Hey Hey! Ho Ho! Christian Candidates Have Got to Go!

For weeks, there has been a “holy war” being waged against Rick Santorum by “gay rights” activists. No one is spared from this onslaught. It should be noted that Michele Bachmann is also being attacked for her Christianity…even to the point of pirating and editing videos with lies painting her as a bigot.

Anti-Christian bigotry is afoot…and apparently…there are no rules.

de·cen·cy? ?[dee-suhn-see]
noun.
1. the state or quality of being decent.
2. conformity to the recognized standard of propriety, good taste, modesty, etc.

There is nothing decent about the “gay rights” movement. Nothing.

23 Responses to Hey Hey! Ho Ho! Christian Candidates Have Got to Go!

  • Stephen E Dalton says:

    The queers have never been tolerant once they believe they have power. Genesis 18 and Judges 19 shows us what can happen when it goes to their heads.

  • T. Shaw says:

    St. Augustine wrote in The City of God, that we must love sinners with Christian Charity, “for as long as they live they may come to a better mind.”

    I think that would be guided by the Spiritual Works of Mercy: admonish the sinner, bear wrongs patiently, forgive all injuries, teach the ignorant, etc.

    No, wait!

    It’s time to hit back twice as hard. They bring a knife we bring a gun . . .

  • AJ Grendel says:

    They’re not receiving hate for their faith, they’re receiving hate for their hateful comments they’ve made in the past. If Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann wish to call gay people ‘immoral’ and ‘unnatural’ and make comments about how they’re all ‘trapped in misery’, then they deserve to be ridiculed and mocked for their hateful, bigoted opinions. You spew hate, you’re gonna get hate back. dwi.

  • Lisa Graas says:

    I disagree that they are spewing hate but are you saying that your value system is that if you subjectively believe someone is “spewing hate” then the appropriate response is to “spew hate” back at them? In other words, your moral code is “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”?

  • AJ Grendel says:

    I would try to not stoop to their level because nobody wins when you sink down to using insults or generalizations that attack entire groups, however ultimately I see no issue with people using their freedom of speech, even if they wish to use it to just lob insults. It’s not really constructive or beneficial, but it is ultimately something everyone (including those candidates and responders I disagree with) has a right to do.

    Freedom of speech doesn’t however protect your opinions from being criticized, and if one is making hateful comments they must be prepared that some people will take offence to those, and may respond in kind.

  • T. Shaw says:

    AJ:

    The Constitution actually prohibits “religious tests.”

    Criticism is one thing. When your buddies utilize self-defined realities, truths, and vice/virtues (which are 180 degrees opposed to 5,000 years of civilized life) to censor, to make death threats, libels, lies, slanders that is out of bounds.

    How’s your mother? (Reference to Beowulf not an insult).

    Of course, your reality (what do you call the planet on which you exist?) tells you that our beliefs are “ancient religious hatred”, (Slick Willy Press Secy. Joe Lockhart). So, you’re right. There is no talk with you.

  • AJ Grendel says:

    “Criticism is one thing. When your buddies utilize self-defined realities, truths, and vice/virtues (which are 180 degrees opposed to 5,000 years of civilized life) to censor, to make death threats, libels, lies, slanders that is out of bounds.”

    Criticism isn’t the same as censorship. You can’t tell people that they’re bad for choosing to act on urges they were born with, can’t change and that don’t violate anyone else’s rights and expect them to not reject your opinion as hateful and misinformed. As I’ve said in every post I’ve made, calls for violence by people I otherwise agree with are just as wrong as those by people I disagree with.

    Society used to tolerate slavery, now we don’t because we recognize that the practice violates people’s basic rights. We used to tolerate arranged marriages, now we don’t because we recognize that that practice also violates people’s basic rights. We used to not allow interracial marriage, but we now do, because we realize that banning it violates people’s basic rights.

    Societies grow by questioning and rejecting outdated beliefs, values and practices, which is why many of these ancient ideas are being questioned now. Which isn’t to say they weren’t questioned before, as many ancient societies accepted homosexuality and some even recognized a third-gender.

    “Of course, your reality (what do you call the planet on which you exist?) tells you that our beliefs are “ancient religious hatred”. So, you’re right. There is no talk with you.”

    Sorry, I’ll continue to call a spade a spade. When people stop using religious faith as justification for bigotry, and for violating others rights by trying to restrict their ability to engage in practices that impact no one but themselves, I’ll no longer have need to treat their beliefs as hatred based on outdated superstition.

    You’re right though, you might as well not waste your time trying to tell me I should be more tolerance of your intolerance. I’m not able to doublethink my way into seeing that as reasonable like you clearly have.

  • “You can’t tell people that they’re bad for choosing to act on urges they were born with, can’t change and that don’t violate anyone else’s rights and expect them to not reject your opinion as hateful and misinformed.”

    Actually most lesbians claim that they choose to be lesbians. The buzz word when homosexual liberation started in the seventies was sexual preference. The idea that people are born to a certain sexual orientation is belied by history and currently has zero scientific basis to support it. There actually is much more scientific evidence that some people may be born with a potential for being unable to control their anger. That does not mean that they cannot be held fully accountable for what may be an inborn impulse.

    “Society used to tolerate slavery, now we don’t because we recognize that the practice violates people’s basic rights.”

    That isn’t the reason. Slavery was done away with in the West largely by abolition movements that were fueled by Christians. Google William Wilberforce for example. The idea that slavery was wrong was based on the Christian concept that all men and women are children of God. Where Christian influence is weak slavery returns. I would point to the slaves of the Gulag in Soviet Russia for example. Most of the things you take for granted as human rights comes down to a basically Christian world view. Other cultures and civilizations have had different ways of looking at the world, and in almost all of them human rights, as defined in the West with its history of Christianity, matter little.

    “Societies grow by questioning and rejecting outdated beliefs, values and practices, which is why many of these ancient ideas are being questioned now.”

    Not in regard to morality. The question, for example, of whether it is moral to abort a child does not change with time. The answers that are popular with most people may alter back and forth over time, but the question remains the same. A cursory examination of history reveals that the idea that there is a straight line progression in the development of morality is ludicrous. The Sermon on the mount is as valid today as it was 2000 years ago, and the eugenics of forced sterilization of the retarded as wrong today as it was when it received the approval of the Supreme Court in the 1920s.

    “Which isn’t to say they weren’t questioned before, as many ancient societies accepted homosexuality and some even recognized a third-gender.”

    Actually the idea of homosexuality as we understand it today, where a group practices sex with partners of the same sex for an entire life, would have struck virtually all ancient societies as bizarre. Some Greeks practiced pederasty, but that did not prevent them from marrying and having children. Using boys as catamites has been common throughout Greece and the Middle East, but it was regarded as a vice and not a civil right.

    “When people stop using religious faith as justification for bigotry, and for violating others rights by trying to restrict their ability to engage in practices that impact no one but themselves, I’ll no longer have need to treat their beliefs as hatred based on outdated superstition.”

    Of course this statement by you is disingenuous. Gay activists seek to change how Western society has viewed sex for 2000 years. Tolerance is not what you seek, but rather to have society give its stamp of approval through gay marriage, the right for gays to adopt, to serve openly in the military, to have gay propaganda taught in schools, etc. Those who dissent are to be silenced. Which is why a Catholic blogger on a small blog received over 32000 hits in one day, and comments not merely criticizing her, but mostly simply vilely insulting her. Intimidation and punishment was the order of the day. Of course this is all bound to ultimately fail. The conditions in the West which led to the current cultural moment will continue to shift and change, but the Church will remain. We have seen the Caesars rise and fall, the invasion of the barbarians, the Crusades, the Protestant Reformation, etc, and nothing has altered our devotion to spreading the teachings of Christ. We will outlast you and prevail over time.

  • AJ Grendel says:

    “That isn’t the reason. Slavery was done away with in the West largely by abolition movements that were fueled by Christians. Google William Wilberforce for example. The idea that slavery was wrong was based on the Christian concept that all men and women are children of God. Where Christian influence is weak slavery returns. I would point to the slaves of the Gulag in Soviet Russia for example. Most of the things you take for granted as human rights comes down to a basically Christian world view. Other cultures and civilizations have had different ways of looking at the world, and in almost all of them human rights, as defined in the West with its history of Christianity, matter little.”

    Slavery was both opposed and supported by groups that were fueled by Christianity in the southern US. Slavery (especially of non-Christians) was supported by many Christian kingdoms in the early middle ages. Christian opposition to slavery in the middle ages was restricted to opposition to slavery of Christians. Prisoners of a Gulag were considered criminals by an authoritarian political party, and while their condition was most certainly slavery, it was morally justified differently than systems that a people consciously accept to be slavery. Christians have most certainly contributed to the concept of liberty in the west, however they’re not the only ones, and they don’t own it and it certainly doesn’t mean enforcing Christian/Biblical morality is a good way to pursue liberty.

    “Actually most lesbians claim that they choose to be lesbians. The buzz word when homosexual liberation started in the seventies was sexual preference. The idea that people are born to a certain sexual orientation is belied by history and currently has zero scientific basis to support it. There actually is much more scientific evidence that some people may be born with a potential for being unable to control their anger. That does not mean that they cannot be held fully accountable for what may be an inborn impulse”

    It’s rather disingenuous to compare an action that only involves two adults consenting and one that violates another’s rights like using violence (even if one has a rage disorder). No one’s suggesting we allow gay people to engage in non-consensual rape with impunity. Given that gay males show predictable, stereotypical changes is the size of certain brain structures, as well as statistically predictable differences in the ratio in lengths of their fingers, there’s pretty strong evidence of homosexuality having a biological component. As homosexual behaviour isn’t and ought not to be criminal, there’s nothing to “hold them accountable for”, they get to carry out their business however they like.

    “Actually the idea of homosexuality as we understand it today, where a group practices sex with partners of the same sex for an entire life, would have struck virtually all ancient societies as bizarre. Some Greeks practiced pederasty, but that did not prevent them from marrying and having children. Using boys as catamites has been common throughout Greece and the Middle East, but it was regarded as a vice and not a civil right. ”

    I was actually not referring to the Middle East or Greece, but rather the Celts who practised homosexuality between adult men of similar social status.

    You are correct in stating that exclusive homosexuality didn’t exist. Men were expected to produce offspring, as long as they did that duty, shagging other women, or men, or children, including slaves and sometimes equals was generally not seen as immoral in many ancient societies. Theidea of male monogamy was foreign to most ancient cultures.

    Some of these practices we recognize as immoral (for example, it was accepted that you could rape your wife, or your slaves) however the ones that are, are seen as immoral because they violate the rights of others, not because they are not productive.

    “Of course this statement by you is disingenuous. Gay activists seek to change how Western society has viewed sex for 2000 years. Tolerance is not what you seek, but rather to have society give its stamp of approval through gay marriage, the right for gays to adopt, to serve openly in the military, to have gay propaganda taught in schools, etc. Those who dissent are to be silenced.”

    Gay people have every right to be seen as normal members of society. They are. People are free to believe sodomy is immoral (or masturbation, or sex while menstruating, or having the lights turned on or whatever else you’d like to describe as immoral), it doesn’t make it so, and it doesn’t entitle anyone to dictate that it can’t be talked about, or that people who engage in it can be discriminated against by the state. There’s no legitimate reason that one minority should be allowed to dictate how we treat another group of people just based on what they do with other consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

    “Which is why a Catholic blogger on a small blog received over 32000 hits in one day, and comments not merely criticizing her, but mostly simply vilely insulting her. Intimidation and punishment was the order of the day.”

    Yes, butthurt people on the internet sometimes over-react. I understand and empathize with their offence though, much like you feel offence for how she was insulted. Mind you, she wasn’t really insulted any worse than a Justin Bieber fan would get on some YouTube videos, the internet is an ugly place. It doesn’t justify the behaviour though.

    “Of course this is all bound to ultimately fail. The conditions in the West which led to the current cultural moment will continue to shift and change, but the Church will remain. We have seen the Caesars rise and fall, the invasion of the barbarians, the Crusades, the Protestant Reformation, etc, and nothing has altered our devotion to spreading the teachings of Christ. We will outlast you and prevail over time.”

    It’s possible, however the trend throughout the west since the Enlightenment, and especially since WWI has been one of declining religiosity. I hope the Church continues to exist, even as it becomes increasingly irrelevant in law and politics. Theocracy just goes against our values, and right now there’s a very vocal minority that is opposed to imposing laws based on another minority’s religious ideals.

  • “Christians have most certainly contributed to the concept of liberty in the west, however they’re not the only ones, and they don’t own it and it certainly doesn’t mean enforcing Christian/Biblical morality is a good way to pursue liberty.”

    Wherever Christianity has been strong slavery has inevitably died out. We see this with slavery in the ancient world after the rise of Christianity and with serfdom in the Middle Ages in the West. Enslavement of captives of war was a consequence of the unending wars with Islamic states which practiced slavery on a grand scale. Muslim captives were normally manunmitted following conversion to Christianity, and a caste system of perpetual slavery passed on from generation to generation simply did not develop in Europe as a consequence. In the South prior to the Civil War you are correct that some religious figures did attempt a defense of slavery based upon the Bible. However, the larger point is that Christianity and slavery have proven themselves incompatible over time. You cannot say that about any other culture. Without Christianity slavery would still flourish around the globe. In regard to the state slaves of the Soviet Union, you are correct that there were other excuses given for enslaving millions of people as slaves and working many of them to death than some prior slave holding regimes had given, but it was slavery on a grand scale, and put together by a regime dedicated to militant atheism. Assume that man is merely an animal with no spark of the Divine in him, and it is small wonder if a government with such a worldview will treat him as an animal or worse.

  • “Given that gay males show predictable, stereotypical changes is the size of certain brain structures, as well as statistically predictable differences in the ratio in lengths of their fingers, there’s pretty strong evidence of homosexuality having a biological component.”

    They really don’t. Studies purporting to show genetic links to homosexuality have been flawed as a very light reading of the literature would reveal. The human sexual impulse can go down various byways in life due to nurture, experiences and choices. I doubt if there is any genetic basis to it. If, however, a “gay gene” is discovered, homosexuals had better hope that the pro-life cause succeeds and pronto as I could foresee sex selection abortions along those lines.

  • “Gay people have every right to be seen as normal members of society. They are. People are free to believe sodomy is immoral (or masturbation, or sex while menstruating, or having the lights turned on or whatever else you’d like to describe as immoral), it doesn’t make it so, and it doesn’t entitle anyone to dictate that it can’t be talked about, or that people who engage in it can be discriminated against by the state.”

    Laws regulating sexual conduct have existed throughout history and for good reason. Sex has an enormous impact upon society, as we have seen amply demonstrated with the rise of cohabitation and illegitimacy over the past several decades. In regard to homosexual conduct we have taken something uniformly regarded as a serious crime just a few decades ago and transformed it into a civil right. The attempt to pretend that homosexual conduct and heterosexual conduct are morally just the same puts the gay rights activists on a collision course not just with traditional Christian teaching but also reality. Such a thing can only be believed through heavy indoctrination by the entertainment industry, the education establishment, etc. This is a hothouse plant that flourishes now due to post World War II developments in Western societies. The rest of the world has been largely immune to all of this and I think over time the West will resume viewing homosexuality as one among many sexual perversions. Personally I applaud the decrimininalization of such conduct, as I think a court of law is a poor place to attempt to enforce a moral code in this area, but I do think that viewing homosexual conduct as immoral will once again be the majority position a few decades hence.

  • “It’s possible, however the trend throughout the west since the Enlightenment, and especially since WWI has been one of declining religiosity.”

    That is not true. The Nineteenth Century witnessed a boom in religious practice. After World War II up until the sixties there was a revival in religious practice, with, for example, more people in the US attending weekly services than at any time in our history. The history of Christianity in the West is a constant cycle of waxing and waning, but throughout it all the Church remains. Your use of theocracy in this context only demonstrates that you do not understand what the term means.

  • Fededunak says:

    I think two things are pertinent to this discussion, one on Homosexuality and another on atheism.

    First, Christ commands us to deny our own nature and to become like him, a living Ikon of the Christ. It does not matter if your are born straight, homosexual or something in between. Christ was none of these but reisited all temptation. Paul does say that those who cannot abstain should marry and that husbands and wives should not deny each other.

    Second, you know a tree by the fruit it bears. The fruit of atheism ahs some particularly hideous atheist states. I do not mean secular states; a secular state has no official belief about a deity. These atheist states have been uniformly brutal and totalitarian from Revolutionary France through the Soviet Union to the extant atheist states of Red China and Cuba. All of you good atheist please tell me which atheist state you would wish to live in. The states with the most freedom on this planet all came out of he Judeo-Christian ethos and many of them in Europe have s state church that is Christian. A few of the founding fathers of the USA were theists or deists who had no use for organized religion but I have seen nothing that indicates any of them espoused the non-existence of a supreme being.

  • pat says:

    Yes Donald, the trend in religiosity cycles. It was at a low ebb around the time of the Revolutionary War. Beginning in 1803, revivalism ensued. Then the Second Great Awakening. Some cite a third. There is a Catholic writer, Charles Taylor, and one of the things he gets across is that Christianity indeed flourishes immensely in some secular states since the Enlightenment, though not all. The last 300 years have been very religious in some places, e.g. America and England. It jsut depends which country or region of the world you have in mind. In Poland it was liberating, not oppressive, since the people freed themselves from communism which was atheistic yet oppressive. He tries to get across that the Enlightenment meta-narrative (the atheistic one) doesn’t hold up. It’s a false cliche. Religion can be liberating and atheism can be horribly oppressive.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .