Ken Ham, president of the Christian apologetics organization Answers in Genesis, discusses Charles Darwin's theory of evolution during a lecture at the University of Central Oklahoma in Edmond, Okla., on March 5, 2018. RNS photo by Bobby Ross Jr.

After a rescinded invitation, Ken Ham talks about God at an Oklahoma university

EDMOND, Okla. (RNS) — Students at the University of Central Oklahoma got a lesson in free speech as the 16,000-student public university welcomed a presentation by Ken Ham, a nationally known creationist who rejects Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

The lecture Monday (March 5) by the founder of the Ark Encounter — a $102 million, 800-acre Noah’s Ark theme park that opened in Williamstown, Ky., two years ago — came weeks after the university’s student government association rescinded an invitation for Ham to speak on campus. Some students, who deem Ham homophobic, objected to student funds being used to bring him to campus.

[ad number=“1”]

After the student group’s decision made national headlines, UCO President Don Betz stepped in and reinvited Ham to offer his talk on “Genesis and the State of the Culture” at the public university’s Constitution Hall.

University officials also built a forum on free speech rights around Ham's visit: two days of programming on understanding and exercising the First Amendment guarantee.

Betz cited the historic commitment of the 127-year-old university, about 15 miles north of Oklahoma City, to critical and civil examination of ideas, no matter how controversial. And ultimately, Betz funded Ham’s $4,500 fee through unrestricted donations made to the university by individuals and organizations, said Adrienne Nobles, a UCO spokeswoman.

Some of the estimated 500 attendees who listened to Ken Ham in a lecture hall at the University of Central Oklahoma in Edmond, Okla., on March 5, 2018. Others watched the live feed in a nearby overflow room. RNS photo by Bobby Ross Jr.

 This image is available for web and print publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

“No tuition or state-appropriated funds were used,” Nobles said.

Ham is president of the Christian apologetics organization Answers in Genesis, which also owns the $27 million, 75,000-square-foot Creation Museum, west of the Cincinnati Airport in Petersburg, Ky.

“It never used to be controversial for a Christian to come and speak at a secular university,” Ham told Religion News Service before addressing a crowd of about 500. “But it certainly seems to be controversial today, not just for Christians — but for anyone who has conservative values – to come and speak at universities.

“We have generations today that are so secular in their thinking, and they have this idea that you have to embrace all views," he added. "But, of course, they don’t want to embrace my view that I start with the Bible, and I have a particular worldview because of that.”

[ad number=“2”]

Ham said his only surprise was that the furor involved a university in the heart of Bible Belt Oklahoma: The socially conservative state of 3.9 million residents is known as one of the reddest of the red states. Nearly two-thirds of voters (65.3 percent) supported President Trump in the 2016 election, the third-highest proportion behind Wyoming (68.2 percent) and West Virginia (67.9 percent).

Last month, Stockton Duvall, UCO’s student body president, cited “bullying” by gay-rights activists as a contributing factor in his decision not to move forward with a speaking contract with Ham.

The idea for his visit to UCO came from a student group called Valid Worldview, which is associated with Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond. Ham gained fame not only through his theme park, website and museum, but his 2014 debate with “Science Guy” Bill Nye, which was watched by millions.

Ham believes God created Earth about 6,000 years ago, while scientists say the planet formed some 4.5 billion years ago.

Duvall said he was dismayed by the reaction of some of his fellow students to the invitation to Ham.

“I am not the first person to be personally attacked by a very vocal group on campus that has little tolerance for opposing viewpoints,” Duvall said in a Feb. 7 statement on Twitter. In his own statement, Ham said activists had opposed him speaking because of his belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Rachel Watson, president of UCO’s Student Alliance for Equality or "SAFE," a group that supports LGBTQ students and faculty, told Religion News Service on Monday that her organization also supports free speech and was not involved in pressuring the student government association.

“We do support his right to free speech and his right to express his ideas,” Watson, who describes herself as queer, said of Ham.

Watson said she neither attended Ham’s presentation nor protested it.

Joe Hight holds the E.K. Gaylord Endowed Chair of Journalism Ethics at the University of Central Oklahoma. Photo courtesy of UCO

 This image is available for web and print publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

Joe Hight, a Pulitzer Prize-winning former newspaper editor who holds the the E.K. Gaylord Endowed Chair of Journalism Ethics at UCO, said the controversy is not just over the question of free speech but also whether student activities funds should be used to cover Ham’s fee.

The forum held by the university Monday and Tuesday was titled “The Freedom of Expression: Teaching and Learning in Our Time.” Sessions tackled civil discourse under the First Amendment and freedom of speech and expression at public universities, UCO officials said.

“If more people can get exposed to what the First Amendment is all about, then I think we’re better off, because right now in our country, we’ve become so polarized without realizing what the First Amendment actually says,” said Hight, director of the Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame, which is housed at UCO.

“That, to me, is so important — no matter if it’s Ken Ham or if it’s another speaker —  that we’re constantly thinking about the importance of the First Amendment and the rights we’re guaranteed in this country,” the journalism professor said. “And that we all should come together at times to hear different perspectives in this country.”

Before Ham spoke, Charlie Johnson, vice president of university communications, welcomed the crowd and warned that anyone causing a disruption could be removed.

“I am proud to say that this is a place where the free exchange of ideas is encouraged,” Johnson said of UCO, which was founded in 1890 and is the state’s third-largest public university.

[ad number=“3”]

“Amen!” someone shouted — a frequent refrain by some audience members during Ham’s discussion of the creation account in the Bible’s Book of Genesis.

University police cars were highly visible outside the venue. Inside, officers stood watch at the top and bottom of the lecture hall. However, Police Chief Jeffrey Harp said he knew of only one or two protesters who showed up. No one was arrested.

If any opponents of Ham’s message came to his presentation, they seemed to maintain the respectful decorum requested. No boos were heard.

At the end, Ham and Answers in Genesis faculty member Georgia Purdom, who earned a doctorate in molecular genetics from Ohio State University, answered written, anonymous questions from the audience.

One questioner — a self-described “spirit-filled Christian” and member of the LGBTQ community — said: “I sought the Lord and churches for why I feel attracted to the same sex. I found the church nor churches’ traditional view on (LGBTQ) fit my experience of hearing the Lord speak directly to me. Science, not the church, gave me peace. How can you say my experience of still being a child of God isn’t valid?”

Ham said he would start by asking how the person heard from God: “My way of dealing with that would be to say, ‘Let’s judge what the actual written word of God says. Let’s judge what you’re saying against what it says.’

“Because I have a different worldview in relation to marriage and gender doesn’t mean I hate that person,” Ham added. “Sometimes, people accuse us of hate speech because we disagree with them. It’s a clash of worldviews. That doesn’t mean we hate someone. In fact, the Bible commands us to love everyone, and that’s what we do.”

SAFE’s Walker was raised Southern Baptist but isn’t active in a congregation. She said she’s not concerned with how Ham views marriage.

“In the Old Testament, there are a lot of different kinds of marriages that take place,” she said, mentioning polygamous marriages and brothers expected to marry a deceased sibling’s widow.

Another student, McKay Bronn, who describes herself as Christian, said the First Amendment gives Ham the right to speak and students who don’t like his message the right to protest his speech.

“I was home-schooled, so I was always raised on creationist-type philosophy and comparing that to evolution. So, I was just curious to hear what he had to say,” Bronn, a 21-year-old accounting and forensic science major, said of why she came to Ham’s presentation.


  1. I just saw a travel brochure advertising the ark experience tour for $619.00, It’s seven days and six nights. On the other side of the brouchure I read where I could purchase travel insurance for only $59.00 which protected me from, among other things while in the ark, home flooding.

    Some stuff you just can’t make up.

  2. “But it certainly seems to be controversial today, not just for Christians — but for anyone who has conservative values – to come and speak at universities.” I would say, one brand of “conservative values.” I think of myself as conservative and I find working evolution into my world view causes me no problems.

  3. “Critical and civil examination of ideas”, my foot!

    I don’t care about “free speech rights … [and] the First Amendment guarantee.” But I do care about “critical and civil examination of ideas”. So, where did it go at the “Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution … lecture [from brother Ken Ham] at the University of Central Oklahoma … on March 5, 2018”? And where is it here in this article? – other than:

    “Ham believes God created Earth about 6,000 years ago, while scientists say the planet formed some 4.5 billion years ago.”

    THAT’S IT? That’s what you mean by “critical and civil examination of ideas”?

  4. I don’t mind having Ham speak, but in the interest of fairness, the university should also invite Shem and Japheth.

  5. He just slapped an $8 increase on adult tickets and a $6 decrease on kids. Not sure about parking costs. He chases after two bucks as aggressively avoiding a .50 per ticket tax to support EMS and other first responder needs.

  6. He’s just a clever exploiter of ignorant folks.

  7. AS a matter of fact, Shem and Japheth did show up, you just can’t see them literally. See those four empty seats, yep, they are occupied by Noah, Japheth, Shem and Ham.

  8. Quick Quotes: The Days of Noah

    – – – – – – –

    • “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose…There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” – Genesis 6:1-2, 4

    • “And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” – Genesis 6:5-6

    • “The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.” – Genesis 6:11-12

    • “But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” – Matthew 24:37-39

    • “And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.” – Luke 17:26-30

    • “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly” – II Peter 2:4-6

    – – – – – – –

    By knowledge shall the just be delivered (Proverbs 11:9).

  9. Or perhaps, some other processed pork products. Perhaps baloney?

  10. Hypocrite! Condemns Evolution but then embraces it by teaching the Races of Man originate from a single homogenous couple. Mental retardation.

  11. Ham, quoted: “Sometimes, people accuse us of hate speech because we disagree with them. It’s a clash of worldviews. That doesn’t mean we hate someone.” 

    It’s true that “disagreement” is not “hate speech,” however, the Religious Right does not merely “disagree” with (for example) gays and the LGBTQ community. The R.R. actively agitates for an explicit right to discriminate against them, and they’re working to render them second-class citizens. 

    Thus, I would say Ham’s position, and that of most of the R.R., on gays does — in fact — qualify as true “hate,” and is definitely not mere “disagreement.” 

  12. Can you explain what you mean? I’m a little slow.

  13. Not sure how I can make my comment more clear. Ham and his ilk rebuke Evolution; but then in the same breath embrace it by teaching the Primary Races all emerge from the Loins of two homogenous people. It is absurd. Why can’t Contemporary Christianity see this Contradiction.

  14. Ken Ham is NOT a Christian, but just another evangelical grifter. He even convinced Kentucky to let him use KY industrial bonds to build his abomination, a clear violation of the separation of church & state.

  15. Ham’s biblical worldview when it comes to supporting first responders and supporting himself.

    The first shall be last.

  16. I am no fan of the religious right; but I am curious “how” in your opinion does the religious right discriminate against the LGBTQ community? Besides Civil Marriage License. Thanks.

  17. Among other things, they want the right not to have to do business with them. 

  18. Ok…..what else?
    In regards to your ‘want the right not to have to do business with them’…….you need to qualify that. I’m positive if a person who is ‘religiously right’ (whatever that is) owned a Taco Bell; they most assuredly wouldn’t ‘not’ sell tacos to LGBTQ people. Not wanting to “design” a cake for a homosexual marriage; can not be compared to simply not wanting to do business with the LGBTQ community.
    So…what else? How else are LGBTQ peoples being discriminated against by so called “Christians”.

  19. Re: “Ok…..what else?”  

    Isn’t that enough? It certainly was bad enough during the Jim Crow era in the South. 

    Re: “In regards to your ‘want the right not to have to do business with them’…….you need to qualify that.”” 


    Re: “I’m positive if a person who is ‘religiously right’ (whatever that is) owned a Taco Bell; they most assuredly wouldn’t ‘not’ sell tacos to LGBTQ people.” 

    Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. 

    Re: “Not wanting to ‘design’ a cake for a homosexual marriage; can not be compared to simply not wanting to do business with the LGBTQ community.” 

    Actually, it can be. Absolutely. As it turns out, that’s not all I’m referring to. But, if it makes you feel better to assume that’s all there is to this, then go right ahead and assume it. After all, your personal emotional comfort is vastly more important than anything else in the universe. Isn’t it? 

    Re: “So…what else?” 

    I don’t need anything else. 

    Re: “How else are LGBTQ peoples being discriminated against by so called ‘Christians’.” 

    How about, Christian therapists refusing to work with gays? Which, to be sure, some of them do:   But that additional item is not even necessary. 

  20. After all, your personal emotional comfort is vastly more important than anything else in the universe. Isn’t it?
    Hypocrite. The Gay couple should have simply chosen a different Bakery. This is common sense and sound logic. Who is seeking ’emotional comfort’.

  21. Re: “The Gay couple should have simply chosen a different Bakery.” 

    Why should they have to? What if that bakery is the only one in town? What if all the bakers in a town are Christian and get together to refuse service to gays, in unison? Furthermore, how are bakers refusing to bake cakes any different from any other business that refuses service to gays? You’re positing a distinction — that bakers are somehow, magically, “sacred,” the euqivalent of clergy (who are NOT required to marry gays if their sect doesn’t permit it) — which, in fact, does not exist. Because bakers are not clergy. 

    Re: “This is common sense and sound logic.”  

    Equating bakers with clergy is neither of those. And it never will be. 

    Re: “Who is seeking ’emotional comfort’.” 

    You are … you, and the rest of the Religious Right. You want a world in which everyone believes, thinks, speaks, and behaves in ways that align with your subjective, dour metaphysics. That the world you live in doesn’t work that way, is intolerable to you (and, again, the rest of the R.R.) and irks you all to no end. You just can’t stand it. So you get all bent out of shape over it, act as though you are entitled to force your dour metaphysics on the rest of humanity, and want to relegate those who aren’t ardent Christianists like yourselves to second-class status. Merely because you want it. 

  22. Then bake your own damn cake! Liberals are helpless.

  23. “It never used to be controversial for a Christian to come and speak at a secular university,”

    Christians speak on secular university grounds everyday, and 99% of the time it’s not controversial.

  24. Another dogmatist preaching to his choir. That someone could pass through an education system and think the earth is 6,000 years old….wow.

  25. aaand suddenly the ham main course is replaced by wedding case for dessert

  26. as is true of most theists.

    I find that most evangelicals who oppose evolution do so because they have been misinformed (by people like Ham) as to what the theory actually explains. And they think a scientific theory is on equal footing with a hypothesis.

    I often ask evolution deniers if they can provide an alternative explanation if evolution is wrong… [[[crickets]]]]

  27. Yep….those are indeed words written in an old book. I like tales like that. Next we can quote from the Illiad or Gilgamesh

  28. I actually disagreed with Davis. Give them their marriage license. Who cares. Now…..force a man to perform a gay wedding….that is a different situation altogether. I could care less if Gays are married. This was the biggest mistake of the ‘religious right’. Paper marriage is one giant scam. Biblical Marriage occurs behind closed doors.

  29. As far as I one is forcing a man to perform a gay wedding.

    “Biblical Marriage occurs behind closed doors.”

    Is that what the kids are calling it these day? I thought they called it hooking up 🙂

  30. Just curious… your friends and family think you are clever? Or just tolerate it. 🙂

  31. Who are the villains, the ones seeking to destroy others’ livelihood because they refuse to act against their religious beliefs, or those willing to see their livelihoods destroyed than violate their understanding of God’s law? From Daniel to Antigone to Peter to the Christian martyrs, for Western Civilization the answer is clear.

  32. I am universally loved and respected for my wit, charm and devilishly good looks.

  33. How did you become ‘known’ to your wife? Assuming you are a man and assuming you have a female for a wife.

  34. So, Ken Ham — along with biblical Christianity, biblical creation, and academic freedom at secular universities — wins a round. Always refreshing.

    And the dutiful devotees of Darwin and Goliath? Sorry folks, nothing in the win column for you this time.

    Ken Ham is a genuine inspiration, because he’s an example of what ordinary, non-PhD Christians can accomplish if they seriously pray, study, stick to the Bible, and not be scared of hard work. Evolution totally dominates the courts, the schools, the media, even the comedies and cartoons — and yet Biblical Creationism is now as great a national force as Intelligent Design.

  35. I met my wife in biology class in college. I made myself known by asking her to see Fletch Lives and dining at the Red Lobster (thanks, mom for the credit card loan!) We will be married 28 years this year.

  36. I don’t think you’re really interested in trying to defend what has become a worn-out, has-been, outta-gas religion of evolution. But we’ll see.

    During high school days 45 years ago, the theory of evolution looked so much more powerful. You even had theologians like Langdon Gilkey throwing in the towel, in federal court.

    (In Gilkey’s old age, he signaled a slight willingness to challenge evolutionists on one or two small points, but of course it was too late; the evo’s didn’t care.)

    But with the rise of Intelligent Design and now Young-Earth Creationism, the game has entirely changed. No court wins needed.

  37. Re: “Who are the villains, the ones seeking to destroy others’ livelihood because they refuse to act against their religious beliefs …” 

    What do “religious beliefs” have to do with cakes? Or psychotherapy? Bakers bake cakes. Therapists counsel patients. Why is it — somehow — too much to ask people that they just grow up and do their freaking jobs already? 

    Re: “… or those willing to see their livelihoods destroyed than violate their understanding of God’s law” 

    Who’s “destroying” anyone? I mean … really? Has someone been killed over a cake? I haven’t heard of it. 

    Re: “From Daniel to Antigone to Peter to the Christian martyrs, for Western Civilization the answer is clear.” 

    Your attempt to paint yourself as “persecuted” is noted, but dismissed as juvenile and ridiculous:  

    Snivel on, little Christian martyr. Snivel on! You’re just acting like an infantile whiner. Oh snap teh puur lil Chrishun cannt push evryone else uraound! Boo freaking hoo. 

  38. Why should gays have to bake their own cakes when other people are able to hire bakers to do it for them? What is so terrible about gays that bakers are — somehow — magically incapable of baking cakes where gays are concerned? Isn’t it their job to … oh, I don’t know … bake cakes? If not, then why not? 

  39. I’ll stick with that “infantile whiner,” MLK: “Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable… Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.”

  40. Who are the villains? The people who insist that they have a right no one else as, to discriminate against other people on the basis of religious belief? Or the people who go into a shop and are told, “sorry, we don’t serve your kind here.”

    who are the villains? The people who are just too stupid in their business to say, “Sorry, I’m booked. why don’t you call so and so?” Or the people who go into a shop and expect to be served the same as anyone else?

    Who are the villains? The ones that say “I don’t have to treat other people as I would like to be treated?” but would squeal like little piggies if someone said “Sorry, I don’t serve fundelibangelists here?”

  41. If you weren’t already married, and I weren’t already married, we could marry each other because I do admire your wit, your charm, and your devilish good looks, if you weren’t straight, and I weren’t gay, and if Ryan Reynolds hasn’t promised to marry me any day now. Or maybe it was ryan godling, errr, umm, gosling..

  42. “The announcement highlights the goal of these two world-class attractions of Answers in Genesis (AiG): to help more families, churches, schools, and other organizations bring as many children and youth as possible to the Ark and museum. AiG is introducing a special youth category not previously available.”

    Backstory: this profit focused entity has 75% of its tax obligation returned. Taxes that could go a long way towards improving public infrastructure within the affected county. This man and his henchmen are driven by greed, greed for power and money. They are quick to wave their hankies and scream of persecution when not given carte blanche to peddle hegemony focused products.
    That being said, ANY increases or “creative repackaging” of tickets should be viewed as suspect. The above quote from this biased source speaks of the need to get more butts in seats to meet costs. The man isn’t stupid, retail sales tricks are necessary to dupe the unsuspecting public of hard earned cash.

  43. When a future Gibbon writes the decline and fall of the USA, privileging nonsense in secular universities will be one of the signposts.

  44. THAT is funny!!!

    When this screen makes me laugh, I gotta let it know, y’know?

  45. I get that you have a persecution complex and that you’ve granted yourself a license — based on nothing more than the dour metaphysics you desperately cling to — to remain infantile and paranoid. Really! I get it. Honest. You’ve told yourself you don’t have to grow up and act like an adult … and here, at least, you’re quoting MLK to that effect. As though that’s somehow powerful enough to overwhelm me or something.  

    To be clear: It’s not. I’m not as stupid as you obviously think I am. I know the game you and the rest of the R.R. play — the whole thing, front to back. And I can tell you why:  

    I’ve been exactly where you are! I was once a fundagelical, too. A dyed-in-the-wool, born-again, baptized-in-the-Holy-Spirit, washed-in-the-blood-of-the-Lamb, full-blown, devout and devoted Christian. That is precisely how I also happen to know how juvenile it all is. Fundamentalism of any sort is nothing more than what I said it is, above: A license to remain immature for life.  

    Try your MLK quotes on someone else who’s dumb enough to think you actually think of him as anything more than a way to make you seem something you’re not. As I told you, your vision of the world — and that of the rest of the R.R. — is a kind of “Jim Crow” approach to gays and LGBTQ folks. I can’t prove it, but I suspect he’d spin in his grave to know you’re using his words to rationalize imposing the kind of system on gays and LGBTQs that had been imposed on him and other African-Americans in his time, which he’d worked so hard … and ultimately died … to overturn. 

    You should be ashamed of yourself. 

  46. This is where even any fired-up & die-hard follower of THE Christ Jesus of the gospels, epistles and revelation would tell his fellow brother “Ham [who unfortunately] believes God created Earth about 6,000 years ago” to:

    ‘YO, SIT DOWN. It’s right there in Genesis 1:1-2 – “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void”! Don’t lie now and say the time span of “the earth [being] formless and void” must be less than “about 6,000 years”! I mean, How would you know? And how could you possibly put a number to that pre-creational phenomenon – impossible! Because word is, There was an eternity-like past before creation and it was “formless and void”. Scientists are constantly discovering what that meant! Give’em credit, I say. From them I have a better sense of how old was earth’s “formless[ness] and void” – which God must’ve created prior to creation!

  47. None of your effing business, dumbass Roy.

  48. Well said, and thanks. I would simply remind readers that the USSC’s big ruling is expected this summer, maybe June.

  49. ” …their religious beliefs…their understanding of God’s law? ”

    This overrides any personal religious beliefs or understandings —

    ‘In everything’, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets……Jesus..…Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31

  50. Exactly, and I would wish that the Left respected my right to freely exercise my religion, as I recognize theirs.

  51. Religious people should lie to prospective customers to avoid serving them? Sorry, but that is not only (I suspect) illegal but immoral. It’s also pointless, since those looking for a fight are unlikely to just accept it.

    And yes, the villains are those that reject others’ right to freely exercise their religion in order to forcibly impose their own beliefs on them. This is even worse than the laws that used to mandate that businesses be closed on Sunday, regardless of the religion of the business owners — yes, the owners were being required to follow another religion’s rules, but at least that didn’t violate any of their own religious precepts in the process.

  52. evolution requires no defense…it’s backed by facts.

    If you have questions about it, I am happy to teach you.

  53. we were Baptist then so at a Baptist church

  54. Get back in class Lisa. Recess is over. What are you…..13?

  55. Had you been a “man” in the early 1800’s, you would have lasted about 10 minutes.

  56. And no one has ever wanted to force anyone to perform a wedding. Only that they can get married. Many churches will not perform weddings unless both are members of the church. That is fine. A pastor can refuse to perform the ceremony if he does not think the two should get married. He only has to answer to his congregation.

  57. Why are you so interested in other peoples marriages?

  58. Holy crap……………..another intruder. This was my conversation with the Mountain Humanist…..for goodness sakes. We were having a civil conversation. If he doesn’t want to answer, so be it. A bunch of pu%#ies.

  59. At what ‘magical’ moment during the ceremony did your fiancé become your “wife”? Just curious your thoughts. Was it the kiss? Or when the officiate declared you ‘man and wife’. Or was it sexual intercourse; when the two of you become “one flesh”? I realize you are not a Christian any longer, but do you have; or did you have an opinion about it at that time? Just curious. I’m not trying to be hostile. Just a platform of mine and I’m always curious what other people believe. I have blog if you are curious of my position —

  60. When the officiant signed the marriage certificate.

  61. Your point is well made. But I’m sure you wouldn’t want to ‘freely exercise your religion’ if your religion taught or encouraged anything other than the best of good, mature, Bible based attitudes.

    Religious ‘personal’ freedom issues shouldn’t be an excuse to ignore the really important ones.

    I’m reminded now of that popular Methodist expression —
    “Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.”

  62. Actually, it will be because of religious beliefs like your statement here bring privileged over that thing called science that allows you to make such nonsensical comments to a very wide audience through the internet.

  63. “of what ordinary, non-PhD Christians can accomplish…”

    Yes. Those damned educated people, always knowing stuff.

  64. “Evolution totally dominates the courts, the schools, the media, even the comedies and cartoons”

    Don’t forget the scientific literature, museums, the fossil record, the minds of every honest scientist who has studied the issue, and the evidence.

  65. When they disagree with us, it’s love and faith. When we disagree it’s them, its hate and persecution.

  66. Sure, I have a couple questions. Did evolution originate your current posting / writing / linguistic ability? You certainly didn’t evolve it from primates, so how did it originate?

  67. What does that have to do with anything? 

    P.S. Do you somehow think I’m gay? Or LGBTQ? To be clear, I’m not. I just don’t get the point of harassing them. I believe in a delicate … and often-rejected … quality known as “freedom.” The US was, last time I looked, still a free country — even if the R.R. would like it not to be. Yes, I’m committing what you and the rest of the R.R. view as the “sin” of thinking gays and the LGBTQ folks ought to be left alone, fercryinoutloud, and allowed to do what they want. If this makes me a “sinner” in your eyes, or abominable, or some other pejorative you’d like to hurl at me … well, hurl away! I’ll happily accept your derision and view it actually as a compliment. 

    P.P.S. You’re aware, too, I hope, that there were gays and LGBTQ’s in the early 1800s … as well as in every era of human history? And in all cultures around the world? If not — you do, now!  

  68. As a high end wedding photographer for 30 years, I can assuRe you of this:

    Business people, at least the smart ones, don’t accept business that they don’t want to do. Only the stupid ones offend their customers by telling them why. But if “I am booked” is just to religiously offensive to you, I can think of at least three things you can say which will get the message across and not result in a refusal to serve.

    But the falseness of your position, and your persecution, is indicated right here: “those looking for a fight…” no, they are looking for someone to help them with their wedding. The ones that are looking for a fight are the ones who have their weapon, errr, ummm, “faith”, at the ready.

    It is VERYtelling that the only place this “faith” seems to come into play is when Christians of that sort have to behave decently and without animus towards gay people.

  69. Thanks for the passionate defense.

  70. Just to be sure…

    Mountain humanist is a pseudonym for Ryan Reynolds, right?

  71. Two problems with your statement. First, it assumes that everyone will be happy with the results of “good, mature, Bible based attitudes.” I can assure you that any “good, mature, Bible based attitudes” will require that sinners be called to repentance and that others not be accessories to their sin, and many people won’t like that.

    Second, its assumption that “religious ‘personal’ freedom” isn’t as important as the values you mentioned. Especially since those bringing lawsuits against business owners trying to live by God’s Law as they understand it are clearly failing to live by those values.

  72. I just don’t get the point of harassing them. I believe in a delicate … and often-rejected … quality known as “freedom.”

    You did not just say this, did you!!!? What a paradox.

  73. No, if they were only looking for someone to help them with their weddings, once business owners tell them they can’t help because of religious objections the customers would just go elsewhere. They have to anyway since the lawsuits wouldn’t be settled until long after the weddings take place, so there’s no help there.

    And you may think that smart business owners lie to their prospective customers when it benefits them, and you may even be right. It’s still immoral.

  74. I’ve changed a few things as you’ll notice. Trying to make a good reply. I’ll return as I must do other things at this time.

  75. Paragraph 1: that’s what non discrimination laws are for. You can bet if I told a fundamentalist I wouldn’t do his wedding becuase I disapprove of his religious beliefs, a legal complaint would be in the offing.

    Paragraph 2: there are at least three ways to do it without lying.

  76. Not to mention: Jesus said to treat others as you would like to be treated, don’t judge the and of others, and look to your own sins. That’s a commandment from god itself. There were no cake exceptions.

  77. Re: “You did not just say this, did you!!!? What a paradox.” 

    Where is there any “paradox” in what I said? I don’t get what you’re trying to say … or rather, what you’re accusing me of.  

    As I said, by all means, please feel free to throw pejoratives my way, and accuse me of all sorts of horrid things, if it makes you feel better to do so. Your emotional well-being, after all, is the single most important thing in the universe — and if the price of helping you feel better is for you to abuse me and accuse me of things I haven’t done, then go right ahead. I’ll pay that price for you … because I know how important emotional reinforcement is to childish little Christianists. 

  78. I don’t know what to say here PsiCop. We just have two completely opposing philosophies of life, it appears. You believe the gays are being harassed and I believe the bakers are being harassed. We just see things from two totally different perspectives. You want Freedom for the Gays (so do I) and I want Freedom for the Bakers (in which you do not).
    But I am interested in you as a person. Like… did you come to this place intellectually. Etc., etc. If interested, I’d be more than eager to get to know you better. We can talk in private if that interests you. Just reverse my name. It is a gmail account. If not…………..that is fine too. Thanks for talking. I am fascinated with humanity. I wasn’t always like I am today. I’d say 20 years ago I was very Liberal minded and color blind. But that all changed when I moved to a different part of the States.

  79. “Accessories to their sin?” Nonsense. According to what they think are god’s laws. Plenty of other Christians don’t believe that gay people and gay marriage are wrong, not despite what their bible says, but BECAUSE of it.
    The bible also says “render unto Caesar” “obey the civil authorities.” That’s what non-discrimination laws are about– protecting everyone. Setting yourself above the law and then whining that there are consequences for it is a direct contradiction of what the bible does say,.

  80. Re: “We just have two completely opposing philosophies of life, it appears.”  

    True. I believe in Americans being free to live their own lives and not have to abide by your dour religionism. 

    Re: “You believe the gays are being harassed and I believe the bakers are being harassed.” 

    Telling gays they’re not allowed to buy cakes, is harassment. Asking bakers to bake cakes is not “harassment”; it is, instead, “what they do for a living.” 

    Re: “We just see things from two totally different perspectives.” 

    True. I believe “freedom” applies to everyone in the US, not just Christianists. 

    Re: “You want Freedom for the Gays (so do I) …” 

    No you don’t. You don’t want them to buy cakes … or get psychotherapy, among other things. Just like the rest of your R.R. movement. 

    Re: “… and I want Freedom for the Bakers (in which you do not).” 

    I want freedom for bakers, too. I also expect them to do their freaking jobs … which is to bake cakes. Not control weddings (which, AFAIK, they’re not permitted to do anyway since as a profession they’re not allowed to officiate at them). 

    Re: “If interested, I’d be more than eager to get to know you better.” 

    Riiiiiiight. I’ve already explained my position, but will reiterate it here: I was once a fundagelical Christian. A true born-again, dyed-in-the-blood-of-the-Lamb, baptized-in-the-Holy-Spirit, accepted-Jesus-as-my-Personal-Lord-&-Savior militant fundagelical Christian. I know what I’m talking about and can speak to Religious Right desires, as a (former) “insider” to the movement. The problem is, I grew up — despite having been told I didn’t need to, that in Jesus’ name I was entitled to remain infantilized by my religious fundamentalism, and stopped trying to convert the rest of humanity to my version of Christianity or force them to live their lives as though they had and impose my religionism on them. 

    I know the game. Really and truly. 

    Re: “But that all changed when I moved to a different part of the States.”  

    I assume you moved to the South, or somewhere in Flyover Country. I’ve spent time in both places. I managed to resist the ambient infantilization, however … because I was already immunized (having experienced it first-hand). So I’m no longer subject to that affliction. 

  81. Didn’t mean that. May have said something like that if we were talking over a Beer. But through ‘text’…..not appropriate. Sorry

  82. Btw….I am far from any definition of Contemporary Christianity. Don’t lump me into that dead category. I was once also your typical ‘true born-again, dyed in the blood….baptized in the…..personal savior…..blah, blah, blah. So at least you and I have that in common.

  83. I managed to resist the ambient infantilization, however … because I was already immunized (having experienced it first-hand). So I’m no longer subject to that affliction.
    Elaborate. Have no idea what you are talking about. What do you mean by ‘ambient infantilization’? “Already Immunized”…..what does that supposed to mean. And what “affliction” are you speaking of?

  84. I believe in Americans being free to live their own lives and not have to abide
    How do you say that with a straight face. Rhetorical. This is a perfect illustration. I truly believe in say 20 years, you will look back and say, ‘that was very hypocritical of me’.

  85. Fundamentalist Christians — who are intellectually indistinguishable from Islamic and Jewish radicals — are a dying breed. You use your brain, logic and reason, or you lose it.

  86. Who has been forced to perform a gay marriage??? NO ONE. And what exactly is a “paper marriage”? Even so-called “biblical marriage” requires a paper license.

  87. Baking a cake for a same-sex wedding is not having the couple’s beliefs foribly imposed on them. That’s an hysteric claim to make, and it’s demonstrably false. The problem with Christian fundamentalists is that you’re ticked off that we have the right to marry. So you wish to humiliate and stick it to any couple who dares to cross your business threshhold. A business can’t get by discriminating racially, so why should they be allowed to discriminate against gay people?

  88. Biblical Marriage requires a “paper license”? Chapter and Verse please.

  89. In the U.S., couples who marry in a traditional church ceremony are not legally recognized as married without a license. I’ve not heard of a mainstream church that does not require a license.

  90. Why should gay people be treated differently than anyone else because of your prejudice and ignorance?

  91. I think all bakeries should discriminate against fundy, hypocritical “Christians”.

  92. In 2018, bigots don’t last 5 minutes in my neighborhood

  93. When you discriminate against others in the public marketplace, you’re doing harm. You’re not a victim — you’re the perpetrator. And in almost every single court case, that has been the outcome.

  94. Right, and back in the day, the black couple looking to have lunch should have simply chosen a different restaurant. The Asian family applying for a HUD loan prior to 1968 should have simply built their own house with their own hands and funds.

  95. Religious freedom is freedom to believe and express that belief. It does not give license to act out that belief if it causes harm to others. To refuse service to persons who are gay, because they are gay, shows lack of respect for those people. To be treated in this way causes psychological pain. You. and maybe your religion. are not showing the respect guaranteed to all citizens of this country.

  96. The theory of evolution is not difficult to learn. Those who learn it and understand the method of natural selection usually realize it is now a scientific theory. If using reason and natural evidence someone could show that the theory is false, science would reconsider the theory.

    You can not use religion to discover the properties of this reality. Scientific knowledge must be based on scientifically known facts.

    Religious knowledge is based on Faith. Things like the existence of your
    God or the accuracy of your bible are based on Faith, Faith is pretending to know what you don’t know. It can be used to find religious knowledge but not facts about reality like the age of the universe or our earth.

  97. Re: “How do you say that with a straight face.” 

    I say it because I don’t see anything wrong with “freedom.” You and the rest of the R.R. do.  

  98. Did what again? What, now, do you imagine I said, which I plainly didn’t? Please, go ahead and tell me what it was. I need a good laugh. 

  99. Ok Bob….whatever you say. No sense in a debate….you won’t ‘hear’ a single word.

  100. Because someone wouldn’t bake a cake???!!! Ummmmm………………….this is where the meme ‘snowflake’ comes from. Grow up.

  101. The real snowflake is the goddamned bigot baker who can’t function as a decent human being in the real world.

  102. Easy. You’d be the one with the “MAGA” cap and the drool.

  103. Can you answer my questions without running away?

  104. Funny. I hate Trump. I don’t vote. The whole system is controlled. Has been for some time. For starters, try reading — “The Unseen Hand” by Ralph Epperson. When you are done, contact me. I’ll give you another rec. Even Epperson is hiding information.
    If you are of the Posterity and you truly value Freedom………………….

  105. Keep repeating that several times and see if you actually believe it.

  106. I can’t do it, but have you ever seen a person say ‘yes’ while shaking his head ‘no’?

  107. Ever read Orwell? Kin to saying — Peace is War

  108. Sure…what is the question. I do not believe your last comment had a question ‘mark’.

  109. Weird how the word “freedom” can have 15 different definitions. Freedom is Freedom….period.
    Ex: The Baker has no Freedom in your world.

  110. I truly hope you are in your 20’s. Because you will have to live in the world you people are creating. I’m 52………but I’m not sure I am old enough. I’m going to be in my 80’s when this Country simply becomes a third world hell hole. Maybe even sooner than that.

  111. Re: “I’m going to be in my 80’s when this Country simply becomes a third world hell hole.” 

    It already IS “a third world hell hole” — well, parts of it anyway. The Christianistic parts, anyway. For instance, they have much lower life expectancy:

    So your fears have already been realized … and they’ve been realized precisely in the places where your kind of thinking is most common. Hmmmmm.  

  112. In my world, gays and LGBTQs are free to live their lives like other human beings. And bakers are free to bake … for everyone, not just for people they happen to approve of. Those bakers, in short, would not, in my world, be “free” to harass them merely because they have a subjective distaste for them. 

    In your world, on the other hand, “freedom” means “free to harass and marginalize.” You would have me believe “freedom” means “allowing people to run roughshod over others based solely on the dour metaphysics they desperately cling to.”  

    Your kind of “freedom” is the kind of “freedom” that led to Jim Crow laws in the South. Whites’ hatred and feat of blacks led them to marginalize blacks — and on a systematic basis. What you and the rest of the R.R. want to do, to gays and LGBTQs, is really no different. It’s just not. If you don’t understand that, then you’re a lost cause.  

    The reality of one’s own personal “freedom” is that it ends at other people’s doors. A baker’s freedom to believe as s/he wishes, ends where other people’s private lives are concerned. I would not want bakers who aren’t militant Christianists to refuse to do business with militant Christianists, merely because that’s what they are. Those bakers shouldn’t have the power to intrude on militant Christianists’ personal lives and treat them as second-class citizens merely because of their dour metaphysics. 

    That’s the difference between your “freedom” and my “freedom.” It’s a door that swings both ways, not just one. You can’t conceive of the benefits of that — for everyone, but I see them plainly.  

  113. Hey……………celebrate PsiCop! Why waste your time on me.

  114. Yea…….life in the PNW is an awful place to live. Trying buying property around the Sandpoint area.

  115. “Did evolution originate your current posting / writing / linguistic ability?”

    Yes. Language is an evolved trait.

    “You certainly didn’t evolve it from primates, so how did it originate?”

    We are primates. Our particular species over time developed brains that could form vocalizations via the hyoid bone. Language gave homo sapiens a survival advantage and thus was passed on and sharpened.

    “In humans, functional MRI studies have reported finding areas homologous to the monkey mirror neuron system in the inferior frontal cortex, close to Broca’s area, one of the language regions of the brain. This has led to suggestions that human language evolved from a gesture performance/understanding system implemented in mirror neurons. Mirror neurons have been said to have the potential to provide a mechanism for action-understanding, imitation-learning, and the simulation of other people’s behavior.[81] This hypothesis is supported by some cytoarchitectonic homologies between monkey premotor area F5 and human Broca’s area.[82] Rates of vocabulary expansion link to the ability of children to vocally mirror non-words and so to acquire the new word pronunciations. Such speech repetition occurs automatically, quickly[83] and separately in the brain to speech perception.[84][85] Moreover, such vocal imitation can occur without comprehension such as in speech shadowing[86] and echolalia.[82][87] Further evidence for this link comes from a recent study in which the brain activity of two participants was measured using fMRI while they were gesturing words to each other using hand gestures with a game of charades—a modality that some have suggested might represent the evolutionary precursor of human language. Analysis of the data using Granger Causality revealed that the mirror-neuron system of the observer indeed reflects the pattern of activity of in the motor system of the sender, supporting the idea that the motor concept associated with the words is indeed transmitted from one brain to another using the mirror system.”

  116. PsiCop….I realize our dialogue is over; but I am still interested in what you meant when you said — I managed to resist the ambient infantilization, however … because I was already immunized (having experienced it first-hand). So I’m no longer subject to that affliction.

    If you don’t mind. Thanks.

  117. I meant what I said. I am immune to the infantilization which is the both the instigator and product of religious fundamentalism. I can’t figure why the meaning of that isn’t plain to you.  

  118. Are you suggesting there’s no such thing? Religious fundamentalism certainly exists. If you need definitions or descriptions of it, here are a few:

    I could provide many more explanations, but these ought to suffice.  

  119. My point is that a “biblical marriage” is also a “paper marriage”.

  120. You didn’t respond to what I wrote.

  121. I thought it was a ‘statement’. Since you didn’t provide a question mark. Do you really care what I think? I’d be happy to explain my POV…if you are interested.

  122. No……………….There is nothing in the Scriptures which indicate a ‘requirement’ for any kind of Legal Document or Ritual Ceremony. Is a Ceremony/Ritual nice? Sure. But not necessary.

  123. I can tell you that Scriptural Christianity hasn’t existed since A.D. 70. Sure…there have always, and there will always be ‘pockets’ of Scriptural, or Narrow Road Christians…….but they have always been ‘underground’. True Christianity teaches that we mind our own business and live in peace with all men.

  124. Re: “I can tell you that Scriptural Christianity hasn’t existed since A.D. 70.”  

    I agree, and have said so for years. One wonders, though, why this has gone on for as long as it has. After all this time … and with centuries of theology, exegesis, etc. under their belts … one wouldn’t think Christians could possibly have anything even remotely resembling a valid excuse for their fierce refusal to obey their own Jesus’ teachings. But … they still do!  

    Re: “Sure…there have always, and there will always be ‘pockets’ of Scriptural, or Narrow Road Christians…….but they have always been ‘underground’.”  

    One wonders, too, why that ought to be the case. Why should it be the infinitesimal numbers of “true” Christians (who actually obey Jesus’ teachings) be so afraid to let themselves be known? After all, one of his teachings is not to hide away: “Let your light shine before men” (Mt 5:16a, etc.). Ought they not, instead, be trumpeting the “true” way to follow him? 

    Re: “True Christianity teaches that we mind our own business and live in peace with all men.” 

    It does. Which leaves me wondering why bakers are so eager to pick and choose who to bake for. If what you just said is true, they shouldn’t even care who comes through their doors and hires them. But — some of them, it turns out, do. And they do so in the name of the founder of their religion, who taught them NOT to behave that way. Go figure. 

  125. Jesus said the road was Narrow and only a Few will find Him.

    Why should it be the infinitesimal numbers of “true” Christians (who actually obey Jesus’ teachings) be so afraid to let themselves be known?
    I wouldn’t say “afraid”. They just don’t “push”. Jesus said to bring your message, and if that message is rejected, “wipe the dust from your feet”. In other words……..move on. And to somehow “force” a person to believe is absolutely, and totally contrary to Scripture. That is the last thing I want to do…………….’force’ someone to believe as I. Just go your separate ways. No big deal.
    I can’t speak for the Bakers. Certainly a compromise could have been met. Like…create a blank cake and let someone else place the figurines on the top. Whatever. The Bakers felt they would be somehow guilty of approval for such an act. But you have to admit that their penalty was way too harsh. This couple is not only unemployed, they are now in a huge amount of debt. Seems like someone was holding a grudge. The right thing would have been was to just let the Economy dictate. I would have not opposed a ‘boycott’ of the business. But I’m sure you believe the penalty was appropriate. Thanks for the dialogue.

  126. Re: “The Bakers felt they would be somehow guilty of approval for such an act.”  

    On what rational basis could they ever “feel” that way? They aren’t the ones getting married. They aren’t officiating at the marriage. They aren’t witnessing it. Hell, the cake they make isn’t even involved — at all! — in the wedding itself. It makes its appearance at the reception, which happens after the wedding is over! Cakes don’t make weddings happen. In fact, nothing prevents a wedding from happening without any cake at all. In terms of the wedding itself, the cake is disposable. 

    Re: “The right thing would have been was to just let the Economy dictate.”  

    That sounds all enlightened and everything, but it’s B.S. It’s easy for the Christian majority in many places to get together as to whom they’ll wait on and whom they won’t, and essentially freeze out “undesirables,” rendering them second-class citizens, and making their lives worse. This is effectively what happened in the Deep South.  

  127. Well……….can’t speak for the Baker’s conscience. From our perspective it does look like a stupid ‘stance’.
    Christian Majority??? 🙂 They look all but dead to me. Too busy waxing their Benz and having Brunch of Sundays. Not to mention Tee Times, Sporting Events and Holiday Mixers.
    I don’t have any ‘skin’ on this whole marriage equality issue……….but I do find it very revealing that the Contemporary Church literally did nothing to stop it. I disagreed with Kim Davis. But………….where were her supporters??? Non-existent. If there was one issue where the Billions of alleged “Christians” should have rose to the occasion, that was it. And look………………..nothing. They laid down…threw in the towel with no fight. Since I do not believe in ‘paper marriage’ I could care less if gays get married or not. Means nothing to me. Let them have their legal unions. But since Contemporary Christianity FAWNS all over the idea of a paper marriage…….they should have fought to protect it and they simply DIDN’T. That should tell you something PsiCop.
    Like I said earlier…………………….you should be celebrating. You guys won. Now relax and enjoy the world you have created. Give it 5 years and then let’s talk again. Cheers.

  128. So you’d be recognized by the Sky Fairy, but not anywhere else. How special.

  129. I care to expose the idiocy that you espouse, so if you’d like to continue to put it out there, be my guest.

  130. 🙂 How big is your ego? I’d say it’s pretty large.

  131. I don’t bow down to your Mr. Big Bang Fairy.

  132. WTF does that mean? You bow down to basic Sky Fairy?

  133. You bow down to the big bang fairy. The ‘something out of nothing’ fairy.

  134. Re: “Christian Majority??? :)”  

    Yes, Christian majority:  

    Re: “I disagreed with Kim Davis. But………….where were her supporters???”  

    They were everywhere! Some of them even represented her in court:  

    She also got the support of most Christianist groups in the country, e.g. FOcus on the Family, etc. They actively agitated on her behalf.  

    Notably, while he was Chief Justice of Alabama’s S.C, Roy Moore basically staked the same position Davis did, but in his case he ordered Alabama’s justices of the peace never to officiate at gay marriages:  

    Re: “They laid down…threw in the towel with no fight.”  

    They did no such thing! Their problem is, once Obergefell was handed down, they had nowhere to go except to amend the Constitution, which is impossible at this point.  

    Re: “Like I said earlier…………………….you should be celebrating.”  

    Why? With the fundagelicals’ favorite guy, the Groper-in-Chief in the Oval Office; with a firm Religious Right majority in Congress; and with a religionistic majority on the Supreme Court coming soon (assuming one or two justices retire in the next couple years), the U.S. very well could become the Christocracy that the R.R. has been foaming at the mouth over for the last 30-40 years. There is no “victory” here for non-believers like myself.  

  135. Too bad you can’t see it from my perspective. The old order is over….period. The Cultural Marxists won. Cracks me up to still see you guys so anxious about everything. Enjoy! Drink it up! Party till it’s 2099! Do whatever it is you think you wanted to do 10 years ago but couldn’t — for whatever reason — and go live life to the fullest!
    Some politician from California spoke in the press just the other day and basically said the United States will look like California……California is the model and she is right. Liberal Progressive Paradise.
    Btw…………….Trump is actually on your team. Trust me. He was/is a Trojan Horse for the demise of Western Civilization. Check out the guys at They’ve done some excellent research into Trump: his background and ‘who’ controls him.
    I mean come on…………………..a Reality TV star becomes President?!!! Give me a break. His Grandfather ran brothels. He was mobbed up. Trump is surrounded by neo-Bolsheviks/Marxists. Western Civilization is FINISHED!!!

  136. Re: “The old order is over….period. The Cultural Marxists won.” 

    They have not. The reason I know this is … the phrase “cultural Marxist” is meaningless. There’s no such thing. If you want to talk only about “Marxism,” it already lost — many decades ago. There is no regime in the world which is “Marxist,” and it’s been decades since I’ve known anyone to advocate true “Marxism.” Yes, that label has been applied to people, parties, and governments, but none of them are “Marxist” in a sense that Karl Marx himself would recognize. They’re something else entirely. (And yes, while it’s ostensibly based on Marxism, communism is not Marxism.)  

    What you’re doing is tossing around an invalid label in an effort to disparage things you subjectively dislike. I really don’t care that you dislike stuff … but I can and will call you out for fraudulently labelling them “Marxist” when they are not.  

    Oh and to be clear: The reason Marxism has “lost” is because it’s logically invalid and a foolish approach to historiography. Nothing good was ever going to come from it … and nothing did. Which is why it rapidly diverged into other things. Kind of like how Christians have historically refused to follow Jesus’ teachings … those, too, are all inherently foolish (e.g. “do not resist an evil person” is about as counter-productive a principle as has ever been written).  

    Re: “Some politician from California spoke in the press just the other day …”  

    So, you’re predicating this entire comment on one politician’s opinions? Really!? Are you so desperate to back up your claims that you’ll rely on one politician’s claim and act as though that’s “proof” what you fear has come to pass? That’s just idiotic.  

    Oh and to be clear: One politician’s opinion is meaningless.  

    Re: “Btw…………….Trump is actually on your team.”  

    No he’s not. He’s a raging, infantile lunatic. Precisely the sort of guy YOUR type loves … because he’s just as childish as all of you fundagelicals are. 

    Re: “I mean come on…………………..a Reality TV star becomes President?!!!”  

    Yes, and it happened because your kind elected him:   He’s YOUR guy. Not mine. I prefer mature adults, not crybaby whiners who pitch fits all over the place and rage and fume because the news media won’t lavish praise on him 24 hours a day for doing nothing more than throw tantrums, over and over and over again.  

    Re: “Trump is surrounded by neo-Bolsheviks/Marxists.”  

    Again, you throw labels around that have nothing to do with what you’re complaining about, in an effort to disparage them. Waaaaah wah waah, little baby. Waaaah wah. This is precisely the kind of immature reaction I expect of infantile little fundagelicals … as well as your Groper-in-Chief (who likewise loves to toss around labels, like Crooked Hillary, Lyin’ Ted, Little Marco, Rock Man, etc.). You say you don’t like the GiC, but in truth, you play the very same game he does, and for the very same reasons!  

  137. Calm down man. Keep to the study. The Frankfurt school is real. Neo-Cons are real. Bolsheviks are alive and well. Study Bolshevism. What we have today is Neo-Bolshevism/Neo-Communism……………..just simply veiled. The first 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto have come to be.
    You don’t have to agree with the guys at renegadebroadcasting. But you ought to listen and investigate their claims.
    If you are a white man. What is happening in South Africa will happen here. Mark my words. If you are White and if you think your Liberal Progressive mentality will shield you…………you are the fool.

  138. Re: “The Frankfurt school is real.”  

    So what?  

    Re: “Bolsheviks are alive and well.”  

    No they’re not.  

    Re: “Study Bolshevism.”  

    Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, came back. That’s how I know you have no idea what you’re talking about.   That you would throw terms like “Bolshevism” around as though Bolsheviks were marching down the corridors of the Capitol confirms your paranoia.  

    Re: “You don’t have to agree with the guys at renegadebroadcasting. But you ought to listen and investigate their claims.”  

    Why? I really don’t care who they are or what they say. If they’re your support, I have no plan to listen to them at all, because you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about — so they can’t, either.  

    Re: “What is happening in South Africa will happen here. Mark my words.”  

    Riiiiiight. Yeah. Obviously. The c. 12% of the US which is African-American will overthrow and imprison the c. 70-75% which is white. Correct?  

    Oh wait. In South Africa those numbers are reversed … which kind of explains what’s happening there, but it also demonstrates it can’t really happen here.  

    Once again, you have no idea what you’re talking about. None. It’s stunningly obvious, too. Kind of funny, if you ask me.  

  139. Unlike the existence of your sky fairy, there is evidence of an expanding universe.

  140. Okay, much thanks for responding.

    My degree and some working experience is in Media Writing, so I deal in writing, grammar, syntax, language. This stuff totally cuts off humans from ANY evolutionary linkage to animals and “animal ancestors.” Even your own posts demonstrate this.

    Hence you call on the “Mirror System Hypothesis” to rescue your beloved evolution.

    But now who’s gonna rescue your Mirror System Hypothesis? Hmm?

  141. Unbelievable. One last rec — Read, “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit” by E. Michael Jones. So what if he is Catholic. REFUTE HIS RESEARCH. The Bolsheviks were a Jewish led Revolution.
    Study the document — ‘Israel did 9-11’ and then wake the hell up. You are being played. I seriously pray you are not a white man.

  142. You don’t think “La Raza” wouldn’t jump in on that genocide? You are crazy. Drunk on Liberal Logic. I wouldn’t anticipate the Asians stepping in and calling for order.
    Read Jurgen Graf’s Book — “White World Awake!”
    Research — Coudenhave-Kalergi plan for White Genocide.
    Listen to Dr. William Luther Pierce.

  143. There is nothing “intelligent” about your fundamentalism.

  144. What is a fundamentalist? I have denounced Contemporary Christianity over and over and over and over. I am not part of that camp.

  145. You have much more in common with fundamentalists than you know. You live in the same camp. Your intellect is just as lazy.

  146. It is very strange how you think you actually know me. Like a disorder or something. You keep telling me ‘who’ I am, but you couldn’t back up any claim you make with something I actually have said. Very weird. I reject Evolution — so therefore I am a fundamentalist? I reject ‘paper marriage’ — therefore I am a fundamentalist? I am more ‘conservative’ minded than I would be ‘liberal’ minded — therefore I am a fundamentalist? And I’m a Trump supporter??? Bizarre. It’s almost psychotic to interject as you do. Why don’t you ask me a question, if you truly desire to ‘define’ me. Or do you simply get off on this. Does it make you feel better about yourself?

  147. And what is a “Fundamentalist” anyway…..according to your definition? I looked it up, but the definition was vague. “Someone who takes the Bible literally…” What the hell does that even mean? There are many parts of the Scriptures that I do not take literally. Most of the Scriptures are allegory — stories, etc., etc.

  148. Being “Civil” is a positive trait everyone should try and achieve. Instead of slandering me, ask me a question. Or does it simply make you feel better about yourself? Perhaps you were bullied as a child and faceless comment sections is your revenge.

  149. Bigots don’t deserve civility. Bigotry is uncivil, to say the least.

  150. There you go again. I have no problem Gays getting married. Zero. So you call me a bigot. Are you 13? For real.

  151. Being required to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding IS having the couples’ beliefs forcibly imposed on them, in the same way that the Romans sought to forcibly impose sacrificing to the emperor on early Christians: “It’s just tossing a bit of incense on the altar, why is this so difficult?” You’ll note that in both cases the government isn’t mandating belief, but action.

  152. So, do you believe that all the Christians that were martyred for refusing to sacrifice to the emperor were refusing to “render unto Caesar”? Marriage is a religious institution mandated by God, and as such needs to follow God’s laws. Others may choose to ignore His will, but the 1st Amendment forbids them to impose their choice on others.

  153. Jesus tells us to look to our own sins, so that we may then look to our brothers’ and sisters’ sins with a clear eye: “First get rid of the log in your own eye; THEN you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.”

    Not that it matters, because in the case of the bakers they aren’t “judging” in the sense you mean, but refusing to be accessories to sin — they are looking to their own souls, not those of the couple getting married.

  154. Yes, and if, say, a Baptist business owner refused to sell suits to a
    Mormon getting everything he needs for his mission because the Baptist
    believes that our missionaries endanger the souls of those they seek to
    convert I would have no problem with it. He is simply exercising his own
    due diligence, looking after his own soul.

    And it is still deception, intended to hide your true reason for refusing service. So yes, it is still lying.

  155. So if the bakers are asked make a cake for divinitydenying atheists, Jesus denying Jews, multiple god worshipping Hindus, Christianity denying Muslims, western god denying Buddhists…

    It’s all ok with you?

  156. Marriage is a civil institution. As it was in Rome, asit has been in this co)try since the Massachusetts bAy Colony. God is completely optional.

    Does the first amend:ent forbid Mormons from trying to impose their views about marriage onto the civil laws that governs all of us? it was perfectly fine for them to support prop 8 and other anti marriage laws at the expense of liberal Christians and atheists?

    Or does this work only one way?

  157. Sorry, your argument holds no merit in a court of law. And it doesn’t make sense — no one can “forcibly” change your beliefs without your consent. That’s ridiculous and further evidence for the emptiness of your argument.

  158. You are still confusing the person with the action. What is the cake celebrating — a birthday, a graduation, a ‘welcome back’ for a soldier home from a tour? In any of those cases, why should it matter to the baker what religion his customers belong to? The Bible has only one situation where it calls for shunning, and that is if a member of your congregation is flagrantly violating your church’s moral code without care or regret. And that’s been mostly superseded by the practice of excommunication.

  159. “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Marriage may be supported by laws and carried out by civil authorities, but the truth is that it is those laws that are completely optional — it was instituted by God and He is the one that has defined it. Just like how the law defining a land mine as a firearm doesn’t make it so, it doesn’t matter what the laws of a nation might be, if they don’t match God’s then it isn’t a real marriage.

    But for “imposing,” any law is going to be based on that society’s fundamental undersatanding of the nature and purpose of marriage. The ones that chose to impose their own views on the entire nation rather than accepting society’s standard definition were the courts.

  160. “Exercising your religion” isn’t just about what you believe, it’s about putting what you believe into practice. Bakers that refuse to be accessories to an act they consider sinful aren’t trying to change the beliefs of the couples, they’re trying to live by the standards their own beliefs call for. It is those seeking to destroy their livelihoods because of that, that are trying to force them to live by others’ beliefs and so are imposing their own beliefs on others.

  161. Your belief about what god defined marriage as. Just as your belief about your particular god isn’t the only one.

    Society’s standard definition of marriage? No, yours. Lots of people disagree with you. It wasn’t the courts alone. Or our country alone.

  162. a person that doesn’t believe Jesus died forbyour sins is flagrant,y violating your moral code. You don’t care. It’s jus them icky gays that get your hockey hot.

    Very telling.

  163. That’s as snow-flakey as it gets. Does this goddamned baker want to sell cakes or hold a revival? So sick of this stupid sh*t.

  164. Not the same thing. The snowflakes are the ones that want to suppress the right of anyone to do anything that might offend their delicate sensibilities. The bakers (and florists, and photographers) are just demanding the recognition of their constitutional right to not be forced to be accessories to activities they consider sinful.

  165. No, to not believe that Jesus died for our sins is not sinful. To receive a witness of that truth and reject it because of worries over the impact accepting it would have on your life? THAT is sinful. Jesus includes that group in his parable of the Sower: “Other seeds fell among thorns that grew up and choked out the tender plants.”

  166. If Justice Kennedy were to resign and with another (mostly) Originalist the Supreme Court overturned its travesty of a ruling imposing its own personal definition of marriage, how many states do you think would revert to a recognition of marriages inherent heterosexual nature? I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a solid majority, and very surprised if it wasn’t at least a majority.

    But that is irrelevant, because our right to freely exercise our religion is not based on majority opinion. Just the opposite, it is a protection from majority opinion.

  167. I’m sure that would happen. The election of Jabba the Trump shows that right wingery is alive and well.

    But thanks Now for indicating that it’s all about imposing YOUR religious beliefs on people who don’t share them. But you would howl if the same thing we’re done to you.

  168. Look up blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

  169. Wrong. Talk about delicate sensibilities?! WHINERS!!! Where is “sin” addressed in their “business plan”? Why don’t they just get it over with and join the American Taliban?

  170. Yes, with Trump Republicans demonstrated that when they are desperate or angry enough they’ll follow the example of Democrats in voting for candidates based solely on their policies, without care for their character. A party that was willing to back the Clintons all these decades has no right to complain about Republican’s support of Trump because of his poor character.

    And with marriage recognized and supported by our laws, there is no way to avoid having those laws based on SOMEONE’S understanding of the nature and purpose of the institution. For the Courts, the question was whether they would continue to recognize the constitutional right of the citizens of the several states under the 10th Amendment to make that decision themselves, or to unconstitutionally impose their own understanding on the entire nation. Five out of nine chose to go with the latter.

  171. Sin is open rebellion against God. Going with the Parable of the Sower, it is impossible for those represented by the seeds that fell on the path to reject the guidance of the Holy Spirit, because they never recognized its influence to begin with.

  172. Are you saying that people should run their businesses without any reference to their personal moral codes? That the moral teachings of their religions are something that they should only concern themselves with on their holy days and forget about during the rest of the week? If people do that, they will soon find that their religions’ moral teachings don’t really matter on their holy days, either — no other result is possible when people do not at least try to live by what they preach.

  173. So, if you burn in hell forever, it’s your own damned fault? Or god didn’t love you enough to get the message to you? Or god didn’t love you enough to keep you from burning in hell? Oryou heard the message, and it didn’t convince you because the messenger was an ahole? Or because the seeds the god that loves so much sent you were crap? Or that you heard the message, beloved you were following your god, butfound out that you listened to one of them damn librul messengers, rather than the appropriate conservative who Actually Knows The Mind of God?

    So many, many excuses for the god who so loved the world?

    And you wonder why so many people are leaving religion.

  174. You are saying that the business owners’ “personal moral codes” should be respected, while those of their customers should not be. Got it.

  175. And how are the couples in question being forced to violate their own moral codes?

  176. First, all transgressions — what would be sins if the people in question recognized them as such — are covered by Christ’s Atonement.

    Second, God will not judge you guilty for someone else’s failure, so if you don’t feel or recognize the promptings of the Holy Spirit because of others’ failures, you won’t be held accountable.

    And third, you seem to be mistaking me for many mainstream Christians. Mormons don’t believe that souls of the departed will literally “burn in Hell,” just the opposite — for those few that not just believe but KNOW that Jesus is the Messiah and reject him anyway, their ultimate destination is the Outer Darkness, a place without even a hint of God’s glory and so a cold and lonely existence. Everyone else will receive a kingdom of glory at some level.

Leave a Comment