with coercing others to abide by the dictated of their faith. You can call me one, but it would be incorrect.

    I don’t know where you get Catholic hater from either. So not only is the label unsubstantiated, its impossible to see where it applies.

    As I am not trying to attack civil liberties of others, calling me a bigot is just incorrect infantile nattering on your part. But given your contempt for women, gays and Muslims and their liberties, it is certainly appropriate to call you one.

  • You don’t hate the Catholic Church?

    R-i-i-i-g-h-t.

    Not only are you an anti-Catholic bigot, you must obviously be an anti-Semite.

    We all know what happens to Jewish people when a certain crowd gains ascendancy.

  • Apparently, there are few places where one can be safe from religious bigotry. And isn’t that just too sad? and what does it say about religion? Not much that is good.

  • Yeah, all that atheism worked well for the Russians, Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, et cetera.

    Let’s see. How many victims of atheistic communism have we wracked up so far?

    Since you obviously like to keep tallies on victims, perhaps you can give us the number?

    Atheism has given us so many good things.

  • That’s because Clintonian Democrats have favored Republican policies, but to a less extent than Republicans. Republican policies favor more wealth for the wealthy and the upper middle class, less for everyone else.

  • You’re right. Probably not. It refers to the antisemitism of moneyed Protestants. Or you can alwaysvreference F. Bailey Smith, former president of the Southern Baptists. “God almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew.”

  • Since God does not hear the prayer of a Jew, perhaps that’s why He allowed so many Jewish people to be murdered by communist atheists.

    Oh, wait… I forgot. He doesn’t exist.

    Whew, good thing He doesn’t exist.

    Atheists killing Jews? Doesn’t fit the paradigm. That might mean there are atheists who are… anti-Semites.

    But we all know that only Christians, particularly Catholics, are anti-Semites.

  • That’s the second time you said that. Is this the last goodbye?

    Don’t forget to keep refuting the “bigot” label. Because you’re not a bigot.

    And keep repeating the refrain about how Catholics are “against women.”

    Of course, the fact that 50% of Catholics are women… well, never mind. We don’t want to deal in facts now, do we?

    I have no problems with any religious belief of any stripes.


    But any time a Catholic says or does anything, good or bad, I will be there to denigrate that person.

    Because I never get on the Internet to say anything positive about anything that any Catholic whatsoever does.

    Because no Catholic does anything positive. Ever.

  • Pelosi, Biden and Pence are all Catholic. Obama is evangelica, Rev Wrigt….Catholics are not.

  • Indeed I did. It was at a Muslim website.

    That was after I viewed all the websites from atheists who claim not to be bigots and haters.

    Because they aren’t, ya see.

    Only religious people can be bigots and haters.

  • Well if I don’t refute why the label is incorrect then I am just being a whinybaby who admits to being a bigot but just doesn’t like it pointed out. I would be just like the lazy reactionaries.

    I still don’t see where you get anti Catholic and anti semitic from. I have said nothing of the sort. But then again I don’t know what direction the little hamster wheels your head are spinning, nor do I care.

    “Because no Catholic does anything positive. Ever”

    Your words, not mine.

    “That’s the second time you said that. Is this the last goodbye?”

    Maybe take the hint and take your fetus worshiping rwnj screed to a thread where it is more appropriate. I don’t care about your opinions on abortion when the subject is Mike Pence.

  • Well something clearly has turned you ignorant and dishonest. It would be insulting to religion to chalk up such willful cretinism to it. But all signs point in that direction.

  • It’s pretty common to fundies. It’s why so many of them are lining up for a serial adulterer and con artist for president. When push comes to shove their claims of convictions are worthless lip service.

    It’s all about power and how to exercise it against others.

  • Mike Pence campaigned very hard to be Trump’s lapdog because he’s so likely to lose the gov’s race in Indiana. Hoosiers have had more than enough of him. Pence is simply an unprincipled political opportunist eager to do say be whatever is to his political advantage in the moment. He has no ethical core whatsoever.

    The above makes Pence a perfect match for Trump. 2 of a kind.

  • So, you’re back again? What happened to “bye bye”?

    Well if I don’t refute why the label is incorrect…

    Perhaps you’re not able to and the term “bigot” is apropos.

    So, go ahead and refute. Show us all the good things you’ve stated about the Catholic Church in the last 10 years.

    Can you cite one?

  • Yes, his willingness to compromise the right of an American to follow his religious faith is troubling, you’re right!

  • I still don’t get where you got off on claiming I hate Catholics. There was nothing in my posts to that effect. That is just you being a goof.

    By all means look up what I meant by GFYS on “urban dictionary”. It’s the only response such nonsense deserved.

  • Of course not. I appreciate your request for clarification, Fast Eddie, because I believe nationalism is as dangerously divisive on an international scale as domestic “Us vs. Them” otherizing is on a national scale.

    What I’m pointing out is that each of the descriptors Pence used (and his omission of the one that unites us) is otherizing within the context of the very country in which he seeks the vice-presidency.

    Neither Pence nor Trump has indicated that he recognizes the responsibility to represent all Americans fairly; or that he accepts his duty to protect the rights and freedoms of all Americans; or that he realizes the Constitution was and is designed to protect minorities from the unchecked power of the majority.

    In fact, neither Pence nor Trump has indicated that he even values non-Christians, non-conservatives, and non-Republicans — let alone that he considers them to be the equals of Christians, conservatives, and Republicans in our shared American nation.

    Remember the famous words of Benjamin Franklin, “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately”? That wisdom is as critical to our nation’s survival now as it was when he first spoke them.

  • Downward pressure on real wages.
    Shifting of income from workers to corporate heads and investors.
    Automation of American jobs.
    Offshoring of American jobs.
    Importing of foreign employees to take American jobs.
    Downward (and destructive) pressure on Social Security.
    Downward (and destructive) pressure on financial programs for the poor.
    Upward (and expansion) pressure on financial programs for the rich.

    Do you think these are Democratic policies?
    Why would any sane middle class working person vote Republican?

  • Except for the Social Security line, which is nothing more than a red herring, then yes, of course everything you have listed are Democrat policies.

  • Jericho, Roman Empire, Crusades, Inquisition, Ku Klux Klan, World Trade Center, et cetera.

    Let’s see. How many victims?

    Neither theism nor nontheism has an exclusive claim on morality. Both kinds of beliefs tend to magnify whatever is in the human heart, for better or worse.

    We have much more in common than some of us would care to admit.

  • Item: Trump flip-flops on whether U.S wages, including the $7.50 minimum wage, are too high. (BusinessInsider-dot-com, “Donald Trump doubles down: ‘Our wages are too high’ “)

    Item: Trump flip-flops on importing non-US. citizens to take jobs instead of training Americans. (WashingtonPost-dot-com, “Donald Trump flip-flops, then flips and flops more on H-1B visas”)

    Item: Trump himself profits from offshoring U.S. jobs. (AEI-dot-org, “Donald Trump’s hypocrisy on trade: he outsources and invests globally, but doesn’t want Ford to do the same?”)

    Item: Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan want to eliminate Social Security. (HuffingtonPost-dot-com, “Trump and Ryan Agree: Let’s Dismantle Social Security”)

  • I don’t know what “rights” you are talking about. The First Amendment was designed to ban discrimination on the basis of religious belief. Mike Pence signed a law to permit discrimination on the basis of religious belief.

    Your religious faith does not need government endorsement, nor has any business seeking it.

    Please stop being so dishonest. You are not talking about religious freedom. You are talking about being granted special privileges to maliciously attack people.

  • “He has described himself as a “pretty ordinary Christian” and as “a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order.”
    Does that mean he puts being an American Citizen, the country and its welfare, and the constitution somewhere in the back 40?

  • Spud, it’s not all about power and dominion, you know.
    You left out money! How could you!?!?

  • Because nobody associated with Trump makes money. He is notorious for leaving people in the lurch. 🙂

  • Oh, c’mon. How many people could have been easily hurt by the four bankruptcies of a man who still remains a billionaire after four bankruptcies. It’s not like there were ten of them or anything.

  • Nope. As long as they act like a church and not a fugitive escape line, government agency or political lobby group, I have no problem with them whatsoever. I like their views on Creationism. (See JPII’s encyclical “Truth cannot displace Truth”)I am still not getting where you get this accusation from. But then again I am not privy to the mind of wackadoodles.

    Go away. Play in traffic. GFYS

  • And here I thought about including some all-caps words but decided it would be too attention-grabbing. I’ll try to be more considerate of you next time, Ben. Meanwhile, maybe these will help. ?? /s 88-)>>>

  • Another thing Pence has in common with Trump is making personal use of non-personal money. See WashingtonPost-dot-com article, “Mike Pence used campaign funds to pay his mortgage — and it cost him an election”.

  • Come back home to your Catholic Faith Mike! Praised be Jesus & Mary, now and forever, Amen!

  • Considering who will win if they don’t, it’s easy to understand why. But it is still a decision they will come to deeply regret.

  • Does God “discriminate”? I keep hearing the term “religious discrimination”, it just a play on words. All religious people are bound by the laws of God to “discriminate” against SIN. Sin is unacceptable to God and thus to people of all faiths that follow Gods commandments given from God to Moses. It is not “discrimination” to hate the sin, but still love the sinner, the same as Christ does. How did Jesus handle the adulterous woman? “Go, and sin no more”, He told her, He had mercy and compassion, but it was conditioned on her response to stop the sinning, same as we should be to those in this country concerning the sin of sodomy, which God calls an “abomination”. Christians (and those of other faiths) are obliged to oppose sodomy, and those who support it are just as guilty of the sin as those who practice it.

  • Really?? Hillary Clinton is that bad for you guys? Are you that sure?

    It pretty much confirms what everyone has been saying about the “religious right” and “values voters”. They are all a bunch of hypocrites. “Values” are something to be enforced on others, not to be followed themselves.

  • Nope. As long as they act like a church and not a fugitive escape line, government agency or political lobby group, I have no problem with them whatsoever.

    Well, then you do HATE the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church will ALWAYS be engaged in politics. Politics and religion cannot be divorced, as they both deal with the same entities: human beings.

    So, e.g., when the Catholic Church states that life begins at conception and that abortion is therefore murder, Catholics have no choice but to do all in their power to stop that.

    That IS “act[ing] like a church.”

    And you hate that.

  • You are only obliged to oppose sodomy, whatever the hell that means, if you wish to force your purely theological concerns on people who don’t share them. There are plenty of Christians, Jews, and even Muslims– let alone Buddhist, Hindus, and a host of others– who don’t share your fundelibangelists obsession with other people’s genitalia.

    Jesus told the woman to go and sin no more. You’re not Jesus.

    it’s a sin not to believe that Jesus died for your sins, right? Yet somehow, saying that you oppose the right of people to worship (or not) as they Please would make you sound like a religious bigot. So you don’t.

    Funny how it works.

  • Don’t leave out the taiping rebellion. 80 million killed because of a Chinese man’s delusion that he was the younger brother of Jesus,

  • I think it’s fine to be a seeker, but in the case of politicians who switch religions multiple times, i’m always a little, tiny, bit suspicious that its less about a spiritual quest and more about political expediency. If the Indiana Amish voted, perhaps he would have been one of them for a while as well.

  • From Patrick Carriveau’s comment and your reply, it sounds like Pence has something for everyone to dislike. Nate Silver rated Pence the best of all bad options among Trump’s VP finalists; this is going to be some weird election in November.

  • Well that is one way to look at it. Not a sane or rational way.

    BTW the majority of Catholics support both contraception and abortion rights regardless of church directives. I guess at least over half a billion Catholics hate the Catholic Church. Go figure.

    At this point, my suggestion to you is to keep taking your meds. You are completely cray cray.

  • Your statement is true. Many Catholics do hate the Catholic Church. What’s there to “figure” about that?

    Martin Luther was a Catholic, so was Calvin. They both hated the Catholic Church. And?

    And it is quite rational to say you hate the Catholic Church because that is the truth of the matter.

    The Catholic Church teaches, and has always taught, that outside the Church there is no salvation.

    You don’t love that teaching, nor are you indifferent to it. Therefore, there is only one other option: You hate it.

    It’s quite rational, and no amount of childish quoting of overused, and boring, clichés will change that.

  • Did I say “ONLY”? I said sin, period, as in ALL sin, Just used sodomy as an example. Folks don’t usually read what is written, but have their own “self defense mechanism” cranking that is influenced by their preconceived notions and it initiates a false intent of the writer and blocks the correct objective. Constructive conversation becomes impossible in that environment which ends all meaningful discussion. Please read without “interpreting” or reinventing what was actually said, it just might be enlightening and educational. Some people actually care enough about others to consider the well being of their soul more than the body. Our goal in this life is to make it safely to the next, which is why Jesus told the adulterer to “sin no more”, one does not have to be Jesus to care about others’ salvation, in fact he asks us to do that. I care for yours and will be praying for you. Why do you take my comment so personally? You have your right to opinions (as do I) but I never attacked you personally, Can’t you just make your case without personal attacks? Besides my “opinion” was directed at other “believers” to awaken their conscience.

  • Nope. He’s just one more reason the GOP has it’s work cut out for it to get to 51% of the vote. These guys are going to lose more votes than Romney did. Hillary could not have asked for a better set of fools to beat if she invented them herself.

  • Thank you for giving me a great reason to support the “sodomites.” Your social intolerance couched in religious jargon is about as anti-American as anything I’ve read in a long time. Glad to know folks like you are excited about the GOP. That means sensible people won’t be.

  • “All sin?” Nonsense. If your standard was “all sin,” then you could never vote for a guy who’s been divorced as many times as Trump. You social conservatives are just too funny for words in your hypocrisy. Christ himself never specified homosexuality as a sin, but he sure did get specific about divorce.

    BTW, I’ve been married to the same woman for 36 years, with 3 kids, and 7 grandkids. So, nope. You got nothing to get on me about. Mark 10 and Matthew 19 are about divorce not some convoluted anti-gay message. That means holy rollers are just trying to deflect their own guilt in being divorce-happy at someone else with those Bible chapters.

  • When America was founded all your crazy ideas were illegal, so you are the one who is NOT American. What communist country did you infiltrate from? If you don’t like being in the “one nation under God” you have the free right to go elsewhere. God bless America!

  • Too funny.i wish I had time to respond now. Maybe later.

    But as a starting place: I have been informed repeatedly by so called Christians that disagreement isn’t hate. I’m not attacking you, though if I have time later, what I say then will certainly seem like such to such a delicate flower. I’m disagreeing with you. I didn’t call you a name,I didn’t accuse you personally of bigotry. None of those things.

  • When a Christian who runs a flower shop is FORCED to service a ceremony that is objectively evil and disordered and is in opposition to the doctrine of her religious faith, then that Christian is being denied the freedom not to VIOLATE her religious faith. Sorry facist Spuddie but you were born too late; I bet you can do a mighty “sieg heil”, huh?

  • There you go, preaching a “gospel” of exclusion, but my ancestors helped found America, so if someone needs to take a hike, it’ll have to be you. BTW, the communists are particularly anti-gay, which should make them your buddies, not mine. And the biblical God is obviously not yours, since you want to play God yourself. America was founded on the principles of equality and inclusion and has been progressing forward to a more perfect understanding of those founding values. That’s why we got rid of slavery and other social ills, and why we started being inclusive of LGBT as we learned what that really means, no thanks to the Bible-thumpers who still think the world is flat.

  • So when Jesus said Go and sin no more. That became your excuse to peek into bedrooms and determine if you get to judge someone. Loving and accepting my fellow brothers and sisters of this planet just as they choose to be, either in sin, or as judgmental peeping Toms such as yourself, is my choice.

  • So why did you say Sodomy? Why didn’t you say adultery or gossiping or something else? Because all I ever hear, is peoples obsessions with what is going on in someone else’s bedrooms. You might want to think through why you are so focused in this area of thought. I find Christians obsession with sex quite fascinating. If it was just their own sex lives than it would be understandable but when it is everyone’s else’s sex life, it’s kind of weird.

  • I agree, hypocrisy is pretty ugly. But it beats the alternative, rejecting values altogether. As the quip goes, hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.

  • Except you are rejecting values altogether. Trump doesn’t care a thing about anything related to “values” positions. He is not even pretending to do so in a credible manner. Picking Pence was the “Sarah Palin option” of having a social reactionary as the VP for a fiscal conservative. All done to appeal to that crowd.

  • When a store owner engages in discrimination and violates local laws for doing so, they are not martyrs or people making a stand on conscience. They are malicious spiteful people seeking to harm others. Eff them and anyone supporting such behavior.

    If your religious faith demands you deny goods and services to people in open commerce you should expect and be happy with the consequences of such actions. If you can’t deal with that, go eff yourself. Religious faith is not license to attack others.

    Its not the free exercise of your religion. It does not ever require protection of law. You don’t want religious freedom. You want license to say, “You can’t have that. Eff you, I’m a Christian”. It is as far from a moral stance or act of principles as you can get.

    You are not Boenhoffer here. You are George Wallace. Demanding segregation. You don’t want to serve “their kind”.

  • Don’t honestly care what you have to say here. You have strayed far off topic here and you are crazy. Didn’t bother to read.

  • Mike appears to be a well informed Catholic who ran afoul with the American Church’s misguided form of social justice – a form of liberation theology IMHO. He doesn’t deny his Catholic roots, realizes his relationship with Christ – that he always had with the Holy Eucharist. As a fellow Catholic with Tea Party philosophy. we have much in common. The same Tea Party Jeb Bush and other globalists “swore to crush.” What’s the difference between being power hungry and managing a state quite well by the proper exercise of authority? Good grief. I for one will be happy to welcome Mike and his family back to the Church Jesus himself founded and which codified the Bible. The Catholic Church is going through a period of purging progressives who have hidden her sins and made deals with the devil in the Democrat Party.

  • “When America was founded all your crazy ideas were illegal”

    Civil liberties and religious freedom were illegal when America was founded? I never read that. Are you a graduate of Liberty University?

  • You have drank the kool-aid. The worst party for the poor and middle class is the Democrat party.

  • The original KKK was exclusive to Democrats. It wasn’t until sometime later that it began to include both Democrats and Republicans.

  • Win or lose in November, doesn’t change the fact that the Democrat party will destroy America, and those adherents to the party place their immortal souls in danger.

  • But not all the people who joined the Klan during the 1920’s became known in Alabama Klan circles as one of the Gold Dust Twins (which is how the Alabama KKK referred to Hugo Black and his fellow politician and friend Bibb Graves).

  • Thanks, Ben. I had never heard of the Taiping Rebellion. Yet another unbelievable atrocity committed because a single megalomaniac convinced untold masses of all-too-willing followers that unconscionable crimes against humanity are holy expressions of faith.

  • ‘”serial adulterer and con artist for president”

    You must be referring the presidential package deal, i.e. Bill and Hillary.

  • It’s hardly “I” that’s rejecting values — I left the Republican party after the Cochran campaign stole the Mississippi Senate nomination and the party leadership applauded instead of holding him accountable. This just cements my decision, I can’t see myself ever rejoining the party. Just voting for Republicans will be hard enough, voting for Republicans that choose to actively endorse Trump will be impossible — from what I’ve read, likely including the Republicans running for the House and Senate where I live.

  • And yet, the trump tramps will proclaim that he knows how to run a business and that’s just what the country needs to get on track. We’re already bankrupt, we just have the full faith and credit of the US government– $19 trillion worth.

  • First, you’re welcome. Though why anyone would want to know of a war that killed between 20 and 70 million people beats me. I got interested in it because of the religious angle.

    Second, a lot of people aren’t and weren’t aware of it. The whole thing was too weird for words. And besides it happened over there and to them. Given the number of Americans with passports, you can understand how unimportant it was.

    Third, it was a bit more complicated than mere religion, though religion was what bound the Taipings together, motivated them, and probably, funded them. It was also about the Qing dynasty, not strictly speaking Chinese, at least to the majority (Han, I think, but I’m not sure about that because all of those Chinese ethnic divisions look alike). but manchurians. They had been running China for over two centuries, and were sincerely hated for all kinds of reasons. Western incursion into China was also another issue affecting it, as it weakened the Qings considerably, therebye, as I understand it, protracting the war. Some fourteen years, if I recall.

  • Ugh. I’m thrilled the religious nutters will have nothing to do with the White House for the next several elections. Good riddance to the dogmatism and social morality of the stone ages.

  • lol, you crackpot. What does a rejection of the evidence put forth in the belief of god have to do with communism? Only the ones you make up.

  • Well, for anyone who keeps their head above sand, while the picture is not stellar, it’s nowhere near the garbage you paint. Here’s a pretty balanced look at the numbers during Obama’s terms.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/obamas-numbers-july-2016-update/

    And anyone older than about 20 probably remembers how well the economy functioned during Clinton’s time in office as well. And equally favorable to these performances was when Bush collapsed the OHHH WAIT. No, his wasn’t as good.

  • Democrat party doesn’t even exist.

    Unless you mean the Democratic party. But as a member of the republic party, you should know this.

  • Does he know how to RUN a business, or just PROMOTE one? Either way, as best I can tell what he did to Tesoro had nothing to do with ignorance and everything to do with just saving a few bucks by cheating the man that delivered what he had been contracted for. It’s not Trump’s competence I condemn, but his character as revealed by his actions.

  • What are you talking about? The people who wrote the Constitution, and our other founding documents, were Christians. Patrick Henry said it succinctly; the country wasn’t only founded by “religionists,” but by “followers of Jesus Christ.” How can you assume that the two, being Christian and conservative and being an “American citizen, “the country and its welfare and the Constitution” would be mutually exclusive? One gave birth to the other. Abraham Lincoln was a serious Christian and he found it in his heart and through his faith to abolish slavery. Some good things have gotten done in America because of the Christian faith. Look at the major not-for-profit organizations that feed the hungry across America; started as Christian organizations.

  • So you think that because somebody practices their deeply held faith, and is allowed to do so by the 1st Amendment, they should be subject to losing their livelihood, their life savings, their children’s chance to attend college, their retirement savings, their businesses, all because they follow their faith? This has already happened to several people across America. Why would you be so intolerant of Christians that you believe that is just okay? This is not “religious segregation.”

  • Now I can answer you.

    .Did I say “ONLY”? I said sin, period, as in ALL sin, Just used sodomy as an example.” Exactly, you used the contemptible term “sodomy” as an example. It shows where youre coming from. Funny how an article on clergy molestation or other faiths will generate a dozen comments here at RNS, but anything to do with homosexuality will generate hundreds, if not thousands.

    .Folks don’t usually read what is written, but have their own “self defense mechanism” cranking that is influenced by their preconceived notions and it initiates a false intent of the writer and blocks the correct objective. Constructive conversation becomes impossible in that environment which ends all meaningful discussion. Please read without “interpreting” or reinventing what was actually said, it just might be enlightening and educational.”

    You follow that statement, which sounds reasonable, with this one. “Some people actually care enough about others to consider the well being of their soul more than the body. Our goal in this life is to make it safely to the next.” Both assume that you hold the absolute truth, especially on the subject of homosexuality, and what happens to people after they die. You have your beliefs, which you consider certain knowledge. Why do you not see that you are doing exactly the opposite of what you say you are doing? Why are not other people, especially gay people, and especially gay Christian people, not entitled to make their own determinations? I can tell you why. Because you think you understand what someone who may have been God is purported to have said in a book of books written millennia ago, and that whatever that personage was saying was exactly the same as we understand homosexuality today.

    “which is why Jesus told the adulterer to “sin no more”, one does not have to be Jesus to care about others’ salvation, in fact he asks us to do that. Jesus asked you to care about others’ salvation. He didn’t put you on charge of it,

    “I care for yours and will be praying for you.” Spiritual arrogance of the worst sort. Remember, sinner boy, you are a sinner, and your own salvation is inconstant jeopardy.

    “Why do you take my comment so personally? See sodomy, above. And see what Christians have been doing to gay people for 2000 years.

    “You have your right to opinions (as do I) but I never attacked you personally. “I didn’t attack you either. Disagreement isn’t an attack. My opinions of your opinions, as opposed to you, aren’t an attack.

    ” Can’t you just make your case without personal attacks?” Besides my “opinion” was directed at other “believers” to awaken their conscience. ” again you are presuming that their consciences are not awake. Again, spiritual arrogance. Believe it or not, many people don’t believe that God or the bible condemns homosexuals or homosexuality. And that is not despite what their bibles tell them, but because of it– and their communion with their God about their own consciences. They don’t need a self appointed mouthpiece for the almighty to tell them.

  • “He didn’t put you on charge of it.”
    “Again you are presuming that their consciences are not awake.”
    “They don’t need a self appointed mouthpiece for the almighty to tell them.”
    — Trifecta, Ben! I admire your presence of mind — all I’ve got is absence. (Can I have my bottle back?)

  • Thanks, G. The subtext for those comments is usually pretty clear. My late, wonderful partner was of the opinion are the usual reason when cognitive dissonance occurs.

    I suppose I’d rather have a pretty bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy.

  • I’m very sorry to hear of your loss, Ben.

    Regarding your partner’s opinion on cognitive dissonance, I think some of your words fell off between “of the opinion” and “are the usual”. Would you mind filling in the blank? You’ve piqued my curiosity.

    Believe it or not, I actually learned that “lobotomy” quip in a mental hospital many years ago. It’s still one of the best-constructed wordplays I’ve ever heard.

  • Could be, but his fiascoes make me wonder. Certainly in the case of his “university,” if it wasn’t a case of incompetent management it looks like an outright scam.

  • It was 20 years ago, but thanks. I still miss him.

    You are right. There are missing words. My iPad seems to do strange things, because those words were there.

    The missing words: “was of the opinion that subtexts– what someone really wants to say, but doesn’t say outright, whether consciously or unconsciously– are the usual culprits where cognitive dissonance occurs.”

  • Herr Spuddie, you are a malicious, spiteful person and your agenda is harming others!

  • If a catholic truly knew his faith and believed in the true presence in the Eucharist, that person would never walk away from the Church. Sadly , it is likely another victim of poor catechesis having swallowed the misconceptions of the Catholic Christian faith by college evangelicals . Jesus asks “Will you leave me too ?” At least Gov Pence has a Christian attachment but could have a so much fuller truth of Christian revelation lived out.

  • “Atheism has given us so many good things.”

    Our Constitution created the first entirely secular and atheist government in the world. We have no official religion, nor allow any to become one.

  • Religious freedom means I don’t have to care what your religion says about anyone or anybody. Nor can you compel anyone to care using color of law. You want to use religious beliefs as an excuse to discriminate, to act maliciously towards others, then you will have to face the consequences of your actions.

    Martyrs, people who have actual moral principles, deal with the consequences of their actions, no matter what the punishment is. Bigots like you, Pence and his supporters are spineless. You seek government protection for your actions and whine about the inevitable results of breaking laws protecting the general public from discrimination and of hateful, harmful actions. Not very brave, not very principled.

    You are welcomed to your beliefs. I am welcomed to criticize them. Neither of us have a right to kill each other over that difference. I don’t give a damn what you think God says about gays. I don’t have to. Neither do our laws. You don’t like it, tough luck. Religious freedom means no one has to live according to the dictates of any given faith.

  • All of which would be relevant in this day and age if not for the Southern Strategy of 1968 where the Republicans swooped in and got Southern segregationists to switch parties. Thus removing any further association between the Democrats and the KKK.

    But that implies being honest about history. Given the love of BS artists like Barton and Metaxas, that is something in very short supply among conservatives. Especially those of the religious right.

  • Indeed.

    And that “first entirely secular and atheist government” was racist to the core, refusing to allow blacks to even be considered citizens. I guess you agree with slavery?

    And no votes for women? Sounds “good” to me.

    The U.S. is going to fall as a result of its erroneous foundation, and the clueless masses, who have absolutely no idea what is being prepared for them, will be swept away by the coming maelstrom.

  • Why do you hate America so much? 🙂

    “And no votes for women? Sounds “good” to me.”

    I can believe that. Given your prior posts, such a stance is entirely believable on your part.

  • The women vote comment was sarcasm, in case you missed it.

    You were touting the constitution and “the first entirely secular and atheist government.” A statement made from white privilege, if there ever was one.

    If you are fine with the way the republic was founded, I don’t see how you can avoid the appellation “racist.”

    If you’re not fine with the way it was founded, why are you defending it?

    Please tell us how great “the first entirely secular and atheist government” was towards its black “non-fully-citizens.”

  • Given your prior posts, sarcasm could not be assumed. Maybe next time use a signifier at the end of the text ” /s ” is the typical one used.

    You mistake me for someone who is taking you seriously. Whereas you can only criticize the past and long obsolete positions, I criticize the present ones. Trying to keep the conversation towards relevance. Maybe you know what that is like. But I doubt it.

  • Well, let’s see. There’s when Jesus told his disciples not to cast pearls before swine, and when he listed various ways one can be ostentatiously righteous, every time he told someone that their sins were forgiven (and therefore that they’d been sinners), the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, the parable of the sheep and the goats, telling his disciples to beware of false prophets and that they would be recognized by their fruits, the way Jesus ripped on the Pharisees as hypocrites. All times that Jesus either judged others or called on his followers to judge others.

    Does that require us to “peek into bedrooms”? Not hardly. But it does require us to recognize what God has told us is sinful, avoid sin ourselves, and when we have removed the beams from our own eyes seek to remove the speck from our siblings’ eyes.

  • He is also a tobacco denialist. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2016/07/16/pence-is-a-tobacco-truther/

    “In 2000, Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN), then running for an open U.S. House seat, came out against a proposed settlement between government and the tobacco industry, calling it “big government.” In a shocking editorial, he wrote: “Time for a quick reality check. Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn’t kill.” Pence acknowledged that smoking is not “good for you,” but claimed that two-thirds of smokers do not die from smoking related illness and “9 out of ten smokers do not contract lung cancer.” He warned of a slippery-slope in which government would soon seek to discourage fatty foods, caffeine, and SUVs.

    In a debate that September, his Democratic opponent pressed him on the suggestion that smoking does not cause cancer and noted his contributions from tobacco companies. According to the Indianapolis Star’s coverage of the exchange, “Pence clarified that he wrote that there was no causal link medically identifying smoking as causing lung cancer.” While cigarette manufacturers might have been still claiming that there was not causal link between smoking and lung cancer, medical science had settled the question years earlier. A landmark report by the U.S. Surgeon General had documented the link — in 1964.

  • Thanks — that makes sense. If someone holds a belief they consider to be inviolate, yet vulnerable to others’ criticism (especially if the person is using that belief to criticize others), that person will tend to conceal the belief, even while using it to express the person’s point. And that splitting of mental resources will tend to close the mind instead of opening it to understand and respond cogently to others’ criticism.

    At least that’s how it makes sense to me…

  • And the reason you want to stick to “present ones” is because you don’t want to admit the fallacy inherent in your underlying principles.

    The fact of the matter is that “the first entirely secular and atheist government” is completely compatible with slavery. It’s an historical fact that no thinking person could deny.

    I have no illusions about your taking me seriously, or anything else for that matter. It is obvious you don’t. That’s why you can’t admit obvious things, such as the problem with the founding of this country.

    All of which points to one indisputable fact: You would not have had a problem with slavery if you were present at the foundation of the country as long as the government were “entirely secular and atheist.”

    If you had to choose between, say, a confessional nation where slavery were outlawed, and an “entirely secular and atheist” nation where slavery were permitted, you would always choose the latter.

    You may not admit that, but you don’t have to. Anyone reading your position knows that to be true.

  • “And the reason you want to stick to “present ones” is because you don’t want to admit the fallacy inherent in your underlying principles.”

    That is projection on your part. Considering you can’t even stay relevant to the topics on hand.

    “The fact of the matter is that “the first entirely secular and atheist government” is completely compatible with slavery. It’s an historical fact that no thinking person could deny.”
    The Civil War proves your assertion to be false. So compatible it sparked the most deadly conflict in American History.

    “All of which points to one indisputable fact: You would not have had a problem with slavery if you were present at the foundation of the country as long as the government were “entirely secular and atheist.”

    Because there was no religious support for slavery and it was an acceptable practice in the entire country by all of its citizens? /sarcasm

    You can’t get your facts straight. My guess is you are a Liberty University graduate or a homeschooled teenager (same thing).

    I am sure what you post makes sense in your head, but it is incoherent irrelevance on screen.

  • The Civil War proves your assertion to be false. So compatible it sparked the most deadly conflict in American History.

    And that civil war occurred seven decades after the founding of the nation, during which time slavery was perfectly compatible with the ideas you espouse.

    Your empathy for the slaves is underwhelming.

    And then segregation, which is also compatible with your pet ideas, lasted for another century.

    I noticed you didn’t admit that you would prefer a secular state with slavery to a confessional state without it.

    But we both know you would.

  • “And that civil war occurred seven decades after the founding of the nation, during which time slavery was perfectly compatible with the ideas you espouse.”

    Your lack of education and complete dishonesty is typical. Like all cancers, slavery took time before its reached its full malignancy. I guess you are ignorant as to the various founding fathers who opposed slavery. But then again, someone who starts in with “Democrats are the party of the KKK” isn’t interested in facts or honest portrayals of history. People who use such arguments are dumber than a sack of hammers (or think everyone else is).

    Now what do you have to say about Mike Pence?

  • Like all cancers, slavery took time before its reached its full malignancy.

    You don’t think slavery was “fully malignant” in 1789? Not even to the slaves of your buddies, the enlightened ones who gave us this “atheistic government”?

    I guess you are ignorant as to the various founding fathers who opposed slavery.

    So, what did they do about it? They approved a government that included slavery, that’s what.

    Just like you would.

    You stated to another poster: “I am oppressing you because I object to legalizing oppressing of others.”

    Untrue.

    You’re quite willing to have others oppressed.

    A good example is your support of the founders of the country who owned slaves.

    If you had to choose between a country that had an established church without slavery and a country like ours but with slavery, you would choose the latter.

    You fool no one.

    Answer to your question: Pence is religiously confused, just like you.

  • “Eff” you too Herr Spuddie and your big gay facist agenda. You are the enemy.

  • Your call for tolerance have made you a tyrant. The religious freedom act had nothing to do with providing services but forcing individuals to participate in religious ceremonies in which they do not believe. That’s okay though Mr Spuddie because there will come a time when you will be forced to participate in a religious ceremony you do not believe in yourself. It’s not that far off and the progression is picking up speed.

  • Well never mind the fact that the religious nutters created the first universities, hospilitals, local and global charitable organizations , ect. And that all of western society our constitution was based on documents of religious nutters. Let us also not forget that it has been the non religious atheistic nutters responsible for the death of millions. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot just to name a few.

  • Shorter Miguel, “You are intolerant of my intolerance!”

    What you call “forcing people to participate” is more honestly described as denying people goods and services in open commerce and government. You can quit the euphemisms here. You want a right to simply tell customers of a business or people seeking access to their lawful rights in government to “eff off” because you are a Christian. Well tough luck!

    It is segregation in its plainest form. You can’t even support that defilement of the 1st and 14th Amendment Pence passed without resorting to the same arguments used to support segregation 50 years ago. You bigots use “separate but equal” arguments, you use freedom of association arguments, and religious arguments. The same garbage people used to oppose the Civil Rights Act.

    Fact of the matter is, you want your religious hatred to have color of law. A license to attack people in the name of God. You don’t want religious freedom you want special privilege for being Christian. The first Amendment was created precisely to prevent such things.

  • I am betting you think the “big gay fascist agenda” probably has very snappy uniforms and trendy marches. 🙂

  • For those of us who must vote for Trump, if only to deny the ascendency of Mrs. Clinton (The reasons for which are clear to me, at least), too bad we can’t exchange Gov. Pence for Trump as Presidential candidate.

  • Every Tea Party governor and state legislature has driven their states into the ground. “Fiscal responsibility” giving way to costly damaging and discriminatory agendas.

    You don’t get to put your tramp stamp on the works of people who extolled education, democracy, and civic duty. Christian Fundamentalists don’t believe in any of that stuff.

    “Let us also not forget that it has been the non religious atheistic nutters responsible for the death of millions. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot just to name a few.”

    Because anyone who is not a religious fundamentalist bigot is a mass murdering communist. Really???

  • Lol, Hitler was not an atheist. And you get credit for your initial attempts at civilization. Full credit. But your impediments since then are not welcome. Initial successes don’t discount current failures – age of the earth, global warming, vaccinations, condoms, stem cell research. Religious dogma blocks scientific progress way too much. And somehow, that’s the direction nearly half the country thinks we need to be moving towards. I’m glad Trump will prevent that from happening. =P

    Further, atheism has nothing to do with the death of millions you credit, just as shoe-wearers don’t. It was incidental, and has nothing to do with their ritualistic, dogmatic genocides. Poor try.

  • Lol. Detroit, Chicago and the entire state of Illinois, LA and California. Not exactly tea party territory.

    If you are able to put all religious into a category I am able to put all atheist into a single category. I know fundamentalist who are not, in anyway, bigots. I also know atheist that are not murdering tyrants.

    I am not a fundamentalist, conservative, liberal, progressive, capitalist, socialist, libertarian, republican or democrat, tea party or a Soros zombie. They are all just taking different direction to hell.

    Nice talking to you Spuddie. I hope you are not as bitter and wounded as you sound.

  • That is the response of a person who cannot face the truth, and what I stated is true: If you had to choose between a country that had an established church without slavery and a country like ours but with slavery, you would choose the latter.

  • I’m pretty happy to live in California (specifically San Francisco); other than some time in Tokyo, I’ve lived in CA all my life, though I wasn’t so fond of Southern CA (where I grew up). At least right now, the Democrats are doing a fine job despite the lack of a sane opposition. In the long term, single party rule is a horrible idea, so I’m hoping that the Republicans will get their …. together so they can actually present a reasonable platform. Indications this year are not good. 🙁

  • Mike Pence is all about Mike Pence. Trump will win or lose, Pence will win. It is all about name recognition for his future.

  • If you say so, Herr Spuddie; and a “Beautiful Leader,” whose portrait in your living room, you adore, but be quick about it, for he has only months to go. That tingle in your leg will fade.

  • So which one of us again wants to deny goods and services to a class of people in a manner reminiscent of Jim Crow?

    And you have the temerity to call me a fascist. Riiiiiight.

  • “If you are able to put all religious into a category I am able to put all atheist into a single category.”

    That is just you there. Bit of overreaction.

    “I am not a fundamentalist, conservative, liberal, progressive, capitalist, socialist, libertarian, republican or democrat, tea party or a Soros zombie.”

    But you support religious based discrimination so we know you are a bigot. Nice talking to you too. See ya.

  • Has anyone thought that Trump may just resign as soon as he wins? He wants to WIN! That is it, once he does that Pence will be in charge. IMHO, I do not think Trump wants to run America, just to win and be done.

  • I understand the concept completely. A conscientious objector in the universal (catholic) church. Dedicated to Christ to make waves. Works for me.

  • The fact that Pence describes himself as “Christian first and American second’ should be enough to ban him from public office.

  • Nobody is “forcing” that store owner to do anything. What you’re ignoring is that when they obtained the necessary licenses and permits to operate their business they agreed to abide by all the applicable laws. Not the laws they liked. All of them. If they no longer wish to do that they have two choices – change their business model so they don’t violate the law (simply done since all they have to do is say that they don’t provide flowers for any weddings) or, even easier – close their doors.

    To repeat – all the owners of the flower shop are being told to do is live up to the commitments they made when they opened the business. And, if they don’t want to, they can easily correct the problem.

  • It had nothing to do with forcing individuals to do anything. It had to do with requiring businesses to honor the law. A very different thing.

    And, if you’d given the matter any thought, you’d realize that, in order to obtain the relevant licenses and permits required to open the business they had to agree to honor all applicable laws. That’s all of them. Not just the ones they liked. All of them.

    But if they object to providing flowers for a same-sex wedding do they take the same position for an opposite sex wedding if one of the partners is divorced? After all, Jesus was very specific on that latter point (didn’t say anything about same sex weddings tho). And if they don’t they’re just exhibiting a degree of bigotry that’s tough to reconcile with the idea of a loving god.

  • F_ck them. They were so beholden to treating people badly and violating anti discrimination laws, they could deal with the unsurprising results of their behavior. There is no 1St Amendment right to attack people in the name of your faith. Discrimination is a legally recognized attack on customers and the public.

    F_ck you for expecting a religious right of Christians to attack others with impunity.

  • The salient questions are:

    (1) Does Pence attend Mass weekly?

    (2) Does Pence sacramentally confess his sins (to a priest)?

    (3) Does Pence receive Holy Communion?

    None of the articles that I’ve read on the subject answer answer any of these questions, because the people writing the articles don’t understand Catholicism.

  • Yo Blank….man, no laws force a person to commit to violating the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in order to open a business. Are you familiar with our founding documents? No need to answer that one 🙂

  • No “Blankman” . He has the right order. He just needs to come home to his catholic faith, and embrace all of it!

  • Patrick, hate to tell you this but the matter has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. No-one is preventing the individual in question from exercising his or her religion. They are free to worship whoever they want – God, Allah, Yahweh, Zeus, Odin, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    Fact is, there are anti-discrimination laws in existence and, in order to obtain the relevant licenses and permits the owners had to agree to abide by those laws.

    BTW, the argument that you’re trying to use here is virtually identical to the one Maurice Bessinger tried to use when he refused to serve black people in his chain of BBQ restaurants. He tried to argue that forcing him to do so violated his religious principles. The Supreme Court didn’t agree with him – in fact, in a unanimous ruling, they ruled that his argument was “patently frivolous”.

  • Love to tell you Blank’ that my faith is not frivolous, patently or otherwise. Refusing to serve a particular racial group is part of no one’s religion and is indeed frivolous. My faith sees homosexual behavior as disordered and objectively evil. When the radical left forces me to choose between my livelihood and my conscience, then that is also evil. The radical left and their ‘gay’ agenda is fascist and un-American.

  • Patrick, hate to tell you this but it’s only relatively recently that “the church” stopped using scripture to justify slavery.

    And, as I said, Maurice Bessinger’s religious freedom argument is the same one that people are using today to justify discriminating against the LGBT community. It doesn’t fly.

    But, if you don’t want to be forced to obey the laws banning discrimination there are easy fixes. In the case of the bakery that’s seem to be in headlines today, simply stop doing weddings period. Or close their doors.

    BTW, I think they’re cherry picking scripture when they refuse to provide a cake for a same sex wedding. After all, I’m sure they don’t refuse to deal with a couple of one or both of the partners are divorced – Jesus specifically addressed that.

    Back to your post tho – how on earth do you get homosexual behavior is “objectively evil”? If you’re basing that position on something in the bible how do you address the rest of the “stuff” that goes on there? After all, that book approves of slavery, rape, child sacrifice, and genocide. Doesn’t exactly provide a “moral compass” that I want to follow.

  • Love to tell you this, that my Christian faith is based on the Eternal Word of God who is Jesus, the Christ. He established His Church and Sacred Scripture refers to the Church as the “pillar and foundation of the truth” 1Tim 3:15. You are woefully ignorant, perhaps invincibly so, about Christianity and slavery, and for that matter Judaism, neither of which EVER condoned slavery. Some of the greatest condemnations of the universal institution of slavery, which has been visible in every epoch of human history and in every culture and land, were written by the Church. Even our Lord Himself freed people from various evils like illness, hunger, death yet he did not free those bound to human masters, he could have, but his mission was to free men from the greatest slavery, that bondage to sin, which is the basis for all the other earthly evils, like homosexual behavior. Here is what the Church has to say about homosexuality: “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” If a law forces me to violate my religious faith, that law is illicit. That is exactly what the powerful, fascistic and sin-laden ‘gay’ activists are attempting force on their fellow citizens. Your ignorance is not only a threat to my inalienable rights, but is also tiresome.

  • You really have to read the Bible sometime. It gives very explicit instructions on how to treat your slaves and makes a point of saying that you can buy and sell slaves from the foreigners among you – not only can you buy and sell them but you can will them to your children. Moreover you can beat them – the only restriction is that the beating can’t be so severe that they die immediately. As long as they linger on a day or two you’re in the clear because, in the words of scripture, they are your property. The situation with male Hebrew slaves was different. After seven years they were to be set free, but there is an out – the slaveowner could hold the slave’s wife and children hostage. If he wanted to remain with them he’d have to agree to become a slave forever – as a symbol of this the slaveowner would drive an awl thru his ear. Female Hebrew slaves were treated differently – they wouldn’t be freed at the end of seven years but, if they hadn’t pleased their master they couldn’t be sold but had to be returned to their father.

    Jumping ahead to the claim that same-sex relationships are contrary to natural law – you do realize that there are some 500 species of animals that engage in homosexual acts. But there is only one that is homophobic. If nothing else that demonstrates that it’s homophobia that’s unnatural. Not homosexuality.

    But the argument that same-sex relationships “close the sexual act to the gift of life” is old, tired, and nonsensical. If it were to be valid opposite-sex couples that can’t have children (or decide not to) shouldn’t be allowed to be married. And contraception should be banned (Mike Pence actually said that condoms are “too modern and too liberal”). And married couples should never have sex unless they want to have children. And ….

    Just a little history lesson. Outside of the bible there isn’t a single contemporary historical reference to Jesus (it’s quite probable that there was a man named Yeshua ben Yosef – it was a common name – but of the biblical Jesus, not a word). The historians that people like to point to (Josephus, Tacitus, etc) weren’t even born until after the date of the crucifixion – and that’s assuming that the passages that people like to quote are legitimate and not forgeries that were added at a later date. As for scripture, even the gospels weren’t written until years (decades actually) after the date of the crucifixion. Moreover they were written by unknown authors who had never met him. (The church didn’t attach the names of the apostles to the gospels until the second century and that was only in an attempt to give them some credibility.) At best, the authors of those books would have been relying on second and third hand stories and, if you’ve ever played the kid’s game “telephone” (sometimes called “Chinese whispers”) you’d know how stories grow and change with the retelling. Further, the gospels were originally written in Koine Greek instead of Aramaic (or even Hebrew) which would suggest that the authors of those documents were educated men.

    And no law forces you to violate your religious faith. None. Nobody is telling you who or what to worship. And it’s not preventing you from worshipping whoever or whatever you want to worship. What it is doing is saying you can’t force other people to follow the tenets of your religion.

    To return to my earlier example for a minute. If your religion says that you can’t deal with black people you don’t have to. Just don’t open a business that requires you to do so. Same goes for same sex couples. If your religion says that you can’t deal with them the answer is simple – don’t open a business where you’ll have to do so.

    Just an aside – I’m sure you’ve heard of the 1967 Supreme Court case, Loving v Virginia. There’s actually an up and coming movie about it but that’s the case where the US Supreme Court ruling struck down all laws against interracial marriage. What’s interesting about it is that the justice who wrote the ruling in the Virginia Supreme Court case cited scripture in his ruling against the couple.

  • BTW, thanks for the article. Have to admit that I almost didn’t read it – when I opened it there was a popup ad referring me to Franklin Graham. While he’s (slightly) saner than his sister that’s pretty much destroyed the article’s credibility..

    But the article is based on a false premise – the fact that some individual members of the church, including some members of the church heirarchy, opposed slavery does not mean that the church did. That’s like saying that some members of Congress were opposed to the Gulf War so the US didn’t really enter it. The official position of the church is what matters here

    http://www.anthonyflood.com/maxwellslaverycatholicchurch.pdf

    “Since the sixth century and right up until the twentieth century it has been common Catholic teaching that the social, economic and legal institution of slavery is morally legitimate provided that the master’s title of ownership is valid and provided that the slave is properly looked after and cared for, both materially and spiritually. This institution of genuine slavery, whereby one human being is legally owned by another, and is forced to work for the exclusive benefit of his owner in .return for food, clothing and shelter, and may be bought, sold, donated or exchanged, was not merely tolerated but was commonly approved of in the Western Latin Church for over 1400 years”

    BTW, on a completely unrelated note I’m sure you know that both the Catholic and Orthodox churches had same sex marriage liturgies on their books for centuries?

  • Gee – who would have guessed? Actually knowing something about law (and the Constitution) as well as the bible makes me invincibly ignorant?

  • Does the fact that you haven’t responded mean that you’re admitting that you’ve lost the argument? Or are you just pouting?

  • If a person is a Catholic, s/he may use a variety of descriptions to describe his/her personal religious experience. However, as there is not a denomination of “born again” Catholics, s/he is a Catholic. Insofar as “born again” is concerned; my perspective is that, for most Catholics, conversion is an ongoing journey rather than a one time event. In Mike Pence’s case, however, he left the Catholic Church. As he is no longer a Catholic, the phrase “born again Catholic” is meaningless.

  • But Thomas is still Catholic whereas Pence is no longer Catholic. Perhaps the questioner is making a distinction between “Catholic” (The Church) and “catholic” (definition: universal).

  • Pence is no Christian because no Christian could support a U.S. backed policy that if successful will lead to the genocide of Christians in Syria. Also he praised Kaine as being a man of sincere faith.

  • I get what you are saying but Church affiliation a Christian does not make. His confession of Christ as his Lord and Savior is what matters. Beyond that he doesn’t even have to claim membership with a church. Catholic Evangelical or otherwise.

  • Scott Rogers: Tell that to Saint Thomas More, who lost his head over it. He’s the patron saint of lawyers.

  • Are you really this angry, or are you just putting on a show? And who are you angry at, people who practice their faith, or God Himself?

  • You are factually incorrect. Josephus, a Jew, wrote about Jesus believing him to be a “wise man.” And the Romans cite Him in the trial before Pilate. One of Satan’s titles is “the Deceiver.” Just sayin’

  • Nah, I am not a big fan of people playing victim when they are treating others like garbage. Not a big fan of using religion to excuse bad behavior. Its not God which is the problem. It is the bigots who are too spineless to own up to their prejudices and use God to justify them.

    If practicing your faith involves attacking others, get bent. It doesn’t deserve respect, it does not deserve social acceptability, it certainly is not the free exercise of religion. You have as much religious freedom to discriminate in open commerce as I do to commit human sacrifice.

  • Pretty tough for the Romans to have cited Josephus in the trial – after all, Josephus was born in 37 CE and, according to the bible the crucifixion happened in either 30 or 33 CE.

    And there are serious questions about the legitimacy of the references to Jesus in Josephus’ writings. Those particular references are not only stylistically different from the rest of his works but the language used there is not what you’d expect a Jew to use. In short, it’s likely that those statements were added at a later date by someone else.

  • If you’ll notice, I said “cite Him.” Notice the capital “H”? Referring to Jesus, not Titus Flavius Josephus. Sorry for the confusion. The trial is recorded in Roman history, although the details as reported in the Gospels are not. And you’re quite correct in saying it’s not what you’d expect a Jew to use. On the other hand, 11 of the disciples were Jews as am I, so, maybe.

  • The gospels weren’t written until years (decades actually) after the supposed date of the crucifixion. The authors are unknown – the church didn’t attach the names of the apostles to them until the second century and that was an attempt to provide some credibility to them. Moreover they never met him – they had to have been relying on second and third hand accounts (if you’ve ever played the kids’ game “telephone” (sometimes called “Chinese Whispers”) you’ll have seen what happens when stories are told and retold).

    Add to that fact that those books have been copied, recopied, translated, and retranslated (not to mention changed to agree with the copyists personal orthodoxy) and the result is …

    Two obvious additions. The gospel according to Mark (which is the earliest of the gospels despite being placed second in modern bibles) originally ended with Mark 16:8. Every thing after that (i.e., Mark 16:9-20) doesn’t appear in the earliest bibles in our possession. Those verses were added at a later date, probably to make it agree with Matthew.

    Similarly, the story of Jesus and the adulteress (“Let he who is without sin …”) doesn’t appear in any version of the bible before the 12th century

  • I’m curious, Blankman, why you and some others are so interested in making the Bible out to be false. I know that I’m interested in propagating the info so that more can be saved. But are you trying to protect people from the “horible” message of the crucifiction of Jesus, or are you just interested in getting people to think for themselves without any undue influence from Bible thumpers?

  • Do you know how many animal species are canibals? Is that fact proof that canibalism is perfectly acceptable with humans. Like homosexualism.

  • lol, you sat on this for awhile. The only thing that needs revision is that enough of our country was dumb enough to support him, while enough democrats were dumb enough to not vote. Welcome to the global apocalypse.

  • I realize that you people are far more communistic than you are democratic, but to say that people who voted for trump are somehow intellectually inferior to those who did not is simply absurd. Worldview has very little to do with intellectual ability. It is ironic that someone touting him or herself as intellectually more sophisticated than others would not realize that. The emperor has no clothes.

  • Your remarks are a true measure of your own lack of intellectual sophistication. The notion that conservatives are intellectually inferior to liberals is baseless. It is a reflection of liberal elitism gone mad. It is what liberals do precisely because they do not have good arguments for their liberalism. Rather than interact with the substantive differences in our respective worldviews, you prefer the sophmoric tactic of ad hominem. Why? Because its much easier to engage in rhetoric and propaganda than it is to actually defend your belief system, or put together intellectually powerful and persuasive arguments. I suppose if I were a liberal I would do the same thing because, now that I think about it, you don’t have any intellectually powerful or persuasive arguments.

  • That’s funny you think I need to articulate every liberal argument case by case to some random nobody on the internet lest the whole liberal philosophy fall apart, regardless of all the studies, academics and think tanks that back it up.

    You proved me wrong. You’re quite the genius!

  • Why is it discrimination when a Christian refuses to condone a behavior they find reprehensible and not discrimination when you refuse to condone a behavior you find reprehensible?

    Buy the cake elsewhere. There are other options. If I went into a coffee shop that refused to serve me because I am a Christian, I would take my business elsewhere.

    This is not about discrimination. It’s not about hate. It’s about a generation of people who are communist living in a democratic society and they don’t know how to deal with it. So, they want to force everyone to adopt their thoughts on every subject OR ELSE, they will shut you down, fine you, force you into bankruptcy, refuse to hire you, fire you if you are employed, and basically, make it impossible for you to live. In other words, unless we adopt your thoughts on this subject, you will kill us. How are you any different from radical Islamic terrorists? The logic is really easy to follow on your score. I would be willing to bet that you would make this a requirement for EVERYTHING. Either everyone accepts your thoughts on homosexuality or they cannot get into college, they cannot get a job, they cannot own a business, they cannot LIVE in this country. That is not America…that is 1970s Russia…that is China. And people are too ignorant to see it.

  • lol, what’s a better source of who voted than a survey of 24.5 thousand ACTUAL voters?

    Great point… not! No wonder you’re in the lower category.

  • Never mind the support for feudalism and slavery.
    Never mind the execution of herbalists as ‘witches’.
    Never mind the punishing of scientists for contradicting dogma.
    Never mind the selling of ‘indulgences’ to increase the wealth and power of the church of a religion that specifically and explicitly states that wealth and power on this world is not an appropriate goal of human behavior.

  • There is nothing dim about my world. “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” (John 1:5) He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:11-13)

    God stands as the creator of everything that has come to exist. Humanity is obligated to acknowledge God, to glorify Him and to enjoy Him forever. But humanity has rejected the holy Creator and stands condemned. Yet, in love, God sent His Son to redeem those who did not deserve His love or redemption. The believing ones will never perish but have eternal life in Christ and a joy that is unspeakable. Repent and believe the gospel.

  • Why do you think refusing goods and services to people in open commerce can be described as anything but discrimination?

    Calling the action something else does not change what it is. Calling it “refusing to condone behavior” is just dishonesty on your part. You want to use religious belief as license to attack others. Nothing more. It is very much about trying to demean people and attack their dignity in a public fashion. There i no well intentioned form of discrimination. You are support malicious behavior.

    The bakers deserved the penalties they got. They violated anti discrimination laws, committed a tort actionable under civil law and got a judgment against them in civil court. If they went bankrupt, so be it. There is a price to be paid for such clearly bad behavior. You want me to sympathize with them, FTS. They don’t deserve it. They acted badly and paid the price. Anyone who wants me to sympathize with such discriminatory behavior can go eff themselves as well. In this day and age it is not acceptable in a modern society.

  • There are Christians who think that baking a cake for someone is actually participating in their wedding. The same is true of photographers. Why is it okay to force these people to go against their conscience. If all you want is a cake, use a bakery that will accommodate you.

    I am not using religious belief to attack anyone. Christianity condemns homosexual behavior. My love for the truth means that I will condemn homosexual behavior as well. But Christianity also condemns adultery. Where are all the adulterers demanding their right NOT to be judged by Christianity?

    To ruin someone’s life over a cake is absurd. You want to force your views about homosexuality on others. Next thing you will come up with is that Churches have to accept members who are homosexuals and pastors who are homosexuals.

    You see, Spuddie, homosexual behavior is not actually who you are, like race or gender. It is BEHAVIOR. We are not discriminating against someone’s essence, their status as a male, female, race, etc. We are discriminating against a behavior. Sure, we call people homosexuals. But we only use that as denote that they engage in unnatural sexual intercourse with people of the same sex, that is, homosexual sex. That is not discrimination regardless of how much you want it to be.

    Bad behavior? Really? Says who? You? Local laws? You people murder babies by the millions and then pretend have a moral bone in your body. You don’t. You are morally repugnant, haters of true justice. Abortion is murder and homosexual sex is unnatural and immoral on every level. The amazing thing is that God mercifully forgives for both of those sins and even worse. He is that kind of God! That’s why we call grace, amazing.

  • Bullshit. It comes down to people pretending they are the next coming of Jim Crow. People who think being Christian entitles them to tell customers “we don’t serve your kind”.

    “If all you want is a cake, use a bakery that will accommodate you.”

    Separate but equal, where have we heard that before? You’re so unaware you are even parroting the same exact arguments as segregationists.

    They are people providing goods and services available to anyone with the money. If they feel the need not to do so, they have no business in open commerce. Do business by word of mouth or some limited membership service.

    It is not an act of conscience to discriminate in open commerce. It is an act of malice. If they are so deranged by their bigotry that they can’t serve all customers in the same manner, they don’t deserve to be in open commerce. If they go bankrupt because they receive judgments for violating anti discrimination laws, great. They deserved it.

    BTW it’s not just bakers or photographers. Bigots like you want to deny gays access to medical care, access to government services, housing, and employment. It’s about ostracizing them and attacking them wherever.

    You are simply a bigot who can’t be bothered to treat all people like human beings. Attributing it to your religious belief just means you are a spineless bigot. Someone who uses God as an excuse to act badly.

  • “It is not an act of conscience to discriminate in open commerce. It is an act of malice.” This is patently false. You are arguing within a paradigm that Christians reject. Keep in mind, I am not claiming that Christians who refuse to bake the cake have a proper understanding of Christian beliefs in this area. I have a different conviction about the matter. However, that being said, I do think the discrimination card is a red herring. What is really happening? Gays are bent on abolishing any view that does not celebrate their perversion. As far as gays are concerned, there is no room in our society for any view that differs from their own on this subject. That is the textbook picture of communism.

    “Separate but equal, where have we heard that before? You’re so unaware you are even parroting the same exact arguments as segregationists.” A red herring and a false analogy. You fellows stretch beyond the limits for your rhetoric. Gays are not a class of people even if we use it this way in order to communicate. When we talk about gays, we are talking about people who engage in a certain behavior, not people who are a certain thing over which they have no control. Race and gay are not in the same category. If you don’t like that, take it up with science.

    “BTW it’s not just bakers or photographers. Bigots like you want to deny gays access to medical care, access to government services, housing, and employment. It’s about ostracizing them and attacking them wherever.”

    You do not know me. You have no idea what my positions are and that much is clear. Access to medical care? Don’t you mean coverage under group medical plans? Of course you do. That is the sort of dishonest rhetoric I am talking about. It is the same thing as calling the murder of unborn babies a woman’s health issue. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn’t make it not a pig.

    What is a bigot? According to the dictionary, a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions is a bigot. I suppose this makes you a bigot toward those Christians who would prefer NOT to bake a cake for these so-called gay weddings. So where are we then? Calling people names is not the solution to this issue. The solution is for gays to respect the Christian baker’s beliefs and to take their business someplace else. You see, Spuddie, you cannot very well accuse a Christian of discriminating against gays without discriminating against Christians. Your conclusion means that Christians cannot practice their religion and obtain a business license to run a small business. So while you accuse Christians of being bigots on the issue of homosexuals, you and your people are just as much bigots on the issue of Christians applying their Christian convictions to how they run their business.

    It isn’t just Christianity that recognizes that homosexual sex is unnatural and abnormal. Science recognizes it as well. In fact, any objective, enlightened, intelligent human being has to recognize that this kind of sexual behavior goes against nature in every way, is unhealthy for society, and harmful for those involved in it. The facts do not lie. The studies are clear.

    I wonder if you think it is appropriate for a man to have sex with children. Or, where pedophilia is concerned, you are a bigot.

    You operate under a ton of assumptions that are patently false. Homosexuals are not a class of people. It is not like being black, white, asian, or any other race. It isn’t like practicing a religion even, a tradition that is sacred usually dating back centuries in a person’s family. It isn’t like being a man or a woman. (Only God self-identifies by the way.) It is NOTHING like these things. There is no science to indicate otherwise. You boys and girls have decided that you want to act on your urges and desires in unrestricted fashion and you demand that the rest of society celebrate your unrestrained sexual escapades and perversions. There are those who approach heterosexuality the same way. Christianity rejects both. A Christian baker would not bake a cake for a man marrying two women either or a woman marrying two men or a man marrying his daughter, etc. They have not singled you people out contrary to your baseless claims.

    God defines morality, not adulterers, liars, the greedy, murderers, or homosexuals.

  • You are full of it. I am putting actions in their most honest plain terms and you are covering it up with phony euphemisms. You are supporting actions and making arguments which are not fundamentally different that those under segregation. The denial of goods, services in open and access to government which people are entitled to on the basis of personal prejudices.

    Just because your prejudice is different from racism, it doesn’t make it acceptable nor does it make it any more valid grounds to discriminate. There is no reason to tolerate such a view because you are simply looking for ways to attack people for its own sake. That is not the sort of thing where polite disagreement is possible. Nor should it.

    “Don’t you mean coverage under group medical plans? ”

    No. I mean doctors refusing to see patients because they’re gay. It has happened and people whom support your view look for legal excuses for that as well.

    ” Gays are not a class of people even if we use it this way in order to communicate. When we talk about gays, we are talking about people who engage in a certain behavior…”

    They are a distinct enough to be targeted for discrimination that you advocate. You are looking for any excuse to treat them as a group in a malicious manner.

    “I wonder if you think it is appropriate for a man to have sex with children. Or, where pedophilia is concerned, you are a bigot”

    That was stupid the first time you said it, it remains so. The concept of consenting adults always seems to elude Christian folk.

    As for “science” you are full of it on that front as well. It is innate, it is seen in nature, you have nothing credible to back up your assertions.

    In the end the solution is that Christian vendors who want to discriminate should suffer the consequences of their malicious actions. Like everyone else who does such things.

    If treating people badly is part of your religious belief, it speaks badly for that belief. Your version of Christianity has no socially redeeming value. It requires dishonesty as a matter of course and just enables acting badly to others. It’s not god which is the problem, it’s you.

  • Hey, How did that work out for you? I hope you didn’t bet the house on the outcome of the election.

    What you call Dogma, Many simply call Religion. Which comes with a set of Moral values.

    True Christians are taught not to judge others, though like any othe belief, some people are over zealous, and it doesa dis-service to us all.

    The problems that voters had with Hillary was that there was a HUGE double standard involved in everything she did. If most regular people did just SOME of the things that She and Bill did, WE would have been imprisoned..the other problem was her arrogance..She didn’t campaign 2/3s of the time, wouldn’t do press conferences, and ultimately, Hillary’s own voting base either turned on her, or simply decided not to show up to vote..

  • In order to get to the segregation analogy, you need gays to be like race or gender. They are not. Therefore, it is a false analogy. Second, Christian bakers would bake a cake for a homosexual birthday, retirement party, or any other event. It isn’t the homosexual that is being protested. It is the event that is being called into question.

    Christians are not looking for ways to attack people. That is the picture you want to paint because it is the one you need people to believe. It is simply false on the face of it. I support gay rights for any other right the rest of us have except for a couple: marriage, adoption. Oh, and no, I don’t think a man can self-identify and use a woman’s rest room. In that case, I support the right of women to use a bathroom without having a man in it.

    I know of no cases where a doctrine refused to see a patient simply on the ground that they are gay. In fact, I have never known a Christian to refuse to serve someone on the ground that they are gay. Christian bakers do not refuse to bake cakes because the person is gay. They object to gay marriage. But if you want a generic cake, birthday cake, retirement cake, victory cake, etc…I know of no Christian who would refuse.

    At what age can a person consent to sex? 18…16…14? And why does that matter? If your worldview is correct, and sex is actually a loving act, then it is actually loving a child when you have sex with them. That is what a pedophile would say. But if sex is not love, well, seems like that spells trouble for your own defense of homosexual behavior.

    There is no scientific evidence that supports your claim that homosexuality is innate. There is no gay gene. That claim continues to be promoted but there is no evidence. Even if there was, it wouldn’t matter. Sexual intercourse is an activity that both God and nature teaches us should take place between a man and a woman. Should we discuss the long term effects that repeated anal sex has on men? And the other health issues created by this behavior? That is something science has reported on. The facts are undeniable.

    Gays want to force their beliefs on everyone else and they want complete acceptance and celebration. It is clear they have no tolerance for anyone who takes a different view of human sexuality. Those voices are bigots and must be silenced at all costs.

    It is not treating people badly to tell them the truth. You make so many baseless assumptions, like, its treating a gay person badly not to celebrate gay marriage with them. It isn’t treating them badly at all. And saying it is doesn’t make it so.

    Jesus told the woman who caught in adultery, I don’t condemn you but go and do not sin in this way again! Christ is Lord over all the earth. And you will either bow your knee to Christ sooner or later and confess that he is Lord.

    As far as socially redeeming value is concerned, if you mean the kind of social value that celebrates sexual perversion and the murder of innocent babies in their mother’s womb, then you’re right. But I think your “socially redeeming value” is a system that will inevitably destroy society, not redeem it. And it will do so because it actually doesn’t value it at all. It devalues it. It is ironic that I am talking to an individual who degrades sex and defense murder while at the same time talking about redemption and value. What a walking contradiction.

  • I want to make one thing abundantly clear: I do not agree with the position that a Christian cannot bake a cake for a gay wedding without sinning. If I were a baker, I would bake the cake while giving the gay couple the gospel and letting them know what God says about their lifestyle. And I would do so without compromise, but with respect. I want to make sure you understand that I am not defending a the decision. I am only defending their right to make that decision even though I disagree with it.

  • You said in animal world homosexuality is present among many species and it makes it acceptable among humans.

  • Just because anti-gay sentiment is not exactly like racism, it doesn’t make your POV any less discriminatory or what you advocate any different from segregation. You want to legally separate gays from the rest of the population for malicious special treatment. You want legal permission for such bad behavior. Segregation in another form than what we used to have. Same bigoted garbage for a new era.

    “Christians are not looking for ways to attack people. ”

    They just want to attack the basic dignity of other people, strip them of civil liberties, deny them goods and services in open commerce, deny them rightful access to government services. It is the picture I paint because it is the most honest representation of their efforts. You have been consistently been lying and using nonsense euphemisms to cover up plainly what is being advocated.

    “Oh, and no, I don’t think a man can self-identify and use a woman’s rest room. In that case, I support the right of women to use a bathroom without having a man in it.”

    So you don’t understand or care to understand what trans people are. Your ignorance and malice towards them is duly noted.

    “At what age can a person consent to sex?”

    Check the laws in your country. An analogy between gay marriage and pedophilia is blissfully fact free. Consenting adults in a loving relationship are not the same as a relationship with someone with whom relations are considered per se statutory tape.

    “Gays want to force their beliefs on everyone else and they want complete acceptance and celebration. ”

    In plainer and honest English, it means gays don’t want to be ostracized, attacked and discriminated against.

    “I support gay rights for any other right the rest of us have except for a couple: marriage, adoption. ”

    In more honest terms, you don’t want gays to form families.. You want to feel superior to gays who have such desires. When have you stopped lying? Not once have you considered gays as people. You constantly use dehumanizing language, make malicious remarks about them and support denying them basic civil liberties exercised by all citizens.

    “I know of no cases where a doctrine refused to see a patient simply on the ground that they are gay. ”

    Yet it was an important part of the “Mini RFRA” law VP elect Putz signed into law in Indiana and had to neuter. Plus the incident where a pediatrician refused to see a child of a gay couple that made the news last year. Denial is a poor argument for you to make..

    “That claim continues to be promoted but there is no evidence. Even if there was, it wouldn’t matter. ”

    Facts never matter to people looking for excuses to hate others. Given the complete lack of honesty by Christians on issues of scientific facts, I demand a link to some reliable source before I will take what you say on such matters at face value. It all comes down to you looking for excuses to treat gays as less than human. Pretty repugnant stuff by any moral standards. Then again given how utterly dishonest you have been in pretty much everything, there are doubts there is any understanding of morality coming from you.

  • I want to make one thing perfectly clear. You are a bigot. People who want to discriminate against others in the name of their faith are bigots too. If they suffer legal consequences for their actions in that regard, they deserve it.

    I don’t give a damn what you think God says on any subject. I never have to. Nobody ever has to. Your religion is not an excuse to attack others. You are simply looking for excuses to act maliciously. You are defending a right which does not exist. Your right to exercise your religious faith ends where you start to harm others. You have as much a right to discriminate in open commerce as I do to commit human sacrifice on your family.

    And no, I still will never have sympathy for bakers, florists or any vendor who thinks God gives them the excuse to say, “We don’t serve your kind”. Such people can go eff themselves as well as those who make excuses for them.

  • You are like every other liberal I know. Since you have no argument and cannot intellectually interact with mine, you leap over it, ignoring my points shout BIGOT as loudly as you can, and think you have said something profound. You have said nothing more than the average 5-year old says in a day. My view is that gay sex is unnatural, unhealthy, harmful, and violates God’s design for human sexuality. Gay marriage is not marriage. Marriage is an institution created and designed by God for his creation. He designed it to be between one man and one woman. Christian bakers do not target homosexuals, refusing to serve them. What they do is refuse to support an action they deem immoral. While I disagree with their decision in that area, I fully support their right to follow their conscience. Your rhetoric is bigoted, hateful, weak-minded, and without any scientific or moral ground. Your entire defense as well as your accusations are arbitrary. You want something to be a certain way, and just like the American protesters of the recent election, you are going to call people names and throw temper tantrums if you don’t get it. There is nothing intellectual to interact with in your comments. They have to be dismissed for the kindergarten sort of drivel they are, not to mention the lack of intellectual consideration they reflect.

  • Just because you don’t like pedophilia and you do like homosexuality, that does not mean you can arbitrarily condemn one and defend the other.

    If you want to make an argument in defense of this sort of sexual behavior and lifestyle, then by all means, make one. So far, empty and hateful rhetoric is all I read coming from your direction.

    My epistemic authority for condemning same sex behavior, and for rejecting gay marriage, and for insisting that human beings cannot self-identify is the Christian Scripture. I did not randomly choose that authority. It was chosen for me. It existed before me in the form of the divine nature of the Triune God it reveals. Your authority is you. You want gay sex to be morally acceptable. But pedophiles want their sex to be morally acceptable too. And so do polygamists. And so do rapists. I could go on and on. We do not get to decide what is moral and what is not and then impose that on others. Morality is eternally fixed in the character of a holy and loving God. No puny man can change that.

  • I am curious about your position on the legality of the version of Christianity I defend. Do you believe it should be banned? Should pastors be forbidden to preach against same-sex relations? Should their churches be subjected to government oversight? Should their seminaries and schools by monitored?

    Just curious if you think someone like me as a right to exist, that is, exist as I am?

  • No argument? You have been a liar from the get go. I call you a bigot because it is appropriate for your view. If you don’t want to be called one then stop advocating discrimination against a class of people for purely prejudicial reasons.

    There is nothing more pathetic than arguing about being labeled a bigot but not refuting its accuracy. You don’t want to be called one, but you don’t give me a reason why it would be false. You are just thin skinned and whiny.

    You despise gays and don’t want to treat them like human beings. You are too spineless to own up to your views so you claim it is religious belief. There is nothing arbitrary about my remarks. You just don’t like them.

    You have been dishonest from the start, acting as if rephrasing an action changed what it is. Well, no. You want to deny goods and services to people in open commerce, you want a class of people to be denied rightful access to government, you want to deny them the ability to form families. That is all bigoted nonsense. There is no rational argument for any of it. That us why you’ve rely on religious nonsense to support it.

    Hateful dishonest nonsense we can all do without.

  • Yes it does. Bad analogy is what people use when they can’t argue something on its own facts. Pedophilia does not involve consent or adults. Homosexual relations do. If you can’t tell the difference between consensual relationships between adults and ones which are not, that is your problem. Given the constant sexual abuse scandals from Christians like yourself, it paints a picture of people who have no concept of consent or adult relations. Hypocrites like Josh Duggar certainly couldn’t understand the concepts.

  • Still….no argument. Just more rhetoric. The number of Christians and Christian scholars who have published arguments and written on the issue of homosexual sex is staggering. That is written arbitrarily from the standpoint that we just want to target a class is absurd. Gays are not a class. Homosexual behavior is the issue, not a class of people. Your strategy doesn’t work with me Spuddie. I will not uncritically accept your basic assumptions. I will force you to demonstrate why these things ought to be believed. I reject the idea that homosexuals are a separate class of people. They are human beings who engage in a certain kind of sexual behavior. They are no more a separate class of people than people who play football, music, life weights, do martial arts, etc.

    What I believe is that homosexual sex is immoral. And I didn’t arrive at that conclusion just because I picked that behavior out over all others. It isn’t the only behavior that believe is immoral. Adultery is immoral. Fornication is immoral. Christian bakers won’t bake you a “shacking-up celebration” cake either. Why? Because they believe living together apart from marriage is immoral.

    Let’s make sure we are properly representing each other views. Answer my question. Do you believe Christians ought to be free to live out the teachings of the Bible or not? Their churches, schools, seminaries? Or, are you a communist?

  • See the first amendment.

    Your right to free exercise of religion does not grant you the right to harm others. You cannot use religion as excuses for discrimination, ritual murder, honor killing, child abuse, fraud, assault or any other public harm.

    Religious freedom means our laws never have to be in accordance with the religious views of anyone. Our laws must be both rational and secular. I never have to care what you think God says, nor can be compelled to.

  • Why does consent have anything to do with anything? Seems arbitrary. The reason rape is wrong is because God created man in his image and rape ignores and devalues God’s creation. But so does homosexual relations. In your view, it would be fine for me to cheat on my wife so long as my partner was consenting. Well, if it is wrong, then consent really isn’t the issue then is it. It must be something else. So your argument collapses. It actually begs the question. A father and a daughter having sex is okay in your world I suppose just as long as they are both consenting adults. Gang bangs and orgies are fine as well I suppose. Anything goes as long as you have consenting adults. That is really what this is all about. You ought to be able to do whatever you want whenever you want with very few prohibitions. By the way, homosexual relations are harmful…more harmful than hurting someone’s feelings by telling them you can’t bake them a cake.

  • You can blow those Christian scholars out your sphincter. They are not experts in anything other than their own sectarian views. Just because your religion requires a certain belief, it doesn’t make it true. In your case “Christian” is used as a qualifier to the subsequent word to denote it is far less than it. Something not up to par.

    I certainly don’t have to accept what someone says on the basis of their religious views. In fact it is almost never the case on such subjects that Christians are even the slightest bit honest. Yourself included.

    My argument from the beginning is that you fail to describe actions and positions accurately or honestly. It remains so. You have been giving me garbage euphemisms rather than truthfully describing a situation.

    You deny gays are a class of people but single them out for negative treatment. More dishonesty on your part.

    Someone who does business in open commerce must serve the entire public. If they can’t, they can do business in another fashion. Those bakers told the customers we don’t serve your kind. That makes their actions no differnent from any other form of discrimination

    The only honest thing you have said was your hatred of gays and your desire to ostracize and attack them.

    You want to violate anti discrimination laws without consequences. Tough luck. People who do so deserve whatever penalties the law brings. Eff them.

    You have always been welcome to your views and I have always been welcome to criticize them. I think your views are repugnant garbage. You are whining that you don’t like hearing that. So what?

  • Have you ever heard of the coalition of adulterers? or Fornicators? or maybe liars? Me either. So I reject the idea, the baseless idea that human beings can be classed based on sexual behavior. You have YET to establish warrant for your belief that homosexuality is defensible as a classification. It is simply sex between two people of the same gender. I believe that kind of sex is immoral. I do not treat homosexuals differently in any way. I treat them as I would any other human being. Gay marriage is an act based on a philosophy that opposes the Christian worldview. That is the ground for my objections. Pretty simple actually. You, on the other hand, are opening up all sorts of implausible views if one applies your logic to a variety of areas. Note you have not rebutted a single thing I said about perverse sex. You simply came back with more rhetoric.

  • “Why does consent have anything to do with anything? Seems arbitrary.”

    So rape is no different from other sexual relations to you. Speaks badly of your understanding of such things. Given the rampant sexual abuse within ultra conservative Christian circles, your reaction is far less surprising than it should be.

    If you think rape is wrong because god says so, it means you are not reading your Bible closely. Rape is a minor property crime in the Bible and a valid act against enemies.

    It’s telling that you don’t consider it an act against its victim. It shows how truly lacking you are in moral thinking. Rather than consider the impact of as an act on others, you simply look at self interest. Whether it will bring divine punishment or reward.

    Religious based sociopathy at its most obvious. You only value what life you think God seems worthy and believe God grants you license to harm others. You outsource your moral thinking to others.

    Since we do not live in a theocracy, your religious views have no bearing on our laws. Just because you think god approves of harming others, it doesn’t mean it needs to be seriously considered by our laws. And make no mistake, you advocate harming people because you think god says so. You can take your bullshit, “we just refuse to participate/celebrate” and shove it. You want to discriminate but are too spineless to say so in an honest manner.

    If it is such an imposition to comply with anti discrimination laws, then a vendor should get out of open commerce since they clearly can’t do what is necessary in such situations.

  • “Have you ever heard of the coalition of adulterers? or Fornicators? or maybe liars?”

    Yes, we call them the religious right. They are a group devoted to fact free positions and hypocritical views of morality. 🙂

    You are arguing out of both orifices here. One on hand gays are a class of people worthy of being ostracized and discriminated against. On the other hand, you deny them identity as a class of people. This is utterly contradictory. All just a way to distance yourself from the reality of the situation. Where you can justify attacking others with impunity.

    You want to claim sexual orientation is a choice, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (when did you decide to be heterosexual?). All because it is far easier to rationalize your bigotry against them if you do that.

    I have not taken a single word you said seriously because you have not provided a single honest representation of facts or position.

    Your whole position is “God hates gays, therefore it’s OK to treat them like garbage”. Everything has been about using obscuring language to pretend it is somehow acceptable or moral. You can’t even argue on it’s own facts, hence the necessity of bad analogy for your arguments.

    There is no logic to your views, just empty excuses for hate. There has been nothing honest or moral about your position.

  • Actually Spuddie, my argument is quite consistent logically speaking. You are accusing me of a contradiction. But it is not contradictory to say that gays are not a class of people and to condemn homosexual behavior any more than it is to say that drinkers are not a class of people and to condemn drunk driving or alcohol abuse. You will need to name the specific fallacy in my argument if you hope to prove your case.

    I have never said sexual orientation is or is not a choice. There is no science pointing to the fact that it is however. It could be that science will show some day that it is not a choice to have same-sex attraction. But if you think same-sex attraction is the equivalent of homosexual sex, you are sadly mistaken. I am attracted to a woman on occasion who is NOT my wife. Does that make it morally acceptable for me to have sex with her? Of course not. Same-sex attraction does not make homosexual sex moral. It does not make gay marriage legitimate. It just means you are attracted to people of the same sex, sexually speaking and you must deal with that temptation the same as any other human must deal with their respective temptation.

    I have also never said God hates gays. God takes the same disposition toward adultery that he takes toward homosexual sex and any sex outside the confines of His design of marriage. He hates all sin, all sexual sin. I would never say that God hates gay people. I don’t hate gay people. I have plenty of gay people who are colleagues, family, and friends and I don’t think any differently about them than I do about any other non-Christian I know.

    You fellows simply mangle and destroy the dictionary and your tactics are completely dishonest. It is a lie to say that a person who believes gay sex is a sin, hates gays. That is simply an outrageous lie. My son stole something not long ago. I hate stealing. I suppose I hate my son based on your ridiculous logic. Of course not. I can love my son and hate my son’s behavior at times. Anyone who argues you can’t is either dishonest or incompetent.

  • ” my argument is quite consistent logically speaking.”

    If you say so. I don’t believe a word of it. There isn’t an honest statement on your position to be made.

    “I have never said sexual orientation is or is not a choice.”

    Now you are flipflopping on your prior statements that it is not only a lifestyle choice but a sinful one. I have no expectation of honesty from you so far, so this sort of weaselwording and repudiation is not surprising.

    “It does not make gay marriage legitimate.”

    Nobody has to care whether you accept it as legitimate or not. It is the law, and even more importantly none of you anti-gay bigots ever had a rational and secular argument to be made why it required being banned under color of law. Which is why you guys lost in court.

    “I have also never said God hates gays. ”

    Bullshit. You think its a duty of Christians to attack gays for existing. You encourage denying them goods and services in open commerce. You encourage attacking their civil liberties. You consider them unworthy of forming families. All backed by your alleged religious belief. That God approves of your malicious stance.

    ” It is a lie to say that a person who believes gay sex is a sin, hates gays.”

    You are reducing people to a sexual act. That belies a dismissive hateful manner. A way to distance yourself from considering gays as fellow human beings.

    “My son stole something not long ago. I hate stealing. I suppose I hate my son based on your ridiculous logic.”

    So now homosexuals are the same as thieves. How ridiculous All you have proven is that you want to find some way to reduce, demean and dehumanize gays as people.

    “I can love my son and hate my son’s behavior at times.”

    So if your son was gay, would you banish him from your home? Would you want him treated like garbage by your fellow Christians?
    All signs point to that you would be such a repugnant person as to do such things. Everything about your posts denotes a level of hate you express for gays. You don’t want to own up to it, because it makes you look bad, but it is apparent from your dishonest and dehumanizing spiel.

    Have a nice life bigot. Your nonsense may work among your Christianist social circle but it is a giant pile of lying garbage among anyone else.

    I will pray for you that your God will grant you the wisdom and understanding you are so lacking presently.

  • I am not flip flopping at all. I try to be very careful in what I say. I have said there is no science to support the view that homosexual attraction is not a choice. That is different from saying that it isn’t a choice. Just because there is no science today does not mean there won’t be tomorrow. It also does not mean that same sex attraction is a choice. It is irrelevant to my position either way. It doesn’t matter if it is or is not a choice.

    Just because something is legal, that does not make it moral, nor does it make it legitimate. Murdering babies is legal also. Slavery was legal at one time. They are all immoral.

    The refusal on the part of some Christians to bake a wedding cake for gay marriage is not equivalent to denying them goods and services. Not even close. Your rhetoric is over the top.

    I do not wish to demonize anyone as a person. My position has nothing to do with a person and everything to do with a behavior and a philosophy. Perhaps you shouldn’t allow sexual behavior to serve as your major or sole identifier. That is your problem if that is what you are doing, not mine. I do not identify myself by the kind of sex I engage in. Why do you? There is so much more to me than my sexuality.

    I would not banish my son from my home if he were gay. I have gay family members and they all know they are welcome at my home any time.

    It is very unfortunate that you take the position you do. I personally believe that it is your own conscience that is eating at you and you blame that on Christianity or people like me. I hope you realize that gaining the approval of the whole world isn’t going to change that internal mechanism that tells you this behavior is immoral. Nothing will unless God completely removes that restraint. But when that happens, heaven help you. All men owe God full obedience. But we cannot obey because we are sinners with a sin nature, enjoying things we should not. God sent His Son to redeem men to himself. Faith in Christ is your only hope at finding peace. I pray that God may grant to you the repentance that leads to eternal life in Christ Jesus.

    Take care.

  • ” I try to be very careful in what I say.”

    You are using trite euphemisms to pretend certain actions and attitudes are something else entirely. There is not one honest representation made in your position.

    “Just because there is no science today does not mean there won’t be tomorrow.”

    It just made you a lying turd when you said science supports your view. But then again, you have been one throughout the discussion. So my level of care about this specific lie on your part is non-existent.

    I couldn’t care less whether you think homosexuality is a choice or innate. Facts differ wildly from your claims. Hence the reliance on what religious figures say bout it. Why be correct when you can say you sincerely believe something?

    ” It also does not mean that same sex attraction is a choice. It is irrelevant to my position either way.”

    Of course it is relevant. How else can you justify discriminatory and malicious behavior against them unless you consider it some kind of character flaw or sinful behavior on their part? Otherwise you are just advocating attacking people based on innate characteristics of them. Like racism, only different.

    I have zero desire to see how you try to weasel out of the position you stated across several posts today. I never thought you had a scintilla of honesty from the get-go. So I don’t care one whit what your excuses are right now.

    Now the conversation degenerated into you trying to backtrack from previous contentions. I don’t really care what you have to say at this point. You made your position resoundingly clear at this point. No need to go any further. I can’t think any less of your position now than I did from the outset.

    “Perhaps you shouldn’t allow sexual behavior to serve as your major or sole identifier. ”

    Btw I am not gay. I just have a low tolerance for bigotry, malice, dishonesty and discrimination. Your position is repugnant to everything I cherish about people, our nation and civil liberties. You are more than entitled to your views as I am to call them out. I do not think you are a moral or an honest person.

  • It’s highly unfortunate someone like Pence and his cohorts will be heavily influencing and writing policy for the country for the next few years. People do call dogma religion. There’s no difference. Neither are good. There are some good morals that come with religion, as well as some shitty ones. Both practiced. I’ll pass on the fairy tales and choose to act properly of my own volition, and in the meantime, I can support meaningful policies grounded in reason and evidence, like addressing global warming. Hopefully the damage these idiots do won’t be irreparable.

  • You do realize your a bigot don’t you? Think about that for a second. You just are bigoted against a different kind of person than you say I am bigoted against. And your arguments are far from honest. I don’t have a sense of entitlement at all. What I have a sense of is duty. The dignity of human beings is at stake. And I am very sorry, but I don’t take my ethics from a person who celebrates unnatural sex and the murder of innocent babies. I take my ethics from Jesus Christ and all that His Word reveals to us about what it means to actually love human beings and value them. Good day to you Spud. You have taken up enough of my time.

  • Oh no, I am intolerant of your intolerance! Can you be a bigger cliche at this point? I have this complete and total dislike of people who pretend religious belief is license to act like raging sociopaths. I have an aversion to people who look for excuses for discrimination. That doesn’t make me a bigot. That makes me someone with actual principles. Not the kind of phony “conscience” that Christians when they are unable to treat people badly or force people to do as they demand.

    Your POV is one of someone who does not respect boundaries of others. Who seeks to trespass upon others. Who treats others as their own chattel property to mistreat as they wish. There is nothing of Jesus in your Christianity. There is nothing resembling ethics in using scripture to excuse harming others. There is nothing resembling love or value of human beings in your view. There is simply imposing yourself onto others.

  • What you are is an ignorant liar Spud. The Christian belief that homosexual sex is a religious commitment that is thousands of years old. It isn’t people looking for a license to discriminate. It isn’t discrimination. Your entire position fails to prove any of the things you claim. In fact, most of what you say involves judgments that go to the heart motivations of the people you criticize. And that is impossible.

    My God is Creator of all that is. He has no boundaries Spuddie. He has full right to design everything according to his good pleasure. The basis of my view of gay sex is the fact that God has spoken about that behavior and he has expressly and clearly prohibited it in the strongest terms.

    Jesus’ view on marriage was that it was between one man and one woman. Matt. 19
    Denouncing gay sex is not harmful to anyone. It is the most loving thing one can do.
    Helping people understand God’s design for sex demonstrates the highest love and places the highest value on human beings and human sexuality.
    This view is thousands of years old. It predates me. Therefore, it is not my view. It is a view revealed by God to human beings through nature, but even more clearly, through Scripture.

    Your rhetoric is over the top sophmoric and your arguments are utterly ridiculous. The only support you will get will come from those who wish to live their lives contrary to God’s will, and in opposition to God’s law, in a manner that ignores God’s holy nature. The view that gay marriage and gay sex is normal and healthy is the new kid on the block. The view that I have to accept your thoughts on this subject or else I am a hateful bigot is the new kid on the block. Neither view has support in reality. Both views are scientifically baseless, philosophically empty, logically bankrupt, and spiritually immoral.

  • So you are a bigot who is too spineless to own up to your prejudices and uses religious belief to pretend it is somehow acceptable.

    Your hate is so overwhelming that it defines your version of Christianity. Out of all the iterations of Christianity out there, this malicious dishonest version appealed to you. Religion doesn’t force you to be this way. It just enables you to do so. In the end it’s all you.

  • and yet still it is the freedom of any business the right to refuse service because they are private…this was wrongly enforced…

  • No it isn’t. Hasn’t been a valid argument since it was first employed to refuse service to people of color in the “Ollie’s BBQ” case in 1965.

    So now you are recycling arguments which were used to uphold Jim Crow and fight the Civil rights act. Bigots haven’t changed tactics in 50 years, just people to attack.

    You are still a terrible person to support denying goods and services in open commerce based on personal bigotry. So terrible the laws in many states rightfully penalize you for bring such a malicious person.

  • It has a strong tradition of philanthropy that created a culture of giving
    and caring unmatched by any other civilization in human history. You may
    not know, or you may, that Christianity is responsible for establishing
    the first hospitals and hospices in the fourth century. They were
    founded by Basil of Caesarea when a famine struck Cappadocia. (you might
    look up those points for a better grasp)
    It has a blood-red tradition of recurring reform movements that have no
    parallel in other civilizations. He lists such influential people as
    Wilberforce and Bonhoeffer and the social good they did, even to the
    point of losing their own lives.
    It is the source of universities that today represent one of the most
    powerful institutions in the world. Education has only become
    secularized in the past seventy or so years. Before then, it was highly
    religious, even in “public” schools. Just ask your grandparents if
    they’re still living. Harvard, Yale, and the Ivy League institutions of
    today were established by clergymen and ran by them for years. Religion
    always factored into education on the collegiate level and the primary
    school level.
    It is the fountainhead of modern science, which along with capitalism and
    technology is revolutionizing the global world. The roots of science go
    back to the ancient Greeks, but Christians picked up on it. The
    hospitals and hospices established used Greek medical theory to care for
    people and added faith to the practice of medicine.
    It is the pioneer and champion of human dignity, human rights, and the
    entire human rights revolution. This is due to the Jewish and Christian
    belief that each person is made in God’s image.
    Sadly you speak on matters you know lil about…

  • I am still a terrible person, what the hell are you talking about??? You need to set yourself straight as this is my first comment, now here are the facts;

    1. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits RESTAURANTS from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.

    2. “Right to Refuse Service to Anyone” Signs are Legal but do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals. For example , businesses can refuses on a “religious” right. These words are often found posted in business establishments such as restaurants, retail stores, cinemas, and other places. While businesses have some degree of control over who they provide services and products for, they must still abide by federal, state, and local laws when denying service to a customer.

    For instance, businesses still need to abide by constitutional laws such as equal protection and anti-discrimination laws. Thus, a business generally can’t refuse service based on a person’s race, religion, sex, or other “protected characteristics”.

    3. Right of Refusal of service doesn’t just happen between the business and customers. Sometimes they can happen between businesses who are collaborating in a business contract. Here, a refusal of service can negatively affect the other business, who may depending on the other business’ service in order to generate profit. This can often cause a business dispute and may constitute a breach of contract depending on the circumstances.

    In such cases, the refusal of service may basically mean that one business is not performing their contract duties. This may result in a lawsuit and remedies such as monetary damages, or specific performance of the contractual duties.

    In other instances, the legal conflict may revolve around a contract that a customer has with the business. In a similar fashion, the business may be held to the terms of the contract if they are found to be in violation due to a refusal of services.

    You do not have the right to refuse service to anybody…there are
    protected classes. There are state laws, federal laws and local laws that provide protection against discrimination. Cassandra Meynard, a Tucson litigation attorney with Mesch Clark and
    Rothschild, said business owners can refuse to serve customers, but must
    be careful that the denial of service.

    4. Religious Reasons for Refusal.Many small business owners have deep religious convictions which not only guide their spiritual lives but also how they run their businesses. Though as in what you brought up some states’laws prohibit businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. So there in lies the conflict. Still, that hasn’t stopped some small business owners from testing that law.

    Do you want me to go on? These are not my laws but the laws of the U.S.A. and I am just quoting the facts, dont like them? Lobby to change them. Problem is most ppl have what they think to be an understanding of the law, but what they have is an illusion that someone has told them.

  • I’ll concede that archaic science had its roots blended with religion. Stuff before the microscope was invented, etc. They’ve long since parted ways and share no contemporary overlap. It’s not like religious institutions are on the forefront of pushing action on climate change, educating its clergy that the earth is older than 10,000 years, seeking to develop practical applications with stem cell research, or confirming that we are the products of billions of years of evolution. Science left religion back in the stone ages, back where it’s comfortable. Science can objectively look at life without superimposing unsupported beliefs upon it. This is the foundation of critical thinking. It’s time for religion to be replaced with knowledge. Myths aren’t meant to be taken seriously.

  • Doesn’t really matter what you concede to, what I presented were facts…not mine but belonging to history. Christianity is still involved in the fields I mentioned, and only about 28% of the church I think it is even believes in a 7000 yr earth (or the Bible being the word of God for that matter), those that do fall back on miracles as for the evidence that science keeps changing. While some in science claim Earth is around 4.54 billion years many say man is only is 340,000 years old. And to correct you again proponents of an
    Old Earth view believe that the earth was created by God has existed for millions (if not billions) of years and that
    the human race is young, having only been in existence for 6,000
    years (since 4,004 BC). You mention stem cells, Christianity supports and studies research on adult stem cells has been going
    on for decades and has proven that there are therapeutic effects in
    treating cancer, autoimmune diseases, leukemia, and heart disease. Adult
    stem cells are obtained from living bone marrow, blood, brain tissue,
    skin, and body fat. Other sources rich in adult stem cells are
    umbilical-cord blood and the placenta.
    Now these things aside I understand your fear of folklore BUT that is no reason to speak on matters you do not really understand, and the more you do speak the more you show,well, you have not applied “critical thinking” toward Christianity. To quote a scientist you may appreciate Albert Einstein “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” so it would seem in part he would disagree with you. But what did he know right?

  • The fact is you are looking for legal excuses for malicious actions. You are a terrible person.
    List of misrepresentations and fictions in your Gish Gallop of reasons why you are a bad person.
    1. Civil Rights Act covers all open commerce. Not just restaurants. How ignorant or dishonest are you?

    2. Right of refusal of service does not include entire classes of people. No shoes no service is not the same as we don’t serve gays. Religion doesn’t give you a right to discriminate in open commerce. No anti discrimination law or the civil rights act give you such a right. It was already tried 50 years ago to use religious based white supremacy as an excuse to discriminate on the basis of race in open commerce. Bigotry doesn’t change tactics, just victims.

    3. Anti discrimination laws don’t cover business to business transactions. Your statement is an irrelevance.

    4. Open commerce is open commerce. Your religious beliefs are never an excuse to discriminate when doing it. The first amendment covers a right to discriminate the same way it covers human sacrifice, not at all.

    If your religious convictions are so strong that you are compelled to attack people in service of it, you don’t belong in open commerce. You deserve to be sued or fined out of business. Your religion is not grounds to attack others. Discrimination is an attack on others. Separate but equal is not a defense here. The availability of other stores does not excuse discriminatory behavior ever.

    The facts are, the laws don’t support your ideas. That is why bigots have been lobbying to undermine current anti discrimination laws and attack the first amendment. It is why you guys whine and pretend those people who paid penalties for their bad behavior are somehow victims.

    You are not only a terrible person, but a dishonest or vehemently ignorant one. Wherever you are getting this garbage from is completely incorrect on anything resembling a fact.

  • What I also presented were facts, updated facts newer than the 18th century. Religion may get credit from the bronze age, but that has a shelf life. To the extent that religion supports science today, it’s either a selective slice of science, or if the entire spectrum, then it’s a very new age group that does not have widespread support and is not representative of the religious community at large.

    They may support adult stem cells, but they oppose embryonic stem cells, which can divide into any cell in the body (as opposed to just the tissues the adult stem cells tissue of origin) and can easily be grown in cultures. But you’re right that they’re not 100% opposed to stem cells; I should have clarified.

    In the US, around 40+% of the population believes the earth is only 10,000 yrs old.
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

    I wasn’t speaking on an “old earth” view. I was speaking about the young earth creationists. But I thank you for attributing me with distortions that you could have fun knocking down. Maybe next time, less straw man arguments though.

    Yeah, yeah, Newton was religious too. I suppose of even genius’s can believe bullshit, then it must be true. Still, if your argument boils down to which people of note stack up on your side, I’ll give you Einstein and put them against the great atheists and philosophers any day of the week. Einstein’s forte, you may have noticed, was in math and physics, rather than religious proofs, which was starkly absent in his body of works. So hopefully he said enough unpersuasive statements to help make your case. Good luck!

  • right, you can not win your point so you have to accuse me of logical fallacies and that is the biggest logical fallacy of the all, your type make us atheists look ignorant…just go learn about the stuff you post b4 you post, you do have the web at your finger tips after all…hahaha…or maybe you need to go back and “clairify” every thing you rant about so you wont have to change your statements hahaha…I am done w/your bullshit…

  • again name caller (do you always argue with logical fallacies??? accusing one of gish gallop is a major logical fallacy when you do not prove the person wrong and as well as personal attacks on the person and not the points but it is cute that you act like you know what gish gallop is or even logical fallacies hahaha) why dont you go back and read up on the laws and learn them because that is all I have done , without calling names, is to go back and state factual credible verifiable evidence…like I said, you dont like it, lobby to change it…and as far as what I am, my girlfriend (who is a trans) does not think I am terrible, she thinks I am very tolerant and accepting of life styles…tolerance the word for the day, drop your bigoted comments…I am done with your un researched bullshit…

  • If you are just complaining about being called a bigot, tough luck. You have done nothing to show it is incorrect or inappropriate. Only you don’t like it. I couldn’t care less how comfortable you are with the label.

    You gave a litany of wildly incorrect information. Either you are ignorant of the facts or dishonest. Either way, it does little to show you should be taken seriously. You wildly misstated the laws in question and I already pointed it out. You also don’t understand what as Gish gallop is either. Its not a logical or rhetorical fallacy. It’s a tactic of debate used by purveyors of bovine effluvia.

    More obviously, the laws favor my view, since the issue is people trying to change them to allow for discrimination. The facts speak for themselves.

    In the end you are a terrible person. Someone looking for a socially acceptable and legal excuse to tell people, “Eff you, we don’t serve your kind, we’re Christians”.

    Tolerance doesn’t mean acceptance of malice or harm to others. Quite the opposite. It means one should stand up to such things and defend those who are on its receiving end. I don’t have to tolerate your intolerance. My views are pretty clear. Just look at my posts on this subject in this thread I harvested everything which needs to be said here.

  • don’t say I am wrong, prove my points are wrong, they are legal facts, yes your views opinions some facts are pretty clear, as is your hate…all I did was point to case and point where there is laws on the books, and just for posterity’s sake…I am not Christian…god you are such a name caller, you are so full of hate, it is no wonder you can not be spoken with…and son,Gish Gallop is just the omission of a premise or a lack of clarity, and that is NOT what I have done here.However, it ultimately becomes a logical fallacy itself because its just a label for an argument that uses big words or
    that the person doesn’t understand.

    And others fallacies you have violated. Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity, Circular reasoning(circulus in demonstrando) – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion, Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes. Moral high ground fallacy – in which one assumes a “holier-than-thou” attitude in an attempt to make oneself look good to win an argument. Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument the speaker believes is easier to speak to.

    And lets not forget the one you excell in, Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument. Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.[63] Abusive fallacy – a subtype of “ad hominem” when it turns into verbal abuse of the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.

    You are not really very good at this son…and with that I bid you a Happy New Year for you are no longer worth my time, but please have the last word as I know your type must have…attack away…

  • I not only refuted your arguments in the prior posts, I pointed out where you got facts completely wrong. You are just annoyed I pointed those things out. Whatever you claim to be, you are parroting the terrible, fact free arguments being used by Conservative Christians to attack anti-discrimination laws in order to give their bigotry color of law.

    You don’t like being called names, so what? You are an adult. Have a spine. The names are perfectly appropriate for your POV. You have done nothing to show they were incorrect. So I don’t honestly care if your feelings are hurt here.

  • son, my feelings are not hurt hahaha, that would be an emotional response and you and I have no relationship between us to prompt that kind of emotion …and you have still yet to prove here the Laws I cited are wrong as they are not my POV,just your say so does not make it so. we have only spoke for like 3 posts, I do not know who you think I am but I am not them, I am not a Christian either …and you talk about using fact free arguments , well son you should know…as far as name calling goes I point that out to show your whole way of debate is built on logical fallacies son…you are not very good at this stuff at all…go study up, you have the entire web at your fingers…till then it is just best until you can give a point by point post (the reason you haven’t is because you can not) where the Laws I cited are not Laws in effect , well then it is best you stay quiet and be thought the fool…cause you really are removing all doubt…and with that this honestly is my last response as I will not allow myself to be goaded into another one (just could not resist pointing out how you were wrong still about so much)…go put big boy pants on you lawyer wanna be…your problem is not that you are ignorant of knowledge it is that you think you have knowledge…hahaha…though I do look forward to your next response as you proved with this response I know the type of sociopath/narcissistic personality you have…gbye son…

  • You blatantly misstated the civil rights act and it went downhill from there.

    Let’s put it in simple terms. If the laws supported your POV already, there wouldn’t be all this lobbying currently to change them and enact discriminatory “mini RFRA” laws. That is just basic logic.

    As for the rest of your post, I did not bother to read it. You have gone off the deep end and are just flinging poo. Have a happy new year.

  • No, but can you name a deeply religious Christian leader that murdered the millions that those atheistic leaders did?

  • Some laws are unjust or support sexual immorality and need to be disobeyed as with civil disobedience. Martin Luther King did exactly that with unjust/immoral laws of his days. The Christian bakers are doing the same with unjust/immoral laws of our times. Just because non-religious or weakly religious people don’t consider those laws (such as the laws allowing for gay “marriage’) to be immoral, doesn’t make them any less so. Man must obey GOD’s laws and disobey man’s laws when necessary

  • WTF does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

    The issue is the conservative political habit of cronyism and devastating their polities under the guise of fiscal responsibility

    TO answer your irrelevance and to feed your trollery, we have every European monarch, leader and official head of state religion going from 1492 to the mid 20th Century. When colonialism stopped being a thing. Besides commies aren’t atheist per se. They have their own religion of the state. See the Kims of North Korea for a real example.

  • Your version of morality and religion is pretty worthless. You use arbitrary proof texting of scripture to justify malicious attacks on others. There is nothing worthy of respect in such beliefs. You are a terrible person. See my prior comments.

  • Basically you are saying that religious freedom laws sometimes come in direct conflict with anti-discrimination laws. Up to now the Obama administration by EXECUTIVE actions has always favored anti-discrimination laws over religious rights laws. ALL that can be undone by executive action again by a future president, such as Trump. Trump can also pick judges that will favor religious freedom OVER anti-discrimination in future conflicts and teh Republican congress can modify laws to support that as well. What goes around comes around…. Losing an election HAS consequences, and you will soon see that.

    Also to say that if you are religious and can’t agree to suppress your beliefs and act in an immoral way in your business or in your job then you should own no business or job to support yourself and just die of starvation or live in poverty is a ridiculous position to take.

    You quote Civil Right Laws , constitutional provisions and other man-made laws as if they are somehow SACRED and unchangeable. They are not. They must be changed when they contradict God’s higher laws.

  • Except they aren’t religious freedom laws at all. They only protect one religious view at the expense of other religious views. They are discrimination under pretense. The first amendment is not license to harm others in the name of your religion. Neither is the RFRA. Btw sparky you are wrong about executive actions, its the courts which think those discriminatory laws are nonsense. Most of them get de-fanged when public outcry is too large because discriminatory pissants are too afraid of having them challenged in the court system.

    BTW I refuse to cede the term “religious freedom” to such bigoted perversion of the term by people like yourself. You don’t want religious freedom. You want license to attack people at will.

    Be honest and call them what they are, the “We Hate The Gays” laws.

  • You are just favoring homosexuals over Christians. Both are people, but their world views are irreconciliable. You just picked a side. The same could have been said for a Christian refusing to work with or provide services for a child molester or a a sadistic murderer. I pick the Christian’s side. You don’t.

  • I am favoring a civil society over bigotry and miscreants.

    I couldn’t care less what your religious beliefs are. I never have to. What I care about is what kind of nonsense are you willing to do in service of that belief.

    The fact that you can’t distinguish between a child molester, murderer and someone who is in a consensual adult relationship shows you have some major issues in your moral makeup. You strike me as a sociopath. Someone with no sense of morality, just looking for excuses to attack others for your own pleasure.

    Your version of Christianity has nothing worth respecting. It seems to enable immoral acts under the guise of proof texting and spurious claims.

  • “I don’t give a damn what you think God says on any subject. I never have to. Nobody ever has to….” Actually you WILL have to when you die and have to face God’s judgement about whether your eternity belongs in Heaven or Hell.

  • God destroyed recalcitrant gays in Sodom and Gomorrah. Just about every non-Christian culture also condemns or discourages homosexuality. There is historical and cultural evidence why the gay lifestyle has always been considered wrong. You sound like you believe discrimination is ALWAYS wrong. It is not. Sometimes it can be good. It is GOOD to discriminate against evil and immoral behavior.

  • I prefer not to use mythology as the basis of our laws. All you are showing is that religion is antithetical to notions of civil liberties. Our laws are not answerable to your religious beliefs nor am I under any compulsion by law to care.

    “It is GOOD to discriminate against evil and immoral behavior.”

    Hence I oppose the bullshit you call religious excuses for malicious actions.

  • Oooh another believer who has to make silly threats of eternal damnation when they lose an argument.

    “My invisible sky daddy will beat you up!”

  • @scwjr:disqus @toddyo1935:disqus @Golbez:disqus @disqus_2PBSq59NaE:disqus @robert_pollock:disqus @spuddie:disqus @eddingess:disqus @crusader1234:disqus

    Sounds like a Jesuit pretending to be something else to gain American support while upholding his secret Jesuit Oath? Washington and the CIA are Filled with Catholics running, abusing and taking advantage of our nation’s force and military for Vatican inquisitions around the world since World War 1. What on earth does “Born Again” and “Catholic” ever mean or existed? Never did. Because according to the Bible, one can ONLY be born again through the Holy Spirit within themselves by accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, who died for our sins, NOT earthy institutions, childhood upbringings, or how often you close your eyes in a fake mass church, all Satanic and counterfeit to deceive, piggyback and hijack the true church, those who follow God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, NOT the Vicar (Latin for Anti) of Christ, the Pope.

    Catholics, God has warned you through Revelation… COME OUT OF HER comeoutofher.org

    Revelation 17
    “And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.“

    Despite that the word “Christian” has been tainted, hijacked and misused inappropriately, the ONLY way to know somebody truly saved and committed to “God” (which are many gods), are those who profess Jesus and deny earthly cults like Vatican, Islam, Buddhism or ANY Religion made by man. History proves this, and the wars occurring through governmental powers around the world controlling bloodline bankers, masons, occult groups and religions that God rejects. Come out of her fornications my friends.

    Vatican / Jesuits / Catholic Church Control CIA
    Let’s Talk About The Catholic Church: Its Satanic History Exposed
    Satanic History of the Catholic Church
    Hagmann & Hagmann report host Eric Jon Phelps – The Real Powers Behind The NWO [10, July 2014]
    The Black Pope: A History of the Jesuits
    Washington In the Lap of Rome
    Ex Jesuit Alberto Rivera and others Speak on Jesuit infiltration
    The Godfathers

  • I agree with you but depends on what context and rhetoric you define it with? Christians are NOT Catholics, and vice versa. The war is the Vatican infiltration to subvert Christian America with the Bible, Constitution and their Guns, NOT Papal Vatican garbage with a dirty past, pretending to be Christians, hijacking the Christianity and blaspheming Jesus, the entire purpose of the creation of the Vatican since 300AD.

  • As catholics & christians we are dedicated as early as when we leave the hospital and the next sunday rolls around. Well when we become of age to fully understand God, what it means to serve Him we can choose to get baptized. This is us giving our life to God and we become “born again”. It isn’t some stupid label. It is a serious thing to be a teenager (or whenever you decide. Sometimes people don’t know about God until they are adults and when they become baptized they are born again) and dedicate your life to serve God and be a man or woman of God.

  • Not quite what the Bible teaches, i.e. Daniel , Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego did not cause civil unrest and for that matter Jesus didn’t either…

  • I believe Pence is trying to move away from the evangelical label. He calls himself a Christian first which is ok as an individual as long as you don’t mandate that all people should think like you do. Being the VP of the country he needs to look at every ones religious beliefs or not and realize that diversity has always been the best answer. How you conduct your life will determine the choice people take.

  • No one wants to take Christianity out of America. We would just like ALL religion kept out of government. We should never consider legislation that targets religions other than our own. Our own started out as Christianity. Many different flavors, but still Christian. People should live the faith, not push their view of it down others’ throats.

  • I have to disagree, there are indeed ppl that want Christianity out of America , there are ppl that would like all religions for the most part retired to the folklore that they are thought that they are, there are ppl that think that those who follow religion are not using deductive reasoning or logic and are a danger to children when they indoctrinate them with these toughts…so yes very much there are ppl that want Christianity out of America . And we have the Establishment Clause to prevent religions being targeted and from any being lifted up over another. Lastly the VAST majority of Christians are Sunday go to meeting pew warmers and never discuss their religion out side of church…those that push their views that way are in the minority of the faith…

  • Golbez,

    Hitler never believed in God because he thought he was God. So, in that regard Hitler was anti-God which is the same as being an atheist. To deny the deity of God is Antichrist. Also, to put the facts where the facts are: Hitler was a satanist and hated God, Jews and Christians. Hitler worshiped the devil and drank the blood of dead people and his doctors and scientists gave Russian resistance soldiers pharmacological elixirs to make them addicted to drinking the blood of dead children. Hitler was diabolical and psycho as they murdered millions of innocent people (old people, children, disabled, and gays). So stop talking like you know anything at all.

  • Here’s a 2 minute youtube clip that would reveal how silly your rebuttal is. I don’t suspect you’ll watch it though:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8VFFW0sbF4

    Also if he thinks he is god, then clearly he’s not an atheist, which is an abject denial in the assertion of the evidence of god. Also, the devil is just as nonsensical. You can’t believe in mythical religious monsters and be an atheist. Definitions are confusing you.

    Christopher Hitchens again in this other 2 min youtube clip expands on the argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgAPyS-NPZ4

  • You left out fact-averse Fox News addict, Breitbart propagandist and Infowars conspiracy theorist.

  • Religious belief is not an excuse for discriminatory actions in business. Don’t invite them to your house if you so choose. However, if you are a business that serves the public, you must serve all members of the public.

  • It’s never to late to hear the word of God and repent.and be saved, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.” John 3:16-19 ESV

  • Tom, where did you learn your history? We need to shut down that school system. America was not founded as a Christian nation. Many of the Founding Fathers did not consider themselves Christians. Abraham Lincoln did not consider himself a Christian.

  • I think you should go through Church history again. Where does it show in the Bible that Jesus was the founder of the Catholic church? The words that he is supposed to have spoken in Mathew 16:18,19 were not recorded by any foolproof means. In fact, the New Testament and the Gospels were written twenty to forty years after the death of Christ and the stories we read in the Gospels evolved after many translations and re-translations through the turbulent history of the period around 20- 40 AD and beyond till the first two centuries.. To say that Jesus founded the Church and the Church codified the Bible is highly inaccurate.

  • Maybe he’s not really smart. A Catholic who then goes to church somewhere else and doesn’t seem contrite about it. It’s a mortal sin. We all know where that leads.

  • “blood-red tradition” – right on: The Nine Crusades (see: http://www.historytoday.com/jonathan-phillips/crusades-complete-history), the various Inquisitions (see:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition ) and other Christian religious fanaticism (i.e. the Puritan witch burning), etc..

    There are at least 6 modern day “Christian” terrorist groups in the US alone (see: http://www.salon.com/2015/04/07/6_modern_day_christian_terrorist_groups_our_media_conveniently_ignores_partner/ ).

    Wars throughout the world continue to be fueled by religious strife, including those perpetuated by Christian ethnic groups (i.e. the Serbian massacres).

    According to a very recent study, religious conflicts – including those perpetuated by “Christians” are on the rise throughout the world (see: “Religious conflict in global rise” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/10572342/Religious-conflict-in-global-rise-report.html )

  • Jesus did not found the Catholic Church. The doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church does not match what Christ teaches. Constantine was the Catholic beginnings. The Bible.doea.nit teach the immaculate conception of Mary or her being sinless. The apostles were not prayed to and neither Jesus nor the apostles.taught this. The Holy Bible says we are.not to call anyone “Father” than Almighty God and that we have one High Priest, and He is the One we pray through, directly to Christ. That is what scripture teaches, not man.

  • So many people confuse keeping religion out of government. That part of the constitution was meant to keep government out of churches not the other way around. Our government was built on Christian values.

  • You’re nuts. You really are. Conservative Christianity is destroying our democracy. Happy Holidays to you!

  • What planet are you from? Jesus never founded the Catholic Church. How illiterate are you? How far do you plan to stretch the truth to accommodate and justify your personally developed beliefs?

  • Wasn’t it the Christian Europeans that launched the Crusades in 1095 and invaded the Middle East (Levant) to kill the Arabs, and separately and unprovoked, in 1204, murdered, raped and plundered the Byzantine Christians in Constantinople so that they could acquire their riches? Wasn’t it the Christians of central and northern Europe that conducted pogroms against the Jewish communities of Europe during the Middle Ages? Wasn’t it Christian monks in Egypt that raped, murdered and tore the Egyptian philosopher Hypatia’s body apart because she was not a follower of Christian dogma.Weren’t the first hospitals created to repair the bodies of Christians trying to murder people in a region outside of their lands? Are those the innovations that you refer to? Wasn’t it the European Christians that invaded and exterminated the Native Americans of South and North America so they could take indigenous properties and material wealth for themselves? Are those the contributions that you are referring to?

  • Sorry, but the bad examples of the Catholic church does not deny the goodness of the teachings of Christ. Biblical christianity is not represented by Catholicism or American Protestants.

  • Is you are referring Catholicism, yes, they have been at war with some science…but Rome does not represent true Christianity.

ADVERTISEMENTs