Three things happened – a “Tri-Fecta” of sorts – to make me look seriously at my conspiratorial views of history and the world. MANY years ago, as a newer Christian (as do many new Christians who are reading through the Bible for the first time) – often times [the collective] we get caught-up in an “overabundance” of the eschatological material and issues. This is natural in some respect. It offers a suspensful, fast paced idea to the future. Not only that, but I think God ingrains in us this “the end is coming soon” to make us search for truth a bit. We see it in every generation (literally), and there have been secular versions of it as well all throughout history. The latest being the “Existential Climate Crisis.” In that early fascination of everything “end-times,” my early book collection focused heavily on the New World Order and all that that entails conspiracy-wise. I am still proud [being a bibliophile] that my “conspiracy”/NWO portion of my library holds classics as well as new books on the topic.
I was mesmerized by the conspiratorial view of history. Really, I was. But Y2K came and went without but a murmur, much to the consternation of the many theorists I followed at the time. At that same time, I started listening to the Michael Medved Show who, on every full moon dedicated his 3-hours on that day to taking calls on EVERYTHING under the sun conspiracy-wise. It was the first time I had heard reasonable responses to history I was misinterpreting. So, I started to go through (re-read) many of my books and actually follow the footnotes to see if they “panned-out”… and much of the info I was assuming to be sound was in fact not:
Quotes attributed to Founding Fathers were spurious;
items in museums were not in fact where they were said to be;
fuller readings of the source material showed isolated topics that in a fuller reading (context is king) showed a twisting of the material;
So with these three issues I was well on the way to recovery. Then 9/11 hit, and all the crazy conspiracies that came from it… as well as all the misinformation about Iraq, Big-Oil, Halliburton, WMDs, and the like. Physician, heal thy self.
And so I reject the conspiratorial view for many reasons, not the least of which is one of the same reasons I reject Darwinism.
I have spent a lot of time debunking some issues… not the least of which are 9/11 truther junk. Glad to see some may have found this page with your thinking helmet on.
A VERY SMALL sample of my library on this topic (remember, my home library boasts over 5,000 books, I have about a hundred-or-so of these books dealing with the conspiratorial view of history). I usually starighten and edit my scans, but the rough scans below are a form of saying, “yes I own them… fool!” Lol.
(Above) The Paris Climate Agreement will cost at least $1 trillion per year, and climate activists say it will save the planet. The truth? It won’t do anything for the planet, but it will make everyone poorer–except politicians and environmentalists. Bjorn Lomborg explains.
CLIMATE CHANGE: WHAT’S SO ALARMING? || Are droughts, hurricanes, floods and other natural disasters getting stronger and more frequent? Are carbon dioxide emissions, global temperatures and sea levels putting us on a path for climate catastrophe? Bjorn Lomborg, Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, breaks down the facts about the environment and shows why the reality of climate change may be very different from what you hear in the media.
DO 97% OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS REALLY AGREE? || Is it true that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real? Where does the 97% figure come from? And if it is true, do they agree on both the severity of and the solution to climate change? New York Times bestselling author Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, reveals the origins of the “97%” figure and explains how to think more clearly about climate change.
FOSSIL FUELS: THE GREENEST ENERGY || To make earth cleaner, greener and safer, which energy sources should humanity rely on? Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress explains how modern societies have cleaned up our water, air and streets using the very energy sources you may not have expected–oil, coal and natural gas.
CLIMATE CHANGE: WHAT DO SCIENTISTS SAY? || Climate change is an urgent topic of discussion among politicians, journalists and celebrities…but what do scientists say about climate change? Does the data validate those who say humans are causing the earth to catastrophically warm? Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world’s leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.
ARE ELECTRIC CARS REALLY GREEN? || Are electric cars greener than conventional gasoline cars? If so, how much greener? What about the CO2 emissions produced during electric cars’ production? And where does the electricity that powers electric cars come from? Environmental economist Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, examines how environmentally friendly electric cars really are.
IS CLIMATE CHANGE OUR BIGGEST PROBLEM? || Is man-made climate change our biggest problem? Are the wildfires, droughts and hurricanes we see on the news an omen of even worse things to come? The United Nations and many political leaders think so and want to spend trillions of tax dollars to reverse the warming trend. Are they right? Will the enormous cost justify the gain? Economist Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, explains the key issues and reaches some sobering conclusions.
CAN WE RELY ON WIND AND SOLAR ENERGY? || Is green energy, particularly wind and solar energy, the solution to our climate and energy problems? Or should we be relying on things like natural gas, nuclear energy, and even coal for our energy needs and environmental obligations? Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress explains. Learn about Alex Epstein’s book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.
WHY I LEFT GREENPEACE || Patrick Moore explains why he helped to create Greenpeace, and why he decided to leave it. What began as a mission to improve the environment for the sake of humanity became a political movement in which humanity became the villain and hard science a non-issue.
WHAT THEY HAVEN’T TOLD YOU ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE || Since time immemorial, our climate has been and will always be changing. Patrick Moore explains why “climate change,” far from being a recent human-caused disaster, is, for a myriad of complex reasons, a fact of life on Planet Earth.
THE TRUTH ABOUT CO2 || Global Warming activists will tell you that CO2 is bad and dangerous. The EPA has even classified it as a pollutant. But is it? Patrick Moore provides some surprising facts about the benefits of CO2 that you won’t hear in the current debate.
TREES ARE THE ANSWER || Everybody loves trees, so why are they so controversial? Patrick Moore untangles the knotty issue of “deforestation” and shows how, from a purely environmental perspective, it is possible and desirable to grow more trees and use more wood products.
WHY YOU SHOULD LOVE FOSSIL FUEL || Every year on Earth Day we learn how bad humanity’s economic development is for the health of the planet. But maybe this is the wrong message. Maybe we should instead reflect on how human progress, even use of fossil fuels, has made our environment cleaner and healthier. Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress explains.
IS ORGANIC FOOD WORTH THE COST? || Are organic foods really healthier than non-organic foods? Are they better for animals? Are they better for the environment? Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, explains.
CAN A DESERT NATION SOLVE THE WORLD’S WATER SHORTAGE? || From California to Africa, we are facing a global water shortage. But one tiny country, in the middle of a desert, has found remarkable solutions. Which country? And can we replicate its success? Businessman and New York Times bestselling author Seth Siegel explains. (SEE ALSO: “Do You Pass the Israel Test?“)
(12/2017) Steven Crowder Explains Net Neutrality | Steven Crowder breaks down Net Neutrality and the ulterior motives behind big corporations like Google and Facebook supporting it!
(12/2017) Rush Limbaugh Explains Net Neutrality | Rush does a good job in explaining the countering info to all the scare tactics of the Left about “net neutrality.” At about the 10:15 mark Rush starts talking about ZERO RATING, an important factor in the freedom of the market that Leftists want government to control.
(12/2017) Net Neutrality – Ma Bell | Ajit Pai (Chairman of the United States Federal Communications Commission [FCC]) responds to a challenge by Dennis Prager. Various articles and media — but the main article shows Ma Bell to be a monopoly BECAUSE of government regulation!
(11/2017) Steven Crowder and Ben Shapiro Discuss “Net Neutrality” | A couple articles and…[Video Description] Back from Thursday night mega show hiatus talking all things Trump Jr./Russia, Net Neutrality, Afghan robotics teams, dating abortionists and more. Special guests Ben Shapiro and Cassie Jaye of “The Red Pill”. Colton Wade makes his debut!
(03/2013) Professor Thomas Hazlett – Net Neutrality | [Video One] “I’m very confident a hundred years from now we won’t have an FCC,” says Thomas Hazlett, Reason contributor and George Mason economics professor. [Video Two] Professor Thomas Hazlett (George Mason University) discusses net neutrality at a lecture given at the Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford.
(05/2011) Steven Crowder Does Net Neutrality | This week, we asked people at South by Southwest how the felt about Net Neutrality. Everyone supported it, until they found out what it actually is…
(01/2011) Verizon Suing the FCC-Right On! | Verizon Communications has become the first of what many expect to be many, to sue the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to undo its voting themselves Internet Overlords on December 21st….
(01/2011) Net Neutrality (Have You Ever Known the Gov to be Neutral? | Net Neutrality is a proposed set of regulatory powers that would grant the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the ability to control how Internet service providers (ISPs) package their services. Proponents argue that such rules are necessary to ensure that ISPs treat all data on the Internet equally and don’t slow or even restrict access to various websites and other parts of the Internet. However well-intentioned, the practical effect will be to limit consumer choice and grant the federal government unprecedented power over the Internet, all in the name of fixing a problem that doesn’t exist in any meaningful way. Indeed, examples of the behavior that Net Neutrality will combat are few and far between.
(12/2010) What is Net Neutrality? And Why Should Someone Oppose It? | Seton Motley talks about the FCC’s upcoming Net Neutrality regulations, which will affect the way you receive your Internet. In his view – negatively. Here’s why, and what else you should be concerned about. (Marxist connections discussed)
Articles (newest to oldest)
(12/2018) PREDICTIONS ABOUT NET NEUTRALITY DID NOT COME TO PASS |REAL CLEAR POLICY|
(12/2017) California To Bring Back Net Neutrality… But Only For California | HOT AIR |
(12/2017) Debunking the Left’s Myths on Net Neutrality | HERITAGE FOUNDATION |
(10/2017) Millennial Asks for Net Neutrality Explanation | RUSH LIMBAUGH |
(07/2017) 7 Reasons Net Neutrality Is Idiotic: The government should keep its grubby hands off the Internet | THE DAILY WIRE |
(04/2017) Why ‘Net Neutrality’ Is a Problem | CATO INSTITUTE |
(07/2016) Ma Bell Suppressed Innovation for Thirty Grueling Years: In light of this history, so-called net neutrality should give us pause | FOUNDATION for ECONOMIC EDUCATION (FEE) |
(03/2015) Opinion: The Fcc’S Net Neutrality Victory Is Anything But | WIRED MAGAZINE |
(09/2014)Limbaugh is Right, Net Neutrality Is An Attack On Free Speech — So Why Is Comcast For It? | FORBES |
(09/2014) Net Neutrality — or Destroying Internet Innovation and Investment? | CATO INSTITUTE |
(07/2013) Don’t Blame Big Cable. It’s Local Governments That Choke Broadband Competition | WIRED MAGAZINE |
(03/2013) “The FCC did not have the statutory authority to do what it did” On Net Neutrality, Says Departing FCC Commissioner | REASON.ORG |
(08/2012) Thank Goodness We Have Net Neutrality to Save Us From the Threat of People Paying to Video Chat Over Mobile Networks | REASON.ORG |
(08/2012) The Free Market Doesn’t Need Government Regulation: Bureaucrats regulate by threat of physical force while the market operates peacefully through millions of cooperating participants | REASON.ORG |
(12/2010) John Fund: The Net Neutrality Coup (Marxist connections discussed) | ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER |
(05/2010) The Breakup Of Ma Bell — Let me caveat this article by saying I am NOT a fan of the New American Magazine. They are a John Birch publication, and my understanding of this organization is intimate, and so are my ultimate rejection of many of it’s positions. THAT BEING SAID, I thoroughly enjoyed much of the content (minus the NWO crap!) | NEW AMERICAN MAGAZINE |
(07/2007) The Comcast Net Neutrality Controversy: A Discussion | HERITAGE FOUNDATION |
(04/2000) Internet Access Should Be Left to the Free Market: Forced Access Legislation Will Not Achieve Its Intended Goals | FOUNDATION for ECONOMIC EDUCATION (FEE) |
“If you believe in equal rights, then what do ‘women’s rights,’ ‘gay rights,’ etc., mean? Either they are redundant or they are violations of the principle of equal rights for all.” — Thomas Sowell
FETUS (Latin)That which is born, an offspring (usu of beast occ. of human being, ect) b (sg. collect.) the young (of an animal), the children (of a parent). c the young born at one time, brood, litter. d the young while still in the womb – Oxford Latin Dictionary
White Student: This school seems to focus so much on race that it’s actually becoming more racist. Because I choose not to focus on race I’ve actually been labeled a racist and white supremacist. I’ve been told several times that I’m not allowed to speak because I’m white. I think people are becoming more violent. The campus is becoming more of an unsafe place.
(Rearranged for homogeneous play) This is originally from Southwest Business Association: “Small business owners share their story and how a Minneapolis specific minimum wage will impact their business.” (Learn more at their website)
I find it sad that Leftists HATE big-business and the corporate models of doing business… yet they are all for getting rid of the small business owner by pricing them out of the market. Much to the GLEE of corporations.
Here are the three business highlighted in the video:
Alaina Nelson – co-owner of Nicollet Ace Hardware (FACEBOOK)
Jane Elias – Owner of Simply Jane Art Studio (WWW)
Heather Bray – co-owner of The Lowbrow Burgers and Beer (WWW)
Just to note though, as many of the comments to follow from my YouTube and LiveLeak also note… these are the same people running around screaming for “free college,” more welfare benefits, etc. They only speak up with economic common sense when THEIR bottom line is hit.
I’m sorry to say, but it serves you right… and I have no sympathy for you. These people who are proud Bernie supporters and die-hard “progressives” staunchly support these horrific agendas as long as it’s someone else who has to foot the bill.
The left is so f’ing stingy with their minimum wage anyway. Why not $50 a hour?
So basically they support Bernie and his socialist ideas, except for when they personally need to chip in. Tells you everything you need to know about the character of these a$%holes.
f&*k these twats, if it didn’t effect them they’d be out on the streets screaming for $15 an hour.
Libtards are economically illiterate people, and the only way to make them understand how idiotic their policies are is to hit them in the pocketbook. Unfortunately most of them own nothing of value and spend most of their time hating and envying people who are better off than them, so it’s not an easy battle.
Liberals only understand economics when it bites them in the ass personally.
Self hating Leftist…
funny how they wake up the minute it is not OTHER peoples money!
Sad that they’re speaking the truth, and yet nobody would believe them unless they identified themselves as far left. Because hey, if a conservative said the exact same thing, it MUST be a lie!
Hard to believe lefties get basic economics.
I want to ask these people why it’s okay for them to not pay 15 dollars an hour but say corporations are greedy for not wanting to pay 15 dollars an hour.
Jay Sekulow, a member of President Trump’s legal team, pointed out on CNN’s “New Day” Wednesday that Democratic National Committee (DNC) operatives had coordinated with the Ukrainian government to dig up opposition research on the Trump campaign.
“The Ukrainian government was giving information to the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s people on who? Donald Trump,” Sekulow said in a discussion about possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. “So we’re acting like this doesn’t happen, but it does.”
“Ukraine is not Russia,” CNN’s Chris Cuomo replied, implying it was all right for one campaign to get “opposition research” from a foreign power, but not the other.
Sekulow pushed back on Cuomo’s reasoning, saying “That’s not the law.”……
As TGP previously reported, Hillary Clinton’s aides met with Ukrainian government officials and journalists specifically to dig up dirt on team Trump. The information gathered was then sent to the DNC and Hillary’s camp.
The media sycophants are however, silent over Hillary Clinton’s antics during the presidential election which makes Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting pale in comparison.
A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.
The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.
But Andrii Telizhenko, who worked as a political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy under Shulyar, said she instructed him to help Chalupa research connections between Trump, Manafort and Russia. “Oksana said that if I had any information, or knew other people who did, then I should contact Chalupa,” recalled Telizhenko, who is now a political consultant in Kiev. “They were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa,” he said, adding “Oksana was keeping it all quiet,” but “the embassy worked very closely with” Chalupa.
“One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn’t work perfectly, then it doesn’t work at all-and the government should step in.” — Thomas Sowell
What happens when politicians decide they are in a better position than business owners to know how much workers should be paid? We don’t have to guess. Cities like Seattle and New York have already done so with their $15/hour minimum wage mandates. Simone Barron, a lifelong restaurant worker, recounts how “helping” her impacted her wallet, her career, and her life.
Corporations can absorb this “do-goodism”, small business owners cannot!
“Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: ‘The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment’.” (Larry Elder)
Economists aren’t certain about many things, but on the minimum wage, nearly all of them (90 percent, according to one survey) believe that the case is open and shut. All else being equal, if you raise the price of something (for instance, labor), then the demand for it (for instance, by employers) will decline. That’s not just a theory; it’s a law.
A majority of professional economists surveyed in Britain, Germany, Canada, Switzerland, and the United States agreed that minimum wage laws increase unemployment among low-skilled workers. Economists in France and Austria did not. However, the majority among Canadian economists was 85 percent and among American economists was 90 percent. Dozens of studies of the effects of minimum wages in the United States and dozens more studies of the effects of minimum wages in various countries in Europe, Latin America, the Caribbean, Indonesia, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were reviewed in 2006 by two economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research. They concluded that, despite the various approaches and methods used in these studies, this literature as a whole was one “largely solidifying the conventional view that minimum wages reduce employment among low-skilled workers.”
The same is true with minimum wages. In 2015 the Employment Policies Institute surveyed 166 economists based in the United States on the subject. They found that
Nearly three-quarters of these US-based economists oppose a federal minimum wage of $15.00 per hour.
The majority of surveyed economists believe a $15.00 per hour minimum wage will have negative effects on youth employment levels (83%), adult employment levels (52%), and the number of jobs available (76%).
When economists were asked what effect a $15.00 per hour minimum wage will have on the skill level of entry-level positions, 8 out of 10 economists (80%) believe employers will hire entry-level positions with greater skills.
When economists were asked what effect a $15.00 per hour minimum wage will have on small businesses with fewer than 50 employees, nearly 7 out of 10 economists (67%) believe it would make it harder for them to stay in business.
A majority of surveyed economists (71%) believe that the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a very efficient way to address the income needs of poor families; only five percent believe a $15.00 per hour minimum wage would be very efficient.
The economists surveyed are divided on the impact of a $15.00 per hour minimum wage will have on poverty rates, as well as the impact it would have on the spending level for public programs such as the EITC, TANF, or others.
At lower levels (under $11.00 per hour) of proposed federal minimum wages, economists are divided largely by self-identified party identification as to an acceptable rate with a majority of Republicans and Independents who responded favoring lower minimum wages ($7.50 per hour or less) and a plurality of Democrats who responded preferring a minimum wage between $10.00 and $10.50 per hour.
Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583), a sixteenth century German theologian, born Zacharias Baer in Breslau (now Wroc?aw, Poland). Like all young scholars of that era he gave himself a Latin name from ursus, meaning bear. He is best known as a professor of theology at the University of Heidelberg and co-author with Caspar Olevianus (1536-1587) of the Heidelberg Catechism…. (THEOPEDIA)
The Heidelberg Catechism is a document used in Reformed churches to help teach church doctrine. It takes the form of a series of questions and answers to help the reader better understand the material. It has been translated into many languages and is regarded as the most influential Reformed catechism.
Elector Frederick III, sovereign of the Palatinate from 1559 to 1576, appointed Zacharias Ursinus and Caspar Olevianus, to write a Reformed catechism based on input from the leading Reformed scholars of the time. One of its aims was to counteract the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church regarding theology, basing each statement on the text of the Bible…… (THEOPEDIA)
(I am changing some of my “Pages” to “Posts,” so some of this info is older to my site)
I respond to an honest question about why I (RPT) support gay blogs.
This post was a response to a person asking why I post stuff by gays (like, GAY PATRIOT)? (FYI, Gay Patriot is now “defunct” — while Bruce is keeping the site up, and the links should still be good… note: that are no longer posting new posts) Saying that homosexual acts are deviant acts, therefore, intimating that my posting or supporting of such conservatarian gays would thus be myself supporting deviant acts. (A Rough quote of the question posed to me at my “Hit Pause on SSM” FaceBook Group: https://www.facebook.com/Pausessm)
A fair question by a fellow believer. And an important one, as, it leads to some issues conservative Christians shy away from. So I will respond in some depth here. To wit, one should note as well that I post videos by atheists like PAT CONDELL, who hates all religions (Christianity as well).
“Atheism is a disease of the soul before it is an error of the mind.” ~ Plato
That being said, Pat has great insights put in well-pieced together “rants” against Islamo-Fascism that I think expand the importance in understanding and confronting this stark reality. In other words, Pat’s voice is needed! Not only that, but I would have a few beers with the guy to get to know him personally.
I use Reagan’s 80% Rule:
“The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20 percent traitor.”
Similarly, I do not think or believe Larry Elder is a Christian, and so, in his relations with women I would assume he may participate in “devient” acts. By posting audio of his show and believing him to be unsaved… am I participating in these acts? By posting Dennis Prager’s insights on culture am I also supporting his multiple divorces or his views on Noah’s flood being allegorical?
The answer to these rhetorical question is “of course not.”
Mind you, I am all for good -solid- sermon that calls the guilty sinner [ALL sinners] to repent before their angry Judge. I am thinking here of Jonathan Edwards sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” Those types of sermons are always… will always… be needed.
I have mentioned for the audience of my old blog, but will again mention it here for any new readers: this is not meant to be an explicitly Christian blog. While I hold to and vehemently defend a particular worldview, I do not intend this site to be “rosy cheeked” — “pure as the driven snow” depot for faith. This site is meant for men and women who are confident enough in themselves, their faith, and their culture to know that the “holier-than-thou” lifestyle is best adhered to by those other than ourselves. So expect language and raw thoughts at times, in a respectful or satirical manner. In other words… CAUTION…
Religio-Poltical Apologetics ahead!
When GAY PATRIOT (GP) makes points that progress understanding of the American experiment [the Constitution and our Republic], I support their work. Especially in such a liberal sub-culture/environment that they find themselves in… they need all the support they can get.
I also know and have met some of these guys/gals that post on GP’s TWITTERor BLOG(or use to in times past. Some have stopped posting, others are newer to the blog. For instance, I have not met VtheK in personperson, but would have some beers with him). Dinner was somewhat a regular [monthly] event. At least the ” West-Coast faction” of GP.
Dinner was based on two restaurants that supported Mitt Romney for President (The Outback and Sizzler), and was always on a Monday b-e-c-a-u-s-e the Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution saying that in order to help save the planet from anthropogenic global warming people should not eat meat on Mondays. Obviously then the meal included meat.
Bruce, GP’s founder, even came out once to see this “Motley Crew.”
One gentleman that is part of this “Motley Crew” works at THE ANSWERand knows Prager. So when you hear Prager mention gay family members, co-workers, and friends he knows… one of those guys are in the mix.
What many do not realize is that the Constitution allows for the States to define — legally — what “marriage” can be defined as. In other words, what isn’t expressly enumerated in the Constitution as what the Federal Government can-and-cannot do are left for the states to decide.
And every time the states have decided they have decided on the issue, they have voted for heterosexual marriage. Gay Patriot notes and loves this understanding of the Constitution. As do I.
Some gay men-and-women as well support the idea that heterosexual marriage has a benefit for society that gay-marriage does not ~ intrinsically. But this is true of all liberalism… not “gayness.” For instance I love this truth mentioned by GP (VtheK) ~ I will highlight the most important portion:
“Don’t be ridiculous,” they said. “No way does same sex marriage lead to legalized polygamy. The slippery slope argument is a complete fallacy, because enactment of one liberal social policy has never, ever led to the subsequent enactment of the logical extension of that liberal social policy. Ever!”
Well, they may have been wrong about the coefficient of friction on that particular incline. Commenter Richard Bell notes the following: Judge Cites Same-Sex Marriage in Declaring Polygamy Ban Unconstitutional.
[….]
Since marriage is no longer about creating a stable environment for children, and has become (and this mainly the fault of heterosexual liberals) about personal fulfillment, validation, and access to social benefits, there literally is no constraint on how much more broadly it can be redefined.
You see? Liberalism infects all aspects of life… political, religious, or common sense aspects of our lives. These men and women deserve the best in grace and love from us.GALATIANS 6:9-10reads:
So we must not get tired of doing good, for we will reap at the proper time if we don’t give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, we must work for the good of all, especially for those who belong to the household of faith.
These two verses speak explicitly to “Christians” as they are the ones of the household of faith: “especially for those who belong to the household of faith.” Applying this general Biblical principle to the political realm… we end up back at what Reagan was getting at. Conservatives want to help all people [never tire doing “good”], and we think that conservative principles do this best in contradistinction to what liberalism offers people.
In this political realm we especially work with those of the same political “faith” (i.e., conservatives) ~ Gay or Straight!
Here is an example from a lesbian’s blog I visit here-and-there, called, “GAY, CONSERVATIVE, AND PROUD” — this comes from the “about me” section to the right:
Things I care about: School choice and reform, free markets, Ronald Reagan, Ann Coulter, small government, conservative ideals, and snarky comebacks.
Before you ask, I’m probably supporting either Marco Rubio and Scott Walker in the 2016 primaries….
Right On! That “right-on” aside, I disagree with her viewpoint on marriage: “I truly think that marriage needs to be abolished from government and civil unions should take that place of them. Gay, straight, polygamous, etc….” This is a legitimate view, and shows the more libertarian viewpoint on it. But Christians need to be prepared to talk about why, polygamy[for instance], is bad for society as a whole as well as the individuals involved.
One last thought as well. Often times Christians get too use to applying Romans chapter one to “others.” When in fact it is a Declaration [of-sort] of all humanity, which includes us as well. We know this laundry list of pride and putting things before our God. As well as our proclivity to rebel against God.
Above Audio Description
In the second part of a lecture given at the Utah Mormon Tabernacle (the first Evangelical to do so since D. L. Moody), Ravi Zacharias explains well the fallen nature of man.
And God doesn’t just give over gays alone to their worshiping of the creature rather than the… He gives over ALL sinners who are not called because of their rebellion and only calls the elect because of their heeding the Holy Spirit. ALL those who practice rebellious acts of selfish-will against Him who are not forgiven and covered in the Lambs righteousness.
I know how easy it is for one to rebel with selfidh-pride and one’s own will… and how easy it is to delude oneself into thinking your choices are the right ones (speaking as a three-time convicted felon).
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool” ~ Richard P. Feynman (atheist).
Self-delusion is the easiest and quickest action the sinner makes… and the serpent in Eden knew this proclivity well. And to be salt-and-light as well as everything to everybody.
I am aware that many of these “gay-patriots” know my position on homosexual acts. I also know that typically those I consider compatriots in the body-politic are adults and take these views with how I mean them, with care and concern for them as individuals.
My hope is that like them influencing me in small ways on liberty and our nations founding document, that my views may rub off them a bit and they truly consider what Christ is calling them to. I doubt someone who removes themselves fully from gay people can do so… and there are examples of persons living a Godly lifestyle who are gay. But if our position is correct… then a missing ingredient from these person’s lives is love… and how else to introduce the person to True Love (Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for them) than to rub shoulders with wonderful gay men and women?
Above Audio Description
During a Q and A with Ravi Zacharias and RZIM at Oxford, a homosexual man asks a question but really ends up encouraging those in the faith of the miraculous work of God in peoples changed lives.
Something said during this exchange that really clicks with my understanding of this very important issue. Love. Most often — as I note often in my debates and posts on this topic (see below) — there is abuse or some family issue that drives these young men and women into this lifestyle. While I am more of a political-animal/armchair-philosopher and I deal with this issue in a “cut-n-dry” fashion, love is the motivating factor of change.
Usually the Christian [at the time of conversion] has this immense connection with their Creator and what He has done for him/her and the depths of their depravity that has been covered. Dorothy Sayers says it best:
“None of us feels the true love of God till we realize how wicked we are. But you can’t teach people that — they have to learn by experience.”
There is love and change available to those who seek it. the problem has become a society that perpetuates the PC status quo (YouTube). To keep the quoting of Mrs. Sayers going, she comments well on tolerance:
“In the world it is called Tolerance, but in hell it is called Despair, the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.”
I also let people know (as loving as possible) that while society dissuades in schools, media, and lawsuits the lifestyle choices of smoking because it takes off [on average] of a person’s life about 10-years… so too do I think that society should dissuade the lifestyle that chooses same-sex. I am not saying making the choice illegal.
No. (For instance, smoking is not illegal)
BUT, what I am saying is do not teach that it is an exact carbon copy of heterosexual marriages in it’s benefits for society as a whole — or — for the individuals involved.
Telling a friend who is gay that if they have a partner whom they truly love and want to see live a long and healthy life, suggesting that they find other ways to be intimate IS the loving thing to do. If they are using their partner as a means to their end (a “tool” in other words… I discuss this in my chapter on the matter), then they do not truly love said person.
I go to some length to explain that I am approaching the issue with grace and love in my SSM-PAGE… but also that our countries ideals are leading the way. Dennis Prager has a good way in noting this struggle between the two (see Appendix). I also note that as Christians we should support the law as it is enumerated in the Constitution while still trying to change hearts and minds. I hope my site does this not only for the straight community, but for the “not so straight” community as well.
…Proponents and opponents [of same-sex marriage] ask two different questions.
Proponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is keeping the definition of marriage as man-woman fair to gays? Opponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is same-sex marriage good for society?
Few on either side honestly address the question of the other side. Opponents of same-sex marriage rarely acknowledge how unfair the age-old man-woman definition is to gay couples. And proponents rarely, if ever, acknowledge that this unprecedented redefinition of marriage may not be good for society.
That is why proponents have it much easier. All they need to do is to focus the public’s attention on individual gay people, show wonderful gay individuals who love each other, and ask the American public: Is it fair to continue to deprive these people of the right to marry one another?
When added to Americans’ aversion to discrimination, to the elevation of compassion to perhaps the highest national value, and to the equating of opposition to same-sex marriage with opposition to interracial marriage, it is no wonder that many Americans have been persuaded that opposition to same-sex marriage is hateful, backwards and the moral equivalent of racism.
Is there any argument that can compete with the emotionally compelling fairness argument?
The answer is that one can — namely, the answer to the second question, Is it good for society?
Before answering that question, however, it is necessary to respond to the charge that opposition to same-sex marriage is morally equivalent to opposition to interracial marriage and, therefore, the moral equivalent of racism.
There are two responses:
First, this charge is predicated on the profoundly false premise that race and sex (or “gender” as it is now referred to) are analogous.
They are not.
While there are no differences between black and white human beings, there are enormous differences between male and female human beings. That is why sports events, clothing, public restrooms, and (often) schools are routinely divided by sex. But black sporting events and white sporting events, black restrooms and white restrooms, black schools and white schools, or black clothing stores and white clothing stores would be considered immoral.
Because racial differences are insignificant and gender differences are hugely significant, there is no moral equivalence between opposition to interracial marriage and opposition to same-sex marriage.
Second, if opposition to same-sex marriage is as immoral as racism, why did no great moral thinker, in all of history, ever advocate male-male or female-female marriage? Opposition to racism was advocated by every great moral thinker. Moses, for example, married a black woman, the very definition of Catholic is “universal” and therefore diverse and has always included every race, and the equality of human beings of every race was a central tenet of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other world religions. But no one – not Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Aquinas, Gandhi, not the Bible or the Koran or any other sacred text, nor even a single anti-religious secular thinker of the Enlightenment — ever advocated redefining marriage to include members of the same sex.
To argue that opposition to same-sex marriage is immoral is to argue that every moral thinker, and every religion and social movement in the history of mankind prior to the last 20 years in America and Europe was immoral. About no other issue could this be said. Every moral advance has been rooted in prior moral thinking. The anti-slavery movement was based on the Bible. Martin Luther King, Jr. was first and foremost the “Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.” and he regularly appealed to the moral authority of the scriptures when making his appeals on behalf of racial equality. Same-sex marriage is the only social movement to break entirely with the past, to create a moral ideal never before conceived. It might be right, but it might also be an example of the moral hubris of the present generation, the generation that created the self-esteem movement: After all, you need a lot of self-esteem to hold yourself morally superior to all those who preceded you.
We now return to our two primary questions.
Is the man-woman definition of marriage fair to gays who wish to marry? No, it isn’t. And those of us opposed to same-sex marriage need to be honest about this, to confront the human price paid by some people through no fault of their own and figure out ways to offer gay couples basic rights associated with marriage.
But whether a policy is fair to every individual can never be the only question society asks in establishing social policy. Eyesight standards for pilots are unfair to some terrifically capable individuals. Orchestra standards are unfair to many talented musicians. A mandatory retirement age is unfair to many people. Wherever there are standards, there will be unfairness to individuals.
So, the question is whether redefining in the most radical way ever conceived — indeed completely changing its intended meaning — is good for society….
[….]
It is not enough to mean well in life. One must also do well. And the two are frequently not the same thing.
There are reasons no moral thinker in history ever advocated same-sex marriage.
For additional information on this last portion, see:
