It’s Time to Tell the Truth: Republicans Aren’t Christians

Paul_RyanRepublicans don’t get a lot of things, but they really don’t get Christianity — because it’s not what they follow.

See, a few decades ago the leaders of the GOP did something very intelligent.  History shows one of the easiest ways to manipulate, and control, people is through their religion.  You can get people to do horrific things in the name of “their god” by convincing them that their actions are acceptable because they are the true believers, and those they oppose are the “heathens.”

You see this with radicals of every faith.  These radical leaders take a handful of excerpts from whatever book they follow and manipulate millions into believing whatever they want.

Republicans knew two key issues could easily control millions — abortion and homosexuality.  Once they identified their two key manipulation points, all they needed to do was tie in whatever political ideology they wanted with these two religious-based beliefs and they could create a political party that was worshipped more like a faith than a political idea.

And that’s exactly what they did.  I always encourage people to stop saying Republicans represent Christianity, and call them out on what they really worship.

I call it “Republicanity” and I consider it a cult.  It’s a perversion of Christianity mixed with a political set of man-made beliefs.  These people view their devotion to the GOP on the same level they do their belief in God.  To them, the Republican party is the party of “real Christians.”  They don’t need facts or reality to support their political beliefs, they have “faith.”

Except, your political beliefs are supposed to be based on facts — not faith.

I’m a Christian, and these people damn sure don’t represent my faith.  What they follow is some mix of Ayn Rand economic ideologies and a couple of select passages from the Bible.

Which I always find hilarious considering Ayn Rand thought religious people were stupid and insane.  So people like Paul Ryan, who built his economic ideology on her teachings while claiming to be a devout “Christian,” just show their ignorance by claiming to believe in both.  How exactly can someone build an economic platform based on a woman who completely contradicted Christianity, while claiming to be a follower of Christianity?

It makes absolutely no damn sense.

See, the whole point of being a Christian means you follow the teachings of Christ.  I’ve actually seen many of these “Christians” try and say Jesus would support cuts to welfare and side with the top-down economic policies of the Republican party.

As I’ve said before, whether you believe in Jesus Christ or not is not the issue, what he symbolized and his story aren’t really debatable.  He spent his life helping the poor, sick and needy.  He never once spoke about homosexuality or abortion.  He embraced those from the lowest rungs of society by saying that those for whom much had been given, much is expected.  He taught love, hope, compassion and forgiveness.  He warned against those who would manipulate the word of God for their own selfish ambitions.  He opposed greed and encouraged giving.

You know, the exact oppose of what Republicans stand for.

But that doesn’t matter to these people because they oppose abortion and homosexuality — again, two things Jesus never spoke of.

And honestly, can you name one other “Christian” value Republicans claim to value?  Because I hate to break it to them, but guns weren’t invented by Jesus.  Saying you have a “God-given right to bear arms” is just ignorant.  God didn’t grant anyone the right to bear arms, a bunch of slave owning rich white men did in the late-1700’s.  Many of which weren’t even Christians.

So please, stop calling Republicans “Christians” — they’re not.

I can’t count the times I’ve heard people say they don’t consider themselves Christians any longer because of the ignorance of the Republican party.  Millions have abandoned Christianity because these people have hijacked a faith to distort it for their own political gains.

It’s time real Christians take back their faith from these people who’ve turned so many sour on Christianity.  It’s time they rise up against these ignorant fake Christians and call them out directly on the truth.  They don’t follow Christianity.

They follow Republicanity.  They worship Reagan, guns and greed — not Jesus Christ.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Their “christianity” is Dominionist Calvinism. It has roots as far back as the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

    • blueshift

      Which colony has long since punted this view.

    • wyclif

      Paul Ryan, a Calvinist? Nope. Try again. Ryan is a Roman Catholic. Calvinists are Protestant, you know. But thanks for playing anyway.

      • Lis Carey

        He’s nominally a Roman Catholic, yes, but the substance of his beliefs has nothing in common with the Roman Catholic Church–and even claiming he’s a Calvinist is quite a reach. He’s a Randian.

      • wyclif

        Except I didn’t “claim” he’s a Calvinist—I expressly pointed out that he can’t be a Calvinist, because those are Protestant, not Catholic. It might be worthwhile to read the comment you intend to respond to…before you respond.

      • drklassen

        And what the OP said is: what he *calls* himself is moot if his actions, and the beliefs we can infer from them, are not in line with his claim.

        It’s like whenever Rush tries to call Nazism a left-wing philosophy because, hey, look, their name means “national *socialist*”.

  • Johnny Ralph Horstman

    This is pure BS. Liberals routinely ignore sections of the Bible that they don’t agree with, such as the parts that condemn homosexuality.

    I think all of the Bible should be ignored, not just the parts you don’t like

    • Jaina

      “not just the parts you don’t like”? REALLY? Like the part about judge not lest thou be judged? Or he who is without cast the first stone? (Even Jesus himself did not cast a stone by the way). Or let’s keep it simple and go with love one another as I love you.
      Or we can look into the book of Deuteronomy and all those ‘selectively omitted’ passages that never get so vehemently defended.
      Nobody is saying the WHOLE book or NONE of the book should be followed, because quite simply it is a matter of PERSONAL FAITH and BELIEF! Just because someone doesn’t believe as you do does not give you the right to interfere with their lives. At least not in this country last I checked.

      • wyclif

        Nice out-of-context, selective Bible quoting. Fail.

      • 65snake

        What part is a fail, exactly? Jaina seems spot-on.

      • Todd Heath

        Johnny Ralph Horstman is at least consistent in his belief the whole bible should be ignored.
        I think his jab at Liberals is off base . (Conservative Christians do the same selective reading) He is spot on that a bronze age book of mythology should not be used to dictate how we live in a post modern world.

    • I Once Was Andrew

      The Bible certainly does have condemnations of homosexuality — but none of them are attributed Jesus, which I imagine would matter if the Bible wasn’t a book of poorly written, contradictory fairy tales with nearly no historical veracity.

      • Nobody 1

        The bible does not contain fairy tales. The old testament is a record of the history of the Israelites and takes a look at Abrahamic covenant and Mosaic law. Christianity is not even a principle in the old testament and so the old testament is not relevant to Christianity. In fact many of the Muslim faith only support the Old Testament as truth because they don’t believe in the personage that Jesus identified with.

        The New testament however is about the changes that Jesus came to represent. Christianity was not known as this until after the death of Christ.

        All of those accounts you talk about which appear contradictory are personal accounts. They are like diary entries. Last I checked none of us would see an event the same way. That’s why they seem to contradict. People fail to look at the bible as a whole it has history, poetry, law, prophecy. Mother than that centers on personal experiences. Our personal experiences will always contradict.

        The Bible was not written by one person it has many different authors.

        I know some will say that miracles are false. I myself am a miracle and have witnessed many miracles. There is no rational claim. For that discussion the person would have to be open to actually hearing what is that I know.

      • I Once Was Andrew

        Oh yeah? The book of Genesis (that’s part of the Old Testament!) is a historical record? Wow, that’s some quality history, with all that whole people-being-molded-out-of-clay-by-god thing.

        Thanks for the enlightening history lesson on the origin of the name “Christianity.” There were no Christians before Jesus? Who knew?! A true shocker. Almost as stunning as the valuable lesson that the Bible has many different authors. Wow! Learn something new every day!

        How strange that I didn’t bother to learn the most basic facts of Chrsitianity before criticizing it. Oh, wait, I did.

        The contradictions in the Bible aren’t a matter of perception; they’re a matter of TIME and FACTS. The writers of the Bible thought the world was flat — a viewpoint expressed in the Bible. The Bible is not an authoritative history of anything. It is an almost wholly uncorroborated book of unsubstantiated FAIRY TALES. When people walk on water, part seas, turn water into wine… that is fiction. Pure fiction.

        You are not a miracle. And you have not witnessed any miracles, in the sense that you understand the word.

    • 65snake

      You can cherry pick which parts you want to follow all you want, and no one will care. However, the moment you start trying to impose any part of the bible on others via legislation, while not following other parts of it yourself, you WILL get called out. YOU don’t get to choose which parts of the bible other people have to follow, you only get to choose which ones YOU follow.
      THAT is the issue, not the existence of cherry-picking in and of itself.

  • macabr

    Paul Ryan claims to be a Catholic Christian but he is not. As a Catholic, I believe that we are required to follow the corporal (of the body) works of mercy as taught in the New Testament: to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty (clean water), clothe the naked (with dignity and with protection from the elements), shelter the homeless, care for the sick ( with treatment and prevention of disease), to ransom the captive ( including those who are captive to addiction or those who are captive to government or to culture), and bury the dead (with dignity). Jesus summed it up by saying, “love your neighbor as yourself for the love of God.” Ryan may live up to these requirements in his private life, but he appeals to selfishness in his public statements. Where does Ryan display his Catholicism? He claims to be pro-life but he shows that his support ends at the delivery room door. He is dishonest and he will be judged someday for the ramifications of his dishonesty.

    • Jonk

      Where, fair Catholic, does the social justice principle of subsidiarity fit into the application of the corporal works of mercy and solidarity? Should the government feed the hungry, or should you work at a soup kitchen?

      • Don

        Why not both?

      • Jonk

        For practical and salvific purposes – Who is more likely to know and care for your poor neighbors, and who is more likely to receive the spiritual benefits of doing works of charity?

        Are you familiar with the concept of subsidiarity?

      • Corky

        Subsidiarity is not a biblical concept by any means. In fact, the prophets of the Old Testament repeatedly declare that the nation and its rulers have a responsibility to care for the poor.
        In Jesus’ time, the social welfare mechanisms of Judaism were well established… and yet Jesus never mentions them. If anything, we declares that we should give personally as well as collectively.

      • Jonk

        Where is the collectivism? The part where he says “If you’re in a group of good people, some of whom follow me, you can go to Heaven?”

      • drklassen

        Collectivism is one of the major themes of the first couple chapters of Acts

      • Lauraine Breda

        Thank you, Corky. This subsidiarity principle holds that human affairs are best handled at the lowest possible level, closest to the affected persons. The whole subsidiarity thing was a cop out invented to maintain political control of the people and to confuse the masses by using a big word that only the hierarchy could define to the masses. It contradicts the very structure of the Catholic hierarchy. If they truly believed that control was best left to the bottom then they shouldn’t have their Catholic leadership in the Vatican in control of the locals.

      • macabr

        I think this is an apples and oranges debate.

      • taxirob

        He never mentions them because they were ubiquitous, and his whole life’s work was to carry them out.

      • Larry

        With the top 1% owning 90% of the wealth, that concept becomes less and less of an option. I guess we could all serve soup and then get in line and eat soup.

      • Jonk

        Because that situation has never existed in the history of mankind.

      • Larry

        Correction: The top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 90%, admittedly much different than what I first wrote, but the gap continues to widen.

      • John Michael Hutton

        I think you got it right the first time. And it’s a lot worse throughout the world than it is here.

      • John Michael Hutton

        Boy, you’re going to piss off a lot of those brain dead TeaBaggers with that comment.

      • Junk

        Boy, it would be great if you could just sneak out of your responsibilities to the weaker members of society. But you can’t. It actually DOES make you a bad person if you try.

      • JerseyJoe

        This is why Christians at every income level give more to charity than progressives. See, Christians pay their taxes and give more than progressives. I believe their tax money would do better if given to the needy directly by the individual or to private charities.

      • taxirob

        You want the poor to give more? Half the country is in poverty, do you think they like it there? They are working to get out when they can. When the jobs are there, they take them. What more do they have to give when real estate speculation not only crashes the economy but also doubles their rent? You speak from the comfort of your situation and no understanding of the plight of others. Your idea of tolerance is “separate but equal,” and you perpetuate your own ignorance willfully. You have no idea what respect really means, it means understanding and accepting, not just tolerating. You take the intellectually lazy course, like the 60 million others who voted for Romney. Read the article about the Republican “southern strategy” elsewhere on this site and you’ll find that Romney paraphrased it in his famous hidden camera speech to donors. You’ve gone from secretly desiring a race war to openly declaring a class war, and you make me sick. “Teach a man to fish” blah blah blah, it’s no good when you’ve already caught all the fish yourselves.

      • JerseyJoe

        On this and another post I have made, you read what you wanted to read rather than what I wrote. I simply stated some facts and you read far more into it. You know nothing about me, but when someone jumps to conclusions, attacks conclusions of his own imagining, and rattles off baseless assumptions it does help me accurately form an opinion of you.

      • taxirob

        Baloney, you CLEARLY state that charity is the dominion of the individual over the state, and also that progressives don’t give as much as Christians, which precludes the existence of Christian progressives (what a moronic statement if there ever was one!) Also, by implying that the individual needs to give more (and the assumption which you also CLEARLY embrace that the working poor are the same progressives you bemoan,) you’re saying that the working poor, who MUST be atheistic progressives, should give more than they already do, which is less than Christians Republicans according to you.

      • drklassen

        Of course, he also ignores the idea that having the state in on it means it’s not so much about charity but rather justice.

      • jstactsn

        No because then the individual or the private charity seeks some sort of control over the recipient of their ‘charity’. If the recipient doesn’t reciprocate properly in the eyes of the charity, they’re cut off.

      • J. Tolliver

        Why do you differentiate between Christians and progressives?? I am a progressive and am also very much a Christian. The two are not mutually exclusive as your post assumes.

      • Ang Leisure

        So, how about taxing churches that participate in politics? That would either get the god out of the law, or make up for an awful lot of the tax breaks the church of business gets.

      • Lunket

        Except a big part of that “charity” given by christians is given to their own churches, basically a private charity which in my mind isn’t really charity at all but more of a cult or membership (if you’re feeling nice) fee, like the mormons who give 10% (or more) of their income to their church. I do agree that money would be of more use if given directly to the needy or to building a more evensociety instead of giving churches more and more money for teaching something that has no base in reality.

      • drklassen

        Many of those Christians are liberals…

        And most of that money is going to pay their club dues.

      • guest


      • macabr

        I agree with Don that we have to do both. In a large and complex society, it is unfortunately too easy for people in need to be missed. For Catholics, one solution is to donate to their parish St. Vincent De Paul Society. This is administered by members of the parish for members of the parish. It is done so that no one is embarrassed. Government agencies, because of their greater resources, have an obligation as well to provide for those in need. I don’t understand why, among those who claim to be Christian, there is a debate. If there is need, we are required to address it, if we take Christ’s example seriously. We pay taxes and expect the government to use it for the benefit of the citizens.

      • So what you are using as documentation is catholic nocturne? I am not catholic. What you are talking about is not even christian. Read the preamble to the constitution sometime. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Did you notice promote the general welfare part? Did you notice the insure domestic tranquility part? Did you notice we the people part? Did you notice the blessings of liberty to ourselves part? A christian cannot not just declare themselves to be a christian, but must try to live their lives as a christian. No matter what you say, I got mine and it is your problem to get yours. I owe you nothing, not welfare, food, health, unemployment, etc is not christian. When you practice these attributes, you cannot be truly a christian. So now I ask Ryan and the rest of the supposed christian right to prove it that you are truly a christian.

    • Lee Herring

      How can you claim to be a Catholic and support this rubbish! The author may have a point with feed the hungry or disapproving of homosexuality, but abortion is killing babies period, I don’t think Jesus would go along with that. Don’t give me the women’s rights BS either, she has a right to chose not to have sex, choosing to have sex, she has the right to use any of the available methods of birth control, choosing not to use birth control, her rights end there and the babies rights take over, she doesn’t have the right to murder a perfectly healthy baby. (I will give ya abortion in the case of rape or incest, that is quite enough to deal with, without a baby too). To me it just sounds like a left wing loon looking for an excuse to hate republicans, I don’t think any republican wants people to go hungry or naked, they just don’t think its the governments responsibility. As far as homosexuality, I don’t most hate, they just don’t approve, there is a huge difference, yes there are some that hate, I wouldn’t consider them to be Christian. A Christian isn’t suppose to hate anyone. So ya know I am not real religious, nor am I a republican, I just get fired up seeing political BS like this article.

      • bintexas

        “You don’t think.”

        Abortion was not forbidden in Biblical times. It was openly practiced. That’s why there is no mention of it in the Bible. It was openly practiced in the early days of this country, too.

        I’m a Christian conservative and I agree wholeheartedly with this article. There is nothing Christian in the current GOP nor is there much conservatism.

      • macabr

        Re: abortion: Doesn’t thou shalt not kill cover that?

      • bintexas

        No. In the book of Genesis, it states that life begins at first breath.

        Look, I am anti-abortion personally and I am pro- ALL-life because of my faith; however, in this country, it is not my right to force my personal religious beliefs on people who don’t share them. It is not my choice to have an abortion, but I cannot make that choice for someone else.

      • macabr

        I am also pro-life but I don’t understand why those who are don’t demand, through votes, that all stages of life be protected. Going back to the corporal works of mercy, can anyone be considered pro-life if there is rampant hunger in the wealthiest country in the world?

      • bintexas

        Sorry, but you nor I can force our religious beliefs on those who do not share them.

      • Stephen Staedtler

        They are moral beliefs, not beliefs pertaining to any ONE specific religion. There are atheists who oppose abortion and homosexuality.

      • John Michael Hutton

        And they aren’t very bright either.

      • Anthony Rivera

        that just tells me there are idiots in every category

      • robingee

        For what reason would an atheist oppose homosexuality? The only reason I have ever heard from anyone in all my years talking with people about it has been a religious standpoint. Occasionally there will be a self-hating closeted gay who pretends to be homophobic to cover up themselves.

      • Stephen Staedtler

        it’s obvious. Two gay people can not naturally have a child. And furthermore, we know for a fact that children without fathers are more prone to violence and a host of other problems. Gays have higher rates of STD’s, AIDS, alcoholism, drugs, child abuse, depression..why would you support this, and why would you support it for children who are already messed up enough by society.

      • Dan Cantwell

        and where do opposite sex people who can’t bear children fall into your argument. should they not be allowed to marry, since marriage is obviously for child bearing.

      • Jamie Carter

        Gay people aren’t going to make children without fathers lol they in fact aren’t going to make children at all. As for the rest I’d double check those facts if I were you.

      • Shalom

        I am friends with a lesbian couple that had a male friend act as kind of a “sperm donor” so they could have a kid. That male friend is now like an uncle to their daughter, who calls him “Uncle Clip”.

        They might make kids, just not the conventional way.

        I get your meaning…but it came across the wrong way…a lesbian couple can choose to ask a male friend to be the father, or go for a sperm bank, or adopt. A gay couple can adopt a kid or have a kid with a woman who agrees to act as a birth mother. It’s not unheard of. They take different routes to parenthood, but they can raise a kid nonetheless, or in many cases will choose to “make” one instead–an alternative method but the same result. Popping out a biological baby.

      • plbccmcc

        I saw a gay couple in a restaurant with their child, who happened to be the most beautiful, happiest looking baby I had seen in a long time…he also happened to have Down’s syndrome. How lucky this child was to have those two fathers!

      • Mike Williams

        Just a point of humor….what kind of sperm donor? I’m just assuming a human sperm donor, but you know how kids are these days…

      • GearheadArtist

        Your “facts” re. higher rates of “STD’s” etc., are BS. Please cite your sources and then dig a little deeper. Also, even if you were reporting accurately, how do you factor being raised by a society that marginalizes and teaches homosexuals to hate themselves into your equation re. depression, alcoholism, etc? Please show your sources – scientific studies and not anecdotal evidence – that children are materially damaged by being raised by a same sex couple that are different than the ways children raised by opposite sex couples are damaged.

        Marriage isn’t really a religious contract; it’s pretty much a social and financial contract. Since I don’t see any valid social or financial objections to same-sex marriages, this seems like a no-brainer to me.

      • ace8842

        look at the Center for Disease Control website. Gays make up 3-4% of the population but 63% of new AIDS cases. And that doesn’t include some gays who were also drug users. And keep in mind how many heterosexual women got it when their bisexual or homosexual husband was sleeping around, and gave it to them?

      • Aldous

        You do not know that for a fact. The FACT is that children from two-parent homes with an abusive FATHER are more prone to violence, drug abuse, criminal behavior, and multi-generational perpetuation of domestic violence. That is the only fact that matters.

      • Spartacus

        So, children with two fathers should be twice less prone to violence.

      • cadal

        With 7 BILLION people and (exponentially) growing – who gives a rat’s pitutie that 2 gay people cannot naturally have a child? I think we’ve got the go forth and multiply thing covered by now… Might as well argue that any other infertile hetro should be forced to divorce or prevent them from marrying too. Other stats are so biased, but whatever, every statistic can be manipulated 🙂

      • Kathy

        I went further, my husband got a vasectomy so I didn’t have to use birth control any longer. While a lot is said about the religious right being against birth control, what would their beliefs be about vasectomies or tubal ligation?

      • Joan Brown

        I have a hunch they would be considered artificial birth control, like all the other forms are. That being siad vasectomies and tubals don’t always work either. Accidents happen.

      • Mike Williams

        According to the bible: If a man should be unable to have kids, his brother should step in for him. It goes on to cover what should happen if the brother spill his seed on the ground. If the woman should prove barren then the man should receive a woman as a slave to be a child bearer. They Haz It Covered.

      • Joan Brown

        Basically that is committing adultery.

      • Mike Williams

        Tell that to the bible…It is very clear.

        (Genesis 38:9)
        – “And Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so it came
        about that when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed
        on the ground, in order not to give offspring to his brother.”

        also this next tidbit is not for the faint of heart

        Onan was killed by God for his lack luster performance… True story…cuz the bible says so.

      • Shalom

        On the other hand, that kid with a single mother (you know, the one who dropped out of high school because she was pregnant) seems pretty screwed-up too. If you let another couple (possibly an infertile couple or a gay couple) adopt that kid it might have had a better shot at a good life.

        Just sayin’

      • Mike Williams

        might grow up to be the worlds most evil ruler and kill at least 6 million. then again might have been the messiah coming back to set us straight on a few things. the what if’s are amazing.

      • Shalom

        To be clear, I am not saying ALL single mothers’ children will wind up like this. My cousin (in her late 30s) is the single mother of a beautiful elementary-school girl. This little girl is trilingual (since she is raised speaking English with her family, French with her mother and German at school) and quite charming. I have no worry for her–she was born into a supportive family. Her single mother works to support the family. She is taken care of by her grandmother after school until her mother gets home. Her uncles (my cousin’s brother and brother-in-law–yes, they are a gay couple) are wonderful with her and have made it clear that since they play such a big role in raising her, they have no intention of having kids of their own, she’s like their daughter. I simply find that in social work I came across a lot of kids who were raised by single mothers that didn’t support their children at all–really, out of necessity. Republicans are so set on cutting social safety net programs, they have no choice but to work overtime or even take illegal avenues to work to give their kid a chance. As a result, the kid has a few main ways they can grow up (with exceptions): 1. The family is poor or impoverished and the kid grows up exposed to a life in poverty or homeless. They might not be able to go to college and might even drop out of high school to work to support their family. 2. The family is afloat (barely) and the mother is working overtime. She comes home stressed out and might take it out on the kid or use drugs or alcohol to manage her stress. This, in turn, puts the family in a worse position and hurts the kid. 3. The family is afloat because the mother takes an illegal job (e.g. prostitution, drugs, extortion, scams, etc.) and the kid grows up exposed to their mother’s work and lifestyle. At some point, the mother might be arrested. The kid is thrown into foster care and spends the rest of his childhood and adolescence bumped around the system. He ages out of the system and is on his own with nothing. 4. The family has very little, but the mother’s parents/relatives agree to help. The kid grows up ok, struggling at times but ok.

        The last one is where I consider my cousin. The first 3 I see way too often. I see countless kids who are either exposed to bad stuff in single parent households, neglected in single parent households, or are in foster because their parent(s) either were arrested or lost custody. I’ve also seen these kids tell me that “mommy’s boyfriend touched me in bad places” and they don’t want to make their mother more stressed by speaking to her (she’s stressed enough with work) and this breaks my heart. When I hear stuff like this I have to call the police and social services. And I know what happens next.

        A single-parent environment does put kids at an increased risk for being abused (physically, sexually, emotionally or verbally) because their home life can be unstable and also, if the mother asks someone to look after the kid, selection is limited and the person she chooses might not be who she thinks they are–and she has no way to know that. I have seen it again and again.

        Speaking for myself, in some cases I do feel the parent should opt for their child to have a different destiny and a better life. Not in all, but in some. My point is, if they need a supportive family, a couple that loves each other and will love and support the child is what they need. They won’t be picky of the genders–they just need a loving, supportive upbringing.

      • stjohn2034

        What about the “father” of this child? Why are the sperm donors of these “unwanted” pregnancies not held accountable? Why is it always the woman’s fault? When will men/boys (I am one with a vasectomy) be taught about responsible sex? How about there being a fee charged to the father to care for his child?

      • Sherri G

        I am a divorced mom (domestic violence survivor) who raised (5) kids with NO FATHER….(2) are working fulltime, (2) graduated from a self-paced l high school a FULL year early and both are in college (Architecture, Photography) and my youngest I have Homeschooled for 3 years now (14).
        NONE of my kids have a police record of AN Y kind, NONE have STD or have kids or flunked school or were prone to violence. I have a single mom support group on FB and NONE of their kids have any of the issues you blame on single parents.

      • rasslor56

        Sherri–You are AWESOME.

      • Mike Williams

        Yes, Sheri, but do your kids argue ? Just kidding, they all do. Well said.

      • Shalom

        Hats off to you, Ms. Sherri. I am a clinical social worker, my business is repairing the damage done by broken families…but I wish there were less kids who needed me. Seeing stories like yours gives me hope. I see a lot of kids from single-parent households who have horrifying stories. I also have a cousin who is raising a daughter as a single parent, and doing great. Bless you and your children.

      • dencanabbis

        I know rich families that have the same problems stated, however they have both parents in the home. I think its subjective. I certainly don’t think a gay couple will raise their child to be any different than the kid next door. That being said Sherri is a very good mother.

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        The Menendez boys had both parents and were rich, How’d that work out? And they were straight too! Hmmm…

      • Ruth Oczykowski

        Do you not also see children in 2 parent households who are troubled by damage done in their households from all sorts of problems? I was also a single mother of one child who is not a criminal or flunked out of school.

      • emmeeadora

        Same here Sherri only I had two children. I’m so sick of hearing these clowns denigrate all single moms

      • Melinda Craig

        more straight white men rape little children than any other sector/race/class of people. Want to ban them?

      • Mike Williams

        Actually…I want to publicly catapult these wastes of skin.

      • Stacy

        Well, given that heterosexual women now make up the majority of new HIV diagnoses, and plenty of straight people choose not to (or can’t) have children, your argument makes perfect sense.

        Now, please back up everything you’re saying with proven facts from non-religious sources so I can pass them along to the well-adjusted children of the three sets of gay parents I know. One of those couples has been together since they were in high school — they’re now in their 30s — and have never slept with anyone but each other, so I’m sure they’ll be interested to know that they’re soon to stop being a high-ranking intelligence officer and a college professor and become AIDS-ridden alcoholics. And three of the six children of those three sets of gay parents are on the honor roll and in gifted and talented programs, so I’m sure they’ll be interested to know that they’re about to stop being high achievers and become violent criminals.

      • Joan Brown

        HIV isn’t always spread through sexual encounters. It can be spread through the blood, and it doesn’t have to be through blood transfusions, it can be spread by being scratched by a person that has HIV, if you have a cut and that cut comes in contact with the cut of somebody that has HIV, also if you get stuck by a needle/syringe that somebody with HIV has used. Why do you think there are so many warnings about disposing of syringes properly, and medical personal wearing latex gloves, etc.?

      • Paul John Kurf

        But if conservatives are so “pro-parenting,” then why do so many special needs children and older children go without homes until, very often, gay or lesbian couples provide a loving home for them. If conservatives actually believed and actually practiced 10% of what they claim to, there would be no “hard-to-adopt” kids out there. But again, children with disabilities, older children, multi-racial children, thank God, wind up in loving families of gay or lesbian couples. And thank God that they grow up knowing what family really means and what love is all about, in part because their folks learned the importance of those things and what real “family” means–versus what the “family values” party preaches but rarely practices.

      • Emily White

        “And furthermore, we know for a fact that children without fathers are more prone to violence and a host of other problems.” – So then a two male-parent family should do quite well according to your logic.

      • Mike Williams

        Sorry Stephen, your facts are a bit off.
        There is more child abuse, incest, rape, STD’s, drug and alcohol abuse among those of straight/faith than any other classification. To wit, more abortions are preformed on “Christians” than any other faction.
        This is based on research by the Guttmacher Institute, The CDC, The AMA (not the music awards), the FBI, etc.

        This data and the other data can be found very easily just by searching on google or yahoo. Some phrases to search for “Who is having abortions” ,”Who is getting aids”, “Who are alcoholics”, and “Who is raping kids”

      • Garrett Winters

        Your adding “AMA (not the music awards)” was awesome.

        oh, and your obviously correct statistics, complete with giving him the option to just search the stuff for himself if he doesn’t believe…the CDC, AMA, FBI and the Guttmacher Institute.
        Good job sir

      • BURNTFUR

        just because gay people can’t naturally give birth to children doesn’t automatically equate that they are immoral, or even unnatural in of themselves. they could exist naturally for a multitude of reasons. In that they apparently have always been around in numbers that are noticeable, that seems enough for me, or anyone else for that matter, to consider them natural. Don’t even start with the “but murder has been around forever, blah blah blah…” response because you and I both know that’s not what I’m saying and you’re straying off topic to give the illusion that you’re refuting my post. Murder is a choice that harms others, being gay doesn’t in of itself harm anyone.

      • Shalom

        It’s also not a choice.

      • Jazzman 420

        Why is the ability to procreate a requirement for marriage? and why are not all people who procreate required to get married? From where do you get your statistics on the rates that you cite? I know plenty of heterosexual people dealing with the issues you list.

      • Mike Williams

        Simple…”Go forth and multiply” I ain’t against it, but I do not think it implies exclusivity of persuasion.

      • emmeeadora

        Your facts are wrong – there have been some studies in the last couple years that show that children raised by same sex couples are healthier and more emotionally well adjusted that children of heterosexual couples.

      • maryinbama

        Infertile heterosexual couples cannot naturally have a child. Female children are more likely to be sexually abused by their fathers/stepfathers or another heterosexual male. Why do you THINK gays have higher rates of alcoholism, drug abuse and depression? It is because people like YOU tell them they are worthless. Worldwide, heterosexuals are more likely to have AIDs than homosexuals. Marriages stabilize sexual behavior. By allowing gays to have the same rights as everyone else, it would promote more monogamy and less sexually transmitted diseases.

      • Bette Gilbertson Zimmerman

        There are prob more straight people doing what you accused gay people of doing. I have gay friends and their lives are their business not yours nor mine… Get over and pass it, there is nothing you can do about it. Read the prayer of serenity.

      • Phil

        Well it’s not obvious…
        So a kid with two fathers would certainly be better off?…gay people have children all different ways. The exact same list of ways applies to them as straight people.

        You are absolultely wrong about child abuse, for sure, and the other factors that are more common among gay people are directly traceable to your disgusting treatment of gay people, you homophobe. BTW what is the AIDS rate among lesbians? Pretty low. Lower than among heterosexuals.

        And studies of the children of gay people show they are exactly as well adjusted and successful as those of straight people. Indeed, that the biggest single factor in how well a person turns out is their financial well-being as children. (That last one is a massive indictment of Republicanism.)

        I am a gay single dad, my son has four children and is the best father I’ve ever seen. He had a rough youth mostly due to his time with his birth family (he was the 11th child…and the only one who has made much of himself); he dropped out of high school in his first year. Eventually he ended up a single dad with three young kids, having sole custody of them and simultaneously earned a Bachelor’s degree while caring for his kids and while serving full time in the US Navy on active duty. I’ll put the outcome of my parenting against anyone’s —

        Finally wtf does that have to do with Republicanistic myths?

      • Johnson Joe

        because he doesn’t personally believe it moral maybe? Just a statement, personally I could care less who or what you stick your lips too as long as it’s consentual and of legal age.

      • frumpus

        There are NO atheists that oppose abortion and homosexuality. Moral beliefs are invented BS from religions.

      • Baaly

        Do you speak for all us atheists now? I know some people in the atheist community who, for whatever reasons they may have, are anit-choice.

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        The only reason an atheist could be pro-life is for the survival and evolution of the species. By killing the unborn, some of the greater specimens might be lost. Atheist should be pro-life, selectively breed the best of humanity, and keep others from reproducing unless used for manual labor. This would ensure the success of the species and speed up the evolutionary process. Hitler was a good atheist.

        As a Christian, I think what I just said is nonsense, though logical under the atheistic/evolutionary worldview.

      • Baaly

        Hitler was an atheist? Grab a history book, my friend. I suggest “The Third Reich In Power” by Richard Evans.

        “Atheist should be pro-life, selectively breed the best of humanity, and keep others from reproducing unless used for manual labor.” – You know that statement makes absolutely no sense, right? Pro life and pro eugenics…HUH?

        As an atheist, I agree that what you said makes no logical sense.

      • Aldous

        Hitler was a Christian. He persecuted non-Christians and atheists. And he learned about eugenics from America.

      • Sherri G

        Yep, had folks come and check out our Indian reservations….that’s where his ideas came from….

      • Souris

        Perhaps you should talk to an actual atheist, or take a logic class.

      • Kerry Norton

        Hitler was a Christian. He said so himself in Mein Kampf. So you don’t have to take my word for it.

      • Mike Williams

        Hitler’s mother was Jewish. That makes him Jewish.
        I am pretty certain he is off the Chanukah list.

      • Shalom

        Hitler’s mother being Jewish is a historical myth. He was Christian and was raised as such. There is no historical evidence WHATSOEVER to suggest his mother was Jewish, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

        He had dark hair and dark eyes, yeah, but that wasn’t because he had Jewish lineage. Plenty of folks in Austria have dark hair and dark eyes, being Jewish isn’t a necessary pre-req to those traits.

        (and plenty of the Jews I know actually have red hair…funny how that works)

      • moniquejohns

        Excuse me, but the horrific monster called Hitler was Christian, although most Christians don’t want to admit it.

      • Kathy

        Finally someone who preaches my language. Parenthood should not be a right, extensive genetic screening should take place before a person could be allowed to breed. I mean, you need a licence to drive a car, yet can make a precious human life simply from a drunken night out?

      • Mike Williams

        ” Atheist should be pro-life, selectively breed the best of humanity, and
        keep others from reproducing unless used for manual labor.”

        That whole statement is in contradiction to it’s content, and is pro-slavery.

      • BURNTFUR

        If you elimate the gay people you are limiting everyone’s life experience. It’s therefore in your interest to not only acknowledge gay people exist, but to allow them to mix with everyone else on the planet for the better of your species. Your logic is just more thinly veiled bigotry.

      • Shalom

        Hi, I’m an atheist. I am pro-choice, but not for any reason related to eugenics.

        I am pro-choice because there is something called BODILY AUTONOMY written into the ethics code of modern medicine. Bodily autonomy is why you cannot be forced to give blood (even if it might save somebody’s life), why we cannot harvest organs from corpses unless consent was signed prior to the person’s death (even though those organs would almost DEFINITELY save someone’s life), why I cannot be dragged into a hospital and forced to donate part of my liver, a kidney, or a lung to somebody who is in desperate need of one. Because we have bodily autonomy, nobody can force you to undergo (or deny you the right to) a medical procedure, even if it saves somebody else’s life. Blood donation is quick, non-invasive, mostly harmless, and relatively painless–but we still cannot force anyone to donate blood, because people have bodily autonomy. Life-saving organs could easily be harvested from corpses, and it wouldn’t harm anyone and would probably save thousands, if not millions, of lives–but we cannot harvest the organs without prior consent, because even CORPSES have bodily autonomy. If you are in favor of making abortion illegal, in effect forcing a woman to take nine months out of her life for a painful, invasive, enormously expensive and potentially extremely harmful or even deadly medical procedure (pregnancy), you are in favor of robbing a living woman of her bodily autonomy, potentially doing irreversible damage to her body and her life–and that, my friend, is desperately unethical.

        And oh yeah, by the way: Hitler was a Christian. Little history lesson for you.

        Atheists are not amoral, cold-hearted, antisocial, and eugenic-advocating just because we don’t believe in God. Believe it or not, most atheists I know are incredibly moral, charitable, righteous, and kind people–and they don’t need the threat of eternal damnation or the promised reward of forever in heaven happyland to act morally, charitably, righteously, and kindly. They choose to do so out of their own hearts.

        Most of the cruel, antisocial, cold-hearted and immoral people I know are…wait for it…self-identified Christians. I know there are good Christians, too, but too many Christians don’t see their faith as a reason to do right, they see it as a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card to do whatever the fuck immoral shit they want, and then pray and be forgiven and go to Heaven anyhow.

        No. Just no. Look at political figures like Paul Ryan, Michelle Bachmann, and Karl Rove. They use Christianity as a soapbox, and then turn around and shit on everyone. Are judgment, socioeconomic eugenics (pretty much what Paul Ryan advocates), selfishness, greed, and theft Christian values? According to “Christian” politicians, yeah they are.

        The world’s got too much hate as it is. We don’t need people from the self-proclaimed “morality warriors” group adding more to it. And with very few exceptions, that’s all I see them doing.

      • rasslor56

        Then they’re UNIFORMED atheists–and idiots. There is no moral ruling about abortion except from hard right-wing nutcases.

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        “Moral beliefs are invented B* from religions.”

        You are a good atheist. I appreciate your use of logic. If all has come to be by random change, then logically there can be no right or wrong.

        I don’t agree with that position since I’m a Christian, but at least there are some atheist willing to carry their beliefs to their logical end.

      • Souris

        Your definition of a “good atheist” is someone with no morals or ethics. You dislike real atheists with morals and ethics because they are harder for you to demonize.

      • moniquejohns

        Thank you…

      • KishinD

        *facepalm* I… I didn’t want to believe people like you were real. But I knew it in my heart.

        Have you talked at length with any atheists? It seems to me all your impressions come from someone you trust openly slandering them. That person you trust? Is a complete bigot. Please stop trusting them, they will only misinform you, even if they have the best intentions.

        Morals come from values, not from mythical sky creatures. The foundation of any solid moral framework is /empathy/ (love, the golden rule), and that’s a part of 98% of humans. The cornerstone of any great moral framework is /liberty/ (consent, free will, self-determination).

        Neither of these moral values need any sort of deity to be recognized and honored. In fact, deities often fail basic tests of morality. I think rape, slavery, and genocide are always terrible and wrong. Simply put, the god of the Bible doesn’t. All I need to condemn these acts are these two basic moral values. …but somehow, an all-powerful deity apparently has the same morality as the misogynist slave-owning nomads of 1600 BC? Something’s not adding up.

      • Garrett Winters

        the golden rule…it also SHOULD be the main rule of Christians as well, though, as the person who you are responding to shows, doesn’t seem to be the case…
        but yeah, all good points

      • Asger

        You don’t need religion to have morals. If you don’t know right from wrong, you lack empathy, NOT religion.

      • Stephen Staedtler

        Nonsense. Adam Corolla from Dr. Drew is an atheist who opposes gay marriage. And I know a college professor who tells me atheists in his class oppose it also.

      • Garrett Winters

        give us 3 well known people
        though there are truly no non-religious reasons for opposing marriage equality
        all of the anti-gay “statistics” are as much BS as people saying that vaccines cause Autism…the person who published that study was forced to recant

      • Mike Williams

        I’m an atheist. To me morals are self evident. Treat others as you expect to be treated. So if you hate, be prepared to be hated.

      • Mike Williams

        That is true, however that does not make it right.

      • Well, demand through your votes all you want. It will still happen. Do you remember prohibition? And what about the days when it was illegal? Did that stop abotions. Not at all! Isn’t it strange that the conservative media in this country continually says that it wants government out of the lives of the populous yet supports government control of abortion. How intrusive is that?

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        The Republican party uses the language of keeping the government out of people’s lives, but what they really fight for are self-evident truths, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
        their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” 1 and to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” 2

        Thus, many within the Republican party acknowledge the personhood of the unborn and seek to protect them from unjust oppression and murder, as they did for those of African decent during their struggle for emancipation and civil rights. The platform of the Republican party is that government should only interfere in people’s lives when they are infringing on the rights of others.

        1. The Declaration of Independence
        2. The Constitution of the United States of America

      • Jordan Hill

        If you really believe that the REAL reason that Lincoln freed the slaves was because he felt that it was the right thing to do, then you are whats wrong with this country. It was a power play against the South. The Southern economy depended upon slave labor and “freeing” them helped to speed up the end of the war. After he declared them free they instantly became illegal aliens all across the country and were tolerated. They had no rights. They were not citizens until years later. They legally could not even be protected by the law as such.

        Also, Lincoln’s politics are nowhere near what the GOP has become. He waged a war to strengthen the Federal Governments power over the states.

      • Sherri G

        Lincoln wanted to round up anyone if color and ship them to the Ivory Coast….that didn’t sit well with those who believed that even slaves born in America were Americans and felt that was irrehensible. So, he abolished slavery to piss off the Southern States and make his Northern supporters happy just like political moves today.

      • rasslor56

        I suggest you read an actual history book instead of watching Lincoln:Vampire Hunter. Because if THAT’S your interpretation of trying to prevent the Southern states from spreading an agrarian (agricultural caste) culture over the US and weakening it, you’ve clearly skipped a chapter or ten.

      • Garrett Winters

        he actually only “freed” slaves in the South
        after they already seceded
        meaning they were basically another country
        He had no power in the South. They had their own president and everything, so he might as well have tried to free the slaves in a place across the ocean

      • Steve Knight

        The republican party could care less about babies children or the poor. This is self evident in all the programs they cut that effect those very people. it’s a bit pointless to protect the unborn only to forget them once born.

        They do nothing to stop abortions they only try to make it illegal and that will only create more abortions.

      • Mike Williams

        Funny how that is used as a proof of commitment to rights. Every time I look around I see a republican, taking my money with fees, taking my rights to privacy, taking my rights to bed whom I choose, taking anything that is not nailed down, then taking the nails.
        What I see when I look at a republican is the rights of big business to self-regulate, the rights of the worker being set back 100 years, the rights of the citizens to be protected from financial predation, the corporations being bailed-out because they made “mistakes” that used to be illegal but were made legal by republicans.
        So when you tell me republicans are all about the constitution and the bill of rights, I can only respond with. Where is your proof?

      • Mike Williams

        Abortion Laws were until the 1950’s designed to protect women from “illegal” abortions. IE: preformed by persons using methods that were harmful to the women.
        In the 1950’s we see a push to demonize abortions and more faith based legislation. Oddly enough the “Illegalization” of abortion took roots in the very state the generated the first law outlawing abortions by anyone except a doctor.

      • Deb Furlin

        You also support the living children?

      • Socialmedic

        And student loan debt slavery?

      • SashaBlu

        Yes there is a rampant hunger in the wealthiest country in the world…it is for the blood of the poor including all those unwanted babies. The blood suckers can not feed off of aborted humans

      • Tom Scruggs

        The United States is not the wealthiest country in the world. We’re not even in the top five. We’re number seven, per Forbes Magazine.

      • secondlook

        Free will.

      • Michael Emery

        Fanatics such as macabr would have “all stages of life protected”. Surely he/she would make male masturbation criminal because of the wanton murder of some millions of sperm.

      • EverTheGreen

        No macabre, they can’t. These people are not pro-life, they’re pro-birth.

      • Mike Williams

        I agree with most of your statement. I can not agree with the voting that would force a belief on anyone.

      • Stephen Staedtler

        This is nonsense and it is sad that this has invaded Christian thinking. All laws are legislations of morality. When they say no prayer in public schools or no Bible in class, it absolutely is a legislation of morality. Or when people tell you what light bulbs you can use. Allowing abortion tells the father he has no right to the child and the baby has no right to its life. There is no neutral ground here like you claim. You either can try to instill godly value in society, or you will be legislated against with values that oppose Christianity. Abortion and homosexuality, secondly, are moral laws. They don’t pertain to any one religion like communion or baptism or praying to Allah 5 x a day. There are atheists who oppose these things.

      • John Michael Hutton

        Wrong. Inflicting your brand of religion on others isn’t even close to telling people what light bulbs you can use. And since when does anyone tell you what kind of light bulbs you can use? Just another ridiculous situation not based in reality to make a point. Try again.

      • Stephen Staedtler

        It’s not my religion. Atheists oppose gay marriage. It’s just common sense that male and male sexual organs do not fit together like male and female. There is obvious design and anyone can see homosexuality was not meant. That is why I know many atheists who oppose gay marriage. If my religion says “Do not Kill” are you saying that can’t be enforced also?

      • drklassen

        Obvious design…by whom?

      • Michael Naaktgeboren


        I really hope that dr at the beginning of your name doesn’t actually mean doctor of something.

      • Souris Optique

        Because you think *ATHEISTS* are somehow concerned about “obvious design” by “God?”

        …and you have the audacity to impugn anyone else’s intelligence?

      • robingee

        “That is why I know many atheists who oppose gay marriage.”

        I will bet you a million dollars that you don’t.

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        Be careful about what you bet, though I don’t expect any court to hold you to it. I actually know an atheist, in the truest sense of the world (no God, big bang, we evolved up just like the science books say), who opposes homosexual marriage, but not for the reasons I would. He thinks that homosexual marriage will inevitably open the door to polygamy, and then other marriage arrangements (two men and two women for example). Over time, the contract of marriage will have no actual value in society. He sees this has having repercussions in financial issues like collecting taxes and insurance (one man have three adults on his insurance policy as spouses). Then there is the issue of children. If a polygamy family adopts a child and then the marriage breaks, who gets the kid. Will he be sent around multiple homes? If one woman in the marriage has a baby, do all mothers have equal rights?

        He considers the institution of marriage as a helpful institution for sustaining society, where I consider it the backbone. He recognizes the damage that the divorce culture has had on society and especially on children. So, even the non-religious or atheist can oppose homosexual marriages.

      • Perrofelix

        Funny, I’m a gay atheist and don’t know any self-proclaimed atheists who oppose same-sex marriage. I have heard dumb arguments meant to appeal to atheists, like the ridiculous idea that a government is too broke to pay for benefits or same-sex partners, but can still pay them for opposite-sex couples.

        Why would an atheist take it upon themselves to try to pass laws to prevent same sex marriage because “homosexuality was not meant”? It’s not like atheists are out on some, (pardon the pun) crusade here.

      • Deb Furlin

        They just make up “facts” as they go along.

      • Pro Era

        HAHAHA!! I don’t need to be gay to know that my dick would fit just fine in some asshole LOLOL!!

      • Deb Furlin

        Do you have any links that show that atheists oppose gay marriage, and by the way, why should we care?

      • softrbreeze

        John. you must not live in the US. They absolutely do try to tell you what light bulbs to use.

      • drklassen

        No, the legislation is a control on what kind of light bulbs producers can produce. And only insofar as the level of light-to-energy-used ratio.

      • Deb Furlin

        Apples and oranges.

      • Justin Tierney

        oh he’s trying to use the point that we made changes to the laws on the use of terrible short lived lightbulbs as a standard to ones that last much longer are more efficient and are less harmful to the environment. Bascially he’s just being an asshole.

      • Michael Naaktgeboren


        Stephen’s argument is that many laws in society are based on morality (such as laws against murder and raper). His argument is that morality can and should be legislated. It is the role of government to do so.

      • Anthony Rivera

        if we passed laws saying what kind of light bulbs to use, that would not be based on morality, but on fact that we have to end climate change because serious things will happen if we dont. an teaching the bible in school goes against separation fo church and state, which is yes based on morals, but is also heavily backed up my rational fact. and when do you say a baby is a baby? that baby is also a baby when it is sperm, so should we outlaw masturbation? or is it only a life when that sperm is inside an egg? what difference does it make on the location of said sperm be it in an egg, in testicles or on a napkin in the trash? personally i dont think a woman in college that has 1 drunken night should have to drop out and take care of a baby over 1 night of mistakes. we all make mistakes and we shouldnt force a persons life to be destroyed over a small mistake like that. it does no benefit to society at all. you might think its a life, but others think its not… your opinion does not override their opinion… i see no moral issue here. instead i see. what benefits society as a whole? allowing a girl to become educated and successful, or keeping her dumb and uneducated with no value to society because she dropped out because she got pregnant?

      • Stephen Staedtler

        Your whole argument is I am liberal and I know best. You are fine with legislating your morals as long as they are your morals.

      • Helen Scott

        Students have the right to engage in voluntary individual prayer that is not coercive and does not substantially disrupt the school’s educational mission and activities. Forced organized pray is not permitted, just like schools cannot force a child to salute the flag if it is against their religious beliefs.

      • Deb Furlin


      • Michael Naaktgeboren


        Your statement,”it is not my right to force my personal religious beliefs on people who don’t share them” makes no logical sense. You do it every day. Do you allow men to rape women, women to molest children, children to bully the weakling? I hope not. The reason you do not allow these things is because of your personal religious beliefs or worldview. You understand that certain things cannot be allowed, whether you attribute it to Christianity, Islam, or Naturalism. Something says, those things are wrong. Though Christians who believe God’s Word is true and authoritative take their stance against abortion on that ground, logic, medicine, and science demonstrate that life begins before birth and that abortion is murder. If people were not willing to stand up for their “personal religious beliefs” the black man would still be a slave, women in India would still be murder and buried when their husbands died, and pedophilia (which was common in the Roman world before Christianity) would still be normative. The heritage of Christian men and women has been their willingness to stand up for their faith and to change the world because of it.

      • David

        Except the key difference between an abortion and things like child molestation, murder, etc. is that some of these things strip liberties from others, and some are personal choices that don’t affect anyone else. We don’t legislate morality simply when we feel like legislating it. We legislate morality when it protects the individual agency of citizens. Murder is outlawed because if it wasn’t members of our society would be in danger. Rape is outlawed for the same reason. Abortion is legal because it is a decision that solely affects the woman who is pregnant. yes, I understand that a fetus is alive; however, it is also worth noting that several studies have shown that outlawing abortions does not decrease the number of abortions performed–it only leads those who would normally do it legally to seek illegal and dangerous alternatives which can sometimes endanger the life of the mother as well–this isn’t in the interest of our society either. In fact, the only thing that has been shown to lower abortion rates is sex education about contraception and safe sex–Hence abortion being legal at certain terms of the pregnancy. Personally, my religious views tell me abortion is wrong, but whether or not a woman across the Country gets one literally has no impact on my life whatsoever, and I have no right to make that decision for her. My stance on gay marriage is the same. Even if I think it is wrong, it literally does not affect me or anyone else if two men or two women choose to get married. I will, however, happily encourage the use of sex education in schools about contraception and safe sex, as this is something that actually aims to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, protects the lives of those who would have gotten an abortion if they were pregnant, and is very much in the interest of society. This Country was founded on protecting the agency of the individual, and frankly, regardless of my religious beliefs, if you want to do something that doesn’t affect me I shouldn’t have any say in whether or not you do that. Bottom line.

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        I disagree with your logic. I believe abortion does strip the freedoms of people, the children the womb. As for homosexual marriage, I believe that the institution of marriage is beneficial for the society and therefore is grounds for not permitting it. Just like we don’t allow for polygamy.

      • Perrofelix

        ‘The institution of marriage is beneficial for the society and therefore is grounds for not permitting it (same sex marriage)”

        So, it’s beneficial for society if gays and lesbians enter opposite-sex marriages?

        If it’s beneficial for society that we have doctors does that mean that we should all be doctors, and being a lawyer instead would be a sin?

      • Michael Naaktgeboren


        I do not believe that those who have homosexual tendencies should pursue heterosexual marriages. I believe that some should remain single. But that is based on my faith in the Bible. But I do think that the institution of marriage should be restricted to a man and woman because that family unit acts as the backbone for societies. But don’t think that I think homosexuality is the only enemy of marriage. Divorce, fornication, adultery, and polygamy all undermine the institution of marriage.

      • Socialmedic

        The family unit is hardly the backbone of society and there are things in life well worth doing other than church sanctified fornicating with forced economically dependent women to make babies.

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        If you like, you can argue from a progressive standpoint that government is what holds societies together, but historically the family unit has been the most stabilizing institution in society.

      • drklassen

        So, gay couple with kids should not be afforded this “stabilizing institution”?!

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        I don’t think they can be afforded the stabilizing institution of marriage. Gay couples are completely unnatural and cannot afford to a child the appropriate care that a mother and father can. Letting them have civil unions could afford to them the financial benefits of marriage, but it will never provide them with the unique qualities of a husband and wife.

      • drklassen

        In other words: you are a bigot.

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        I’m glad we could resort to name calling. That is always the best way to have meaningful discussion.

      • drklassen

        Labeling is not the same as name-calling. If you do not wish to wear that label you can do something about it. You can end your hate-filled discrimination and persecution of our brothers and sisters. At the very least you should stop pretending that Jesus is the cause of your hate. You false Christianity is annoying to the rest of us.

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        It is interesting that you consider my position hate-filled. Though I consider the homosexual lifestyle sinful (because of the Bible) and think that same-sex marriages are impossible, what have I ever said that appears hateful. I never once spoke illy of any homosexual’s virtue. I never belittled them to sub-human or sub-citizen. And you speak of persecution. In what ways have I persecuted them? I have never slandered or injured a homosexual.

        On the contrary, it is you who have sought to harm be by calling me a bigot, saying that I’m hate-filled, and accusing me of being oppressive. Whenever a discussion turns to making attacks on someone personally, instead of applying logic, all validity is lost. Thus, because you only seek to injure my dignity to win your point, no value remains in this dialogue.

      • drklassen

        You, through *your* *interpretation* of the Bible, have created a club. You condemn a whole group of people who only wish to have the same civil rights as the rest of us, to live in loving companionship, as sinner of a special kind. I only call you out as what you are: using the Word to pump up your own false piety just as the Pharisees before you. I do not wish to harm you, I wish to turn you from this path of hate.

        What logic have you applied?! I saw none. What logic leads you to believe that same-sex marriages are impossible? There is no such logic. State marriage is merely a mostly-financial contract and as such the state can find NO compelling reason to deny it to same-sex couples. No, you don’t use logic, you use your “piety-club” to hurt them and deny them. No doubt you reserve your votes for public officials who would also focus on denying them.

        And while you do this, you ignore the things Jesus has told us he will judge. When you vote for leaders, do you ask them their plans to feed the hungry, house the homeless, and clothe the naked? Or those who will end the practice of stuffing our jails and prisons all in the name of profit? Woe to you.

      • Baaly

        Two words…Ted Haggard.

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        I’m confused by your two words.

      • Baaly

        Utilize Google.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        You are right…you never spoke illy of a homosexual. What you have done is say that if they accept Christ & cast off the sin of homosexuality & marry a woman, that they are blessed. You will say it is OK if they never have sexual relations.

        You may not speak illy of them but you would condone them to a life of chastity & praise them for being so; you would deny them happiness & fulfillment from sharing their life with another. All because of your belief – yet you ignore some of those same chapters that speak about eating pork, shellfish, wearing clothing of mixed fibers etc. You pick & choose your verses as it pertains mostly to SEX.
        If your child came to you & said they were gay, would you toss them out? Or haul them before a congregation to pray the gay away? Tell them you would never come to a wedding if they wanted to marry a partner? If you believe that everything is God’s plan, the couldn’t the homosexuality or the abortion all be part of God’s infinite plan for this person? Or do you just speak for HIM, without his knowledge?

      • Souris Optique

        You are also a liar. We can go back and read your previous posts, you know.

      • KishinD

        Oh my oh my. It really does seem like everything you “know” is wrong. Not bad, per se, just false or faulty reasoning.

        There are two ways you can fix this. Consume a small amount of LSD, or give yourself amnesia. Trust me, you’ll be making the world a better place.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        & yet, as I have said before Michael, I KNOW children of gay couples. They are afforded great care & love & they are just as stable & loved as the children of my heterosexual friends. Families are made up of people who love & care for each other…Marriage stabilizes a family…husbands & wives aren’t great shakes any longer at being stable. Truth be told, many never were. You tell me how a gay couple getting married somehow makes your marriage less holy.

      • Souris Optique

        “Gay couples are completely unnatural and cannot afford to a child the appropriate care that a mother and father can.”


      • semclaw

        My wife and I are not unnatural, and I promise you we afford our honor-roll, soccer-star son appropriate care – (much better care, in fact, than our straight neighbors give their son – when they are even home to care for him.) My wife is a doctor and I am a teacher and you’d best get over yourself because we teach your children and heal your body – and we are here to stay. If it makes you feel any better, we’re deacons at church too!

      • singingsoprano

        Natural isn’t the right argument for you to use. There is enough evidence at this point to see that homosexual orientation is organic. You can still believe it’s wrong, if you’d like, but you’ll have to see it as a birth defect that needs healing, rather than a moral choice. I don’t think that is a correct view either, however (and I’d guess most would find it offensive). As far as people who have “been healed or freed” from homosexuality: maybe. Or maybe they were more on the spectrum–more likely bisexual. Do remember, we’re discussing orientation rather than behavior. Behaviors can be chosen, orientation is most likely not changeable. I understand that for a Christian trying to wrestle with scripture, this is a difficult subject (or should be if he has any compassion), however there are several interpretations of what those verses say, and they are not as clear cut as some would have you believe. Finally, I’ve known a lot of families. None of them offer their children everything they need. People–all people–are selfish. Two people have an easier chance than one–and tend to balance each other out regardless of gender, but even two parent households have challenges that one parent households don’t have. Life is hard. But it does go better when people have the freedom to choose how they want to form their families. (BTW, can you name 1 “traditional” family in the Bible? You know, one husband and one wife raising their own, naturally conceived children?) The fact is, outside of religion, there isn’t really a good reason to forbid gay marriage/gay relationships. And the rules of a religion only are meant to apply to the religion’s adherents. So, if your church teaches that it’s wrong, you could conceivably choose to confront a gay couple who attended there…but it isn’t yours to confront someone, or create laws for someone who is NOT an adherent to your religion or faith.

      • jdinbrooklyn

        Dear Michael Naaktgeboren,

        You say you know one formerly gay man and one formerly lesbian woman who repented, but do you personally know any gay … parents?

        I do. Quite a few in fact. And I can assure you they are amazing, wonderful, dedicated parents. In fact, they don’t parent much differently from the heterosexual parents I know. They share a common parenting theme: intense love and devotion to their children.

        One example is a male couple (now happily married here in New York, where gay marriage is legal, yay!!!) who were together for a decade and wanted a child so badly they tried to adopt. They spent many years trying to adopt a child from the US and from other countries to no avail. So they found a woman in the midwest to donate her eggs. They created a few embryos and shipped them to India where a couple of them were implanted in an Indian woman. The cost of this was outrageous. But they wanted it sooooo badly. They are now the adoring fathers of twins — a girl and a boy. (Now you might say how they went about this is unnatural, but tell that to my MANY heterosexual couple friends who have had to resort to egg and sperm donors due to infertility).

        You say a gay couple “cannot afford to a child the appropriate care that a mother and father can.” How would you know this? On what study do you base this as fact? Perhaps you base this on scientific studies or perhaps on your personal experience knowing gay couples who are also parents.

        As someone who knows quite a few gay and lesbian parents and have witnessed their parenting skills, I can assure you that you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

        I encourage you to open up your mind and get to know people who are living this lifestyle before you judge it.

      • Tom Scruggs

        But you are wrong in that “civil unions” do NOT afford anyone the same financial or other benefits of marriage. There are over 1,100 benefits that just at the federal level that come with marriage. Who knows how many more there are in each state, county and city? Only marriage allows access to those benefits.

      • bsaunders

        The most stabilizing institution for the duration of the history of the U.S. has been the EXTENDED family not the nuclear one. There have always been out-of-wedlock births. There have always been widows and widowers. Men died from physical labor. Men died in wars. Women died in childbirth. Men and women as well as children died from diseases. Grandmothers, grandfathers, and old maid aunties provided childcare, elder care, physical sustenance, and sometimes ended up as primary caregivers.

        It is intellectually dishonest to draw the line at single mothers and not talk about the trouble caused by an isolated man-wife-children unit far away from extended family and at thrown into poverty or dependence by plant layoff or breadwinner illness. In the past, the extended family was the safety net for duly married nuclear units and for “failed” nuclear units.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        So, in other words, you believe that a homosexual should not have any right to happiness with another? A family consists of people who love each other & support each other. There are studies that prove that children of same sex couples have just as much (if not more) stability as those of straight couples. Uncles & Aunts raise kids, Grandparents raise kids…there are family units made up of Grandma & Mom & the kids….The institution of marriage isn’t defined in the bible – Solomon had wives & concubines; men had wives & slave girls, they weren’t actually monogamous, were they? Even Abraham had Sarah’s serving girl (Hagar) with Sarah’s consent. The conquering heroes were enjoined by God to take for themselves all the unmarried virgins – & Lot had sex with his daughters (after he offered them up to the townsfolk)….

        The Bible is a basis for religious faith….it doesn’t necessarily follow that it should be the basis of secular law – our Constitution should be for everyone including gay people – they pay taxes too, you know.

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        I never said that homosexuals have not right to happiness with another. I in fact know a homosexual man, after coming to saving faith in Christ and repenting of sin, including homosexuality, was freed from the sin of homosexuality and married a woman who he loves dearly and with whom he has beautiful children.

        I know that isn’t the case for everyone. I know woman who God saved from the sin of homosexuality, but she still has no interest in men. She lives a very healthy and happy life and commits much of her time God’s Word. There are heterosexuals who never marry too.

        As for your reading of God’s Word, I recommend that you consult some good commentaries. The Bible is an interesting book of faith because it never tried to hide the flaws of God’s people. However, it never calls sins good. Many of the examples you mentioned above brought negative results on the people who committed them and their society.

        True marriage does outdate Christianity, but it does not outdate God’s creative design of one man and one woman. From the beginning that has been God’s design and Jesus and the apostles affirm that in the New Testament.

        As for the question, “Should the Bible rule the citizens of sovereign nations?” I would no. As a Christian, I believe in the liberty of conscience. I do not believe that people should be forced to follow all the commands of Scripture by the state. I firmly believe in the separation of church and state that was envisioned by our forefathers (both of our country and the Christian men and women who desired it). However, I do think citizens of the constitutional republic should vote for men and women who are logical and consider morality in their votes. That being said, though the rule of religious dogma should not be imposed on citizens, logic should and thus, the elected government does have the right to limit the actions of people if those actions should have a negative impact on society. Murder is against the law of God, but that is not a reason for our government not to find it worthy of preventing by law and punishment. Thus, just to say that “our Constitution should be for everyone” is a very ignorant statement. It surely is, and even for those who do not pay taxes, but is set out to protect all citizens. However, the Constitution does give credence to make law for the good of society, even if it is held by those who know God.

      • drklassen

        The institution is a simply state-created contract. Contacts can be dissolved (divorce) or broken (adultery) which does have an effect on them. I don’t see how pre-marriage sex has any bearing on a marriage, so long as neither party has an STD.

        Polygamy…you do realize that the “traditional marriage” folks rave on about, allowed a man to have as many wives as he could afford?

        But I would agree, marriage, the state contract, is a two-person contract. Polygamy would require something more complex and I’d suggest the parties involved seek out a lawyer to work that out. But, once worked out, I have *no* *problem* with each person in the group being allowed to designate a “spouse” for the purposes of the various and sundry marriage benefits.

      • Michael Naaktgeboren


        I’m not sure what “traditional marriage” folks you are talking about, but I don’t know of any who are arguing for a man to have as many wives as he likes. If you are seeking to inappropriately apply Old Testament themes on the current topic, I recommend you study a little more.

      • drklassen

        Everyone who claims they are “for traditional marriage” of “one man and one woman” are *wrong*. Traditional marriage has all kinds of meanings and one of which was “one man, many women, with a concubines on the side”. No Bible needed, just history.

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        Your understanding of traditional is a little out of whack. Historically, yes, polygamous marriages existed, but they were never the norm. Usually they were seen as the abuses of the rich and powerful.

      • Souris Optique

        So when you say “traditional” What you *mean* is, “the way I believe it was at an arbitrary time I chose.”

        Tell us, what year do you think “tradition” starts?

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        The Bible didn’t talk, Michael, about 1 man & 1 woman…Abraham had Sarah & Hagar (her serving maid) – he had Ishamael by Hagar & Isaac by Sarah…Ishmael founded Islam & Isaac founded Judaism. God made covenants with both of them, “I shall raise you up into a great nation” – he did & they have been fighting ever since.

        The Bible told the Israelites that they when they conquered a nation they could kill everyone but the ‘virgin’ women who would be considered spoils of war. Men had wives & slave girls – he owned them all.

        Solomon had 300 wives & 700 concubines… Brothers were required to marry the slain brothers wife. Yes, these ARE all old Testament; but there has never been a traditional marriage described in the Bible (& don’t tell me that God married Adam & Eve – cause HE described everything else & I don’t think that would have gotten left out.

        Wives were for a long time property. We AREN’T that anymore & I don’t think any woman wants to go back to that time. We can’t be bought for goats, cows & sheep.

        Abortion was mentioned in the Bible – if a person caused a woman to miscarry then he had to pay the husband a sum of money just like he would have if he caused his horse or sheep to miscarry or not give birth.

        The truth is you do have a plank in your eye when it comes to same-sex marriage & also abortion.

      • rozey

        Glenna I’m sorry while I understand your sentiment your interpretation of the Bible is out of context. Firstly with your example of Sarah and Hagar–this was Sarah’s idea, not God’s. God had promised Sarah a child, but because she did not have faith she instructed Hagar to sleep with Abraham. This deed did not go unpunished as strife would later ensue as you pointed out. So your context is wrong.
        Can you point me in scripture where God says kill everyone but the virgins? Yes this practice is in the bible but understand that this is a common practice of those times. In fact a good counter point to this is with Saul where he was strictly instructed not to take spoils, but he did anyway.
        Nowhere does God say go take 300 wives either. While again the practice is in the bible it is not God’s law.
        The only perfect person in the bible is Jesus. The bible highlights the faults and shortcomings of even some great prophets. Their sins are never called good. And more of than not it is not until they repent until you begin to see anything fruitful occuring in their lives.

      • Tom Scruggs

        We were discussing Biblical tradition, not God’s law.

      • Souris Optique

        ” If you are seeking to inappropriately apply Old Testament themes on the current topic…”

        Do you mean like you’ve been doing? Why is it only ok for you?

      • Christine Dix

        Oh and what about “dowries” which Michael’s precious bible speaks about. Sounds like human trafficking to me……

      • Deb Furlin

        Does homosexual marriage hurt YOU in any way?

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        Homosexual marriage does not necessarily have a direct negative impact on me personally, but it does have an indirect negative impact. One, it undermines the institution that acts as the backbone for society – marriage between a man and a woman, as does divorce, adultery, and fornication. It also has the potential of undermining religious freedom in our nation if those who reject it are accused of hate speech for speaking against it. The last indirect negative impact is that it could open the door to other interpretations of marriage – polygamy and bisexual marriages which would need at least three partners.

      • itzken

        Three partners and a donkey. Don’t forget the donkey!

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        Never heard of donkeys being involved in legal contracts, but the use of such animals is common in the Middle East. I unfortunately had the displeasure of having a man tell me about his experience while I was in Iraq. These days, many consider their pets to be like children. I guess considering them to be spouses is a possibility.

      • musicalbitch

        Michael –

        Could it be possible that two gay parents could raise children that are just as productive and relevant to society as children raised by straight parents? I disagree with your statement that heterosexual marriage is the backbone of our society. That is personal bias and nothing more – there is no study or statistic showing that our society will suffer by allowing those with different sexual orientations to live free of discrimination by the government. Also, please note that marriage in the legal sense and matrimony in the religious sense are two very different things. It has been the norm for a long time…but what’s wrong with change or progress? As a society, shouldn’t we evolve? Learn? Change?

      • Socialmedic

        The heterosexual marriage is the backbone of consumerism which is perceived as beneficial to society even though it wastes carbon fuels, embraces third world slavery, pollutes the planet and embroils the nation in imperial plundering of foreign countries and brutal slaughter of the innocent civilians who have the misfortune of standing in the way of the greedy American family’s path.

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        You will have to show me some logical progression. How does heterosexual marriage support any of the things you mention. I believe a better argument could be made for greed as the cause of the problems you mention, as you did at the end. Though I see it as a result of individual sin, and not of the American family. The sin of greed devastated societies long before America existed.

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        There are studies that show that students do better in homes where both parents are involved and there is evidence to show that children live more happy lives when both parents are present.

        Also, your vocabulary is incorrect. There is no difference between the legal (secular) and religious use of the word marriage. The Bible uses the word marriage to express the covenant relationship between a man and a woman.

        Matrimony refer to the state or act of being married. It has no inherently religious meaning to it. Whether one is being married in a church or a courthouse, the person presiding over the ceremony could use the word matrimony.

        Please try to make sure that you use proper vocabulary when trying to make an argument. When you twist words to mean something different to make an argument, all you do is prevent helpful dialogue from happening.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        There are studies however that prove that children of same sex marriages do just as well as those of opposite sex marriages. Possibly even better. The reasons for that seem to be that same sex couples PLAN for their children. Since they are mostly adopted, the couple is more settled & are financially better off too.
        Also, when you lecture someone on vocabulary & you talk about making an argument; you loose all credibility.

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        The only people who would think less of an argument because one considers logic and vocabulary are those who lack since. If I said that I believed in homosexual marriage because only homosapians should marry each other (being anti-bestiality), my argument would be nonsensical because it lacks all logic and a proper understanding of vocabulary. If I made that argument, and someone wanted to have a reasonable discussion, I would need to be corrected.

        That is all I tried to do. The person’s argument had no authority because of an improper use of terminology If the person wanted to continue the discussion it would be necessary that they used language well.

        Also, when I spoke of making an argument, I did not mean to argue angrily I meant that one must use logic to make a case/give an argument like an attorney would do before the judge. If his argument lacked sense, the judge would not consider his case worth hearing.

      • webwriter

        “those who lack sense.” Not since. Imperfect vocabulary choices aren’t as confusing to valid and logical debate as improper grammar, which destroys credibility as well as causing confusion.

      • Baaly

        There are also studies that show children with lesbian parents do better on academic and social tests that their peers. Additionally, they measure lower on aggression and rule breaking (Journal – Pediatrics. Published July 7 2013, DOI: 10.1542/peds.2009-3153.)

      • Souris Optique

        “There are studies that show that students do better in homes where both parents are involved and there is evidence to show that children live more happy lives when both parents are present.”

        Furthermore, they show that it does not matter to the success or health of the child what gender both parents are. But I see you are conveniently ignoring those parts.

      • Christine Dix

        So my husband’s adultery and our subsequent divorce hurt YOU indirectly? Please tell me how?

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        Christine, I’m sorry for what happened to you and the pain of divorce you had to suffer.

        To answer your question, the sins of one man impacts the health of the community. In our American society, we are individualist who, for the most part, believe that we should have the freedom to do what we like so long as it does not hurt anyone else. However, that sort of individualist mentality really misses the truth of its community impact.

        When I said that sins such as homosexuality, adultery, and divorce hurt me indirectly, I was not speaking of each individual act but how the sin of adultery has hurt society. I had to see the pain my mother suffered because of my step-father’s committed adultery on her. Though he was never much a father to me, he completely neglected my brother, who was his son, because of his infatuation with another woman. When they divorced, it devastated the family unit and my mom and brother have suffered for it.

        Now, in that example, the sins of one man impacted his family, but it also impacted my extended family and their relationship towards him. It impacted our social connections in the community. The whole event caused had a destabilizing impact. I think you consider your husband’s adultery and divorce, you will see that it had a destabilizing impact on your social network for some time. Though no one suffered as great as you, his sin impacted the community.

      • Tom Scruggs

        But you must realize that those who do object ARE dangerously close to hate speech. It doesn’t take much to get over the line. You can object without it undermining your religious freedom, but you must not cross any lines in doing so. Consult a civil rights attorney.

      • hotfishnora1

        I think traditional marriage has ruined society and I do allow for–and even embrace– polygamy, divorce, adultery and most certainly for fornication…so make sure next time you clearly state you are speaking for YOURSELF and not for me.

      • Socialmedic

        That would depend on what is the basis for marriage, love or money? If it is love then homosexuals are entitled to it. If it is money then marriage is a legal entity for the protection of legalized prostitution and therefore an immoral institution.

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        I think you are missing a huge reason for marriage – procreation. It is the reason our bodies are created the way they are. And the desire of children is natural and appropriate.

      • drklassen

        So…my marriage should never have been allowed because we made the conscious decision to never have kids?! What about infertile women and men?

      • Michael Naaktgeboren


        Let me deal with your second question first. I feel deeply sorry for men and women who are infertile and desire to have children. The desire to have children is natural and they are a blessing from the Lord. So I grieve for those who do not get to enjoy the blessing of God in that way. It is one of the sad results of sin in the world. Thankfully, the Lord has provided adoption as a means to allow the infertile a way to have children. Sadly, there are more orphans than there are those who desire to adopt. Another ill effect of sin in the world.

        Now to answer your second question. I do think that those who marry with no aim for children sin if they do so for selfish purposes because I believe a primary purpose of marriage is reproduction. Now, if your wife and you decided not to marry so that you could sacrifice your worldly enjoyments for the sake of the sick, oppressed, or starving, then your chosen childlessness would be of good cause.

        I admit that I am biased by my submission to the Lord and to His Word, and for that you might consider me weak minded and foolish, but I also believe reason and evidence shows that those who repent of sin and trust in the mercy of Jesus live lives of greater nobility, of greater purpose, and of greater joy. To that end, I would encourage you to look to Jesus and to turn from your sin.

      • deb

        You are truly nuts! Many people get married knowing ahead of time that they do not want children. I’m not one of them (I have two children that were much wanted and planned) but for me or you to “judge” someone who does not want children is just wrong! You are really arrogant in your beliefs. Wow!

      • Karen Peters

        Michael, I have been reading your comments and replys to others on this site for about 30 minutes now. I find that you like to express you opinion (and that what they are, opinions) in a very arrogant and condensending manner. You seem to feel that because of your beliefs, you are better than others on this site. You hide behind you religion as a means to portray your self purceived superiority to others who do not belive the way you do. You try to convince others that yours is the one and only opinion that matters and that all others are wrong.

        However, I have also noted that you have back tracked and contradicted some of your own comments. There were many comments you made to some that you said the opposite when commenting to someone else. I won’t list them all, but here is one of the most blatant:

        “There are crisis pregnancy centers with huge waiting list of families who want to adopt babies so they don’t have to be murdered. My pastor and his wife were on the list for 8 years waiting before they decided to adopt from Africa. If abortion was ended, the children would have a place to go where they would be loved and wanted.”

        But yet in this comment your state:

        “Sadly, there are more orphans than there are those who desire to adopt.”

        Please explain how it can be both ways – “hugh waiting list for those who want to adopt” and “more ophans than there are those who desire to adopt”. You can’t have it both ways.
        I have come to the conclusion that you just like to talk, to be heard and to talk down to others that you feel are less than you because they don’t believe the same way you do.
        If you honeslty believe that God guides us and has a plan for each of us, then being a homosexual or having an abortion must be part of Gods plan as well.
        It is not our place to judge others or to dictate how they live. God is the only one that can judge us by our actions today. Got to ask – how will God judge you?

      • James Daley


        I love how you called Michael out on his contradictions. Did he ever response to you to explain it?

      • Karen Peters

        No, Michael did not reply to my comment. Doesn’t surprise me though, since people like him, I believe, just like to talk on and on about how perfect they are and we therefore should just believe as they do. When you call someone like that out about something, they rarely reply because they would have to admit that they are not perfect as they want everyone to believe. Personally, I do not need someone to tell me how to think or to live my life. And I especially don’t like it when someone talks down to those who do not believe as they do. We each have our own opinions on issues and they are not all the same opinions, but that is ok because that is what makes us all individuals.
        Thanks for the reply.

      • Christine Dix

        If I had children with my ex-husband-they would have been abused and wanting for the basics of life, -food, clothing- just like I had……..

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        But the children in the womb may or may not be born. This is a potential life. You say you are all for this little unborn life but of what impact is it on you? It doesn’t affect your bottom line, it doesn’t take any of your time, you don’t have to feed, clothe or educate this child. If it is born with medical conditions, you don’t have to go broke or neglect your other children to care for it. It has no bearing on you whatsoever at all. That is why the CHOICE should only be up to the woman who is carrying the child….
        As for homosexual marriage – it also doesn’t REALLY impact your life. The only person who can damage your marriage is YOU or your wife. Marriage is a legal contract – the marriage license is granted by the STATE not the church. Marriage predates Christianity – it has already been redefined because we no longer trade women for livestock & most of us women are no longer chattel. We can own property, sign contracts & be educated. (Just like real people)….
        Your ability to decide what others do as far as these 2 issues really does speak to their freedoms & usurps their rights.

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        What impact did slavery have on those who did not own slaves? What impact did abuses towards blacks have on privileged white people? According to you, none and therefore whites should have never concerned themselves with morality and the rights of black people. Thankfully, Christian men and women (and Republicans), did not think only of themselves, but of what was good for the greater society and fought against injustices.

        I always find it odd that women, who throughout history have been some of the most hindered and oppressed by the powerful, are the most vocal and agressive about insuring that babies in the womb do not have their rights ensured. Sadly, it seems, that the women’s movement had nothing to do with restoring justice, but only about moving women into the position of opressor.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        Look, babies in the womb are not oppressed! You seem to want to make them into sacred objects more important than a woman’s life. If she is going to die, then you would have her die along with the baby…What rights do you wish them to have. You seem to want them all to be born but a pregnant woman cannot use the carpool lane….she doesn’t have to pay for a ticket for the “baby”.

        Do you know what happens when abortion is made illegal? Abortion doesn’t stop. It just goes underground & women die. In Romania, there was a leader who was concerned about the population so he ruled that abortion for any reason be illegal…he went a few steps further & checked women every month too. This was during a time of great poverty so when babies were born, they were often placed in orphanages. There were so many babies that staff couldn’t care for them properly. No one could adopt them or wanted to. The babies were fed (but not breast fed nor held when feeding); their diapers were changed & basic care was given. They weren’t held. They weren’t talked to, read to or sung to. No one hung bright mobiles over their cribs nor gave them educational toys. So these babies grew up without bonding to anyone. By the time that the leader was put before a firing squad (along with his wife) for crimes against the state – there were millions of babies of varying ages in these orphanages. Is this really what you want to see happening in America? Quality of life? Children deserve to be loved & cared for & wanted. Some people aren’t meant to be parents. Birth is when life happens. Conception not so much. The slippery slope will be when women in America are jailed for not carrying a baby to term, when miscarriages are suspect, You won’t have any problem with that because you are male. Women have the right to plan their own destinies. We have the right to family planning. CHOICE is our CHOICE not yours unless it is your wife or your daughter or your girlfriend.

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        You sound just like the racist slave owning democrats of the 1860’s, “Blacks are not as human as white people. They don’t have rights. What about our rights to own them. We bought them. And what is going to happen if we just let all these black people go free. Who is going to feed them. Who is going to house them. We will just be over populated with a bunch of black people that no one wants. As slave owners we have the right to plan how we want to use our slaves. CHOICE is our CHOICE, not ours unless it is your slave.”

        Thankfully for those racist democrats, who had to deal with what they considered an over population of free blacks, Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood and placed them in urban black areas so that they could kill their children. Your ideology fits well into heritage of the racist democrats.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        Slavery isn’t the issue here except that YOU really want to make slaves of women. Margaret Sanger was one woman who said that women ought to be able to plan their families. She saw women as people – she saw women who had baby after baby after baby until they were worn out. Childbirth isn’t easy. It takes a great toll on a woman’s body. I had 1 daughter & wasn’t able to have anymore children because of fibroid tumors. Women who have a child a year tend to have problems. But that doesn’t matter to you because according to your reading of God’s word, women are for bearing children & I guess pleasing husbands. Men should keep them pregnant & barefoot until the woman in question dies from childbirth & then he can find another one..There are a lot of reasons women have abortions – many of them are grinding poverty.. I am sure you liked it better when women were expected not to have any opinion other than what you or her dad told her.

        You keep talking about the Bible. Well, the Bible IS NOT NOW NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA…CHRISTIANITY HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED AS “THE ONE & ONLY RELIGION FOR THE USA” either. Laws that govern our nation HAVE TO BE secular in nature because not everyone practices Christianity.
        You condemn homosexuality because according to you it is sin. The idea that to win your approval a homosexual has to renounce his sin & marry a woman just bowls me over. It reminds me of the people in the 60s who condemned black people & white people getting married to each other.

        I don’t think you know too much about real slavery or real racism. You don’t know much about me either. The USA is a melting pot of races, cultures & religions. All of them have value.

        You talk about the unborn as if they were the only thing in life – well, they don’t cease to be after birth. I guess where we differ most is that I care more about the already born than I do about the potential born. I want born kids to have health care, education, food, clothing & people who want to make sure that no matter what race, religion or sex they are that they are loved. If that makes me a liberal bleeding heart democrat, well, I can live with that. If you think I am a heathen, I can live with that too.

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        I think you are failing to see the logic of my argument here. I’m not saying slavery is the issue. I’m using it as an illustration of your hypocrisy. And to consider Margaret Sanger a good person is to be very naive of history. She was a racist who saw abortion as a means of limiting the growth of the black population. She was in league with German scientist who agreed with Hitler’s eugenic principles.

        Now, you are correct that I don’t know you well. However, you don’t know me well either. So why do you make such negative remarks towards me without knowing my opinions. I never said that women should be kept pregnant by their husbands. I have no issue with family planning. I just don’t think it should take place by murdering the unborn.

        I am a Christian and do believe that sin is sin because God has called it so, but I understand that it is not in the Constitution. And before you make wild accusations, you should probably read what I actually wrote. I never said that a homosexual has to marry a person of the opposite sex for me to accept them. I said, that by the grace of God and through the power of Jesus, I have seen them desire it. In society, I do not expect homosexuals to turn against their sinful desires, for to repent of sin is only by the grace of God. However, in the church, which has no real bearing on this conversation, but just for the sake of you knowing where I’m coming from, the Bible demands that sinners repent and turn from Jesus, which means forsaking sin.

        I totally agree that the U.S. is a melting pot of cultures and ideas. However, racism is still a horrible sickness that reigns in our society. To ignore it shows a great level of ignorance.

        And, when making a case for why abortion is murder and wrong, that does not mean that I ignore of the value of the living. I completely agree that children have needs and Christians have always supported that cause. Christians were the first to build hospitals and before free and public education, Christian Sunday School was actually training in literacy and math, along with religious training, for the poor and those who worked and were unable to attended private schools. Even more, the Christian. Also, Christian are some of most committed people at caring for those in need, and not just on this side of the globe. Christians have really taken on the call to adopt the needy children around the world. Christians have also historically been the largest supporters of orphanages. So to say that I, or Christians collectively, only care about the unborn babies not being murdered is false. Yes, it is a great cause of the church to end murder, but we do great services for the living as well.

      • drklassen

        So we can assume you don’t eat shellfish?

        And God also called for the canceling of all debts every seven years. Are you asking your elected officials to support that?

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        It always surprises me how many non-Christian people try to quote the Bible to support their arguments, only to make themselves look really naive. I don’t quote Richard Dawkins because I’ve never read one of his books. So my suggestion to you would be, don’t quote something you don’t know anything about.

        Now, just to give you some insight into biblical interpretation – not all Old Covenant laws transition to the New Covenant (what Christians believe today). Now you might think, that is a contradiction. It would be, except that the Bible deals with why they do not. So I eat plenty of shellfish and don’t believe all debts should be cancelled every seven years.

        So, if you would like to make logical arguments against my statements, please do so. But please don’t bring straw men. It only shows your ignorance or your deceitfulness.

      • Souris Optique

        Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they are ignorant of the Bible. Do you realize how many of the people arguing with you ARE Christians?
        Speaking of ignorance and deceitfulness!

      • Souris Optique

        We know your opinions QUITE well, you’ve made very sure of it!

      • deb

        To even bring up Margaret Sanger is ridiculous. She was born in 1883! She is totally irrelevant in today’s world. Her beliefs about the different races is backward and ignorant. No one that I know of believes the racist crap she spewed. Planned Parenthood is the one good thing she did create, however. You keep bringing up the bible and your religious beliefs and we keep telling you that they don’t matter in the great scheme of our country. Our country was founded on religious FREEDOM, not Christian values.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        By the way, I didn’t say anything about slavery. It actually didn’t impact me though. As an Anglo Saxon Protestant Woman, I didn’t own slaves & I am not sure that my grandparents or their grandparents did either.

        I do stand for civil rights though. I didn’t see any reason to deny them the same drinking fountain as I nor the same bathroom. I didn’t think myself any better than any of them nor did I think that they shouldn’t intermarry with whites…Love is Love.
        I feel the same way now about gay people. People are People & Love is Love.
        I am not sure how a discussion of slavery impacting white people has anything to do with your discussion of a woman halfway across the US having an abortion impacting your life – because it really does not.

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        I’m not sure if we live in the same America, or even if you live in America, but I’m pretty sure that the injustices suffered by those of African descent is still impacting my nation today. Racism surrounds me every where I go and it comes from both sides. The point was that injustices and sin impacts society. One cannot logically ignore that. Thus, when children are oppressed just because they are in the womb and cannot speak of for themselves, it brings devastation on the whole society. It gives courage to the strong to injure the weak without fear of justice.

        As for the LGBT marriage issue, please don’t call that a civil rights issue. Black people were being shamed to a degree that the homosexual community has never experienced. To call same-sex marriages a civil rights issue does a great injustice to the oppression and injury suffered by the black community.

      • kwkurtz44

        OK I have been reading your self-righteous babbling long enough, now you crossed the line. To somehow even suggest that the oppression and injuries accorded to homosexuals throughout history is somewhat less than that suffered by blacks shows your true lack of intelligence and compassion. We have endured lynchings, denied access to housing, denied the right to marry a person of our choosing, the right to attend our partner in the hospital as they lie dying, to publicly grieve for our loved ones, to have estates we have built together as a couple taken away by greedy relatives that never even acknowledged our partner during their life. In some countries in this world, yet today, they have honor killings, where if your family discovers your homosexuality they will take out a contract to have you killed. We have had a horrendous killer disease cast upon us as punishment for our evil ways (labeled the gay plague, so unfairly). The list goes on an on. Thankfully during my lifetime we have come a long way, just as have our black brothers and sisters, but the battle is far from over. Until you have lived as one denied their civil rights, you have no idea how devastating it can be. HOW DARE YOU! . .

      • Souris Optique

        ” …that the homosexual community has never experienced.”

        Can you even make a post without a blatant lie in it?

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        But the children in the womb may or may not be born. This is a potential life. You say you are all for this little unborn life but of what impact is it on you? It doesn’t affect your bottom line, it doesn’t take any of your time, you don’t have to feed, clothe or educate this child. If it is born with medical conditions, you don’t have to go broke or neglect your other children to care for it. It has no bearing on you whatsoever at all. That is why the CHOICE should only be up to the woman who is carrying the child….
        As for homosexual marriage – it also doesn’t REALLY impact your life. The only person who can damage your marriage is YOU or your wife. Marriage is a legal contract – the marriage license is granted by the STATE not the church. Marriage predates Christianity – it has already been redefined because we no longer trade women for livestock & most of us women are no longer chattel. We can own property, sign contracts & be educated. (Just like real people)….
        Your ability to decide what others do as far as these 2 issues really does speak to their freedoms & usurps their rights.

      • LisaLynn1961

        They are NOT children! They are potentialities and many of them would never become children anyway. Nature terminates far more pregnancies than man.

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        Nature gets people sick too. Should we keep them from getting medicine? Your logic fails unless you believe life is insignificant and therefore should not protected.

      • ccb

        What about Utah?

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        What about Utah?

      • Christine Dix

        You are so uneducated it’s not even funny. Don’t you have a job or anything else to do other than be a troll waving an out of date book?

      • ccb

        And these children, instead of not existing you want them to live a horrible life as being unwanted? uncared for? starving with no support? Because the way things are going the republicans don’t give a hoot about them once they are out and in need. When born under those circumstances people turn out to become bad people, angry people… That’s no fair to them. If my mother didn’t want me and I was starving and alone as a child and there was no public assistance, which is where the republicans want to go, I would rather be nonexistent. At least maybe my soul can be born to parents who will want me and love me, and not have to suffer through life miserable. people are right, lets nip it in the bud and educate future generations on safe sex and contraceptives. But there will always be rape and for that abortions need to be available for the safety of the woman. We cant change people now, but we can educate our own children and in the future, there will be less of the occurrence of negligent pregnancies.

      • Michael Naaktgeboren


        I really don’t think you have a good understanding of what the world is like. You say that these children are unwanted. That is incorrect. There are crisis pregnancy centers with huge waiting list of families who want to adopt babies so they don’t have to be murdered. My pastor and his wife were on the list for 8 years waiting before they decided to adopt from Africa. If abortion was ended, the children would have a place to go where they would be loved and wanted. People always claim that Christians don’t care about the baby once it is born. That is just false.

        The reality is though, once many women decide not to murder their babies, when it comes time to give birth, many of them decide to keep the child. That happened to friends of mine. They stayed in a hotel for two weeks waiting for the child to be born and then the mother decided to keep her child. The family that waited, though devastated, instead of getting upset, helped the mother buy clothes and other items she would need to care for the child. That is the acts of Christians towards children in need.

        You also make false claims against the Republican party in general. Republicans have no desire to take public assistance away from children in need. That is such a straw man argument. The Republican party has never tried to strip the social welfare net away from the elderly and children. To make a claim like that is either naive or deceitful.

        As for abortion for women who are raped or their lives in danger, I don’t see how killing one for the sake of another is just. But even if you want to believe that, less than 1% of abortions are the result of rape, incest, or danger to the mothers life. Abortion has very little to do with women’s health, except for the roughly 50% of babies in the womb who are girls who get murdered during abortions. But no one cares about their health.

        As for education, I agree it needs to happen. Sadly, abstinence didn’t even make your list. I guest your first thoughts just show how depraved our culture has become that we don’t even have expectations of people being chaste. In part the abortion epidemic is a result of the sexual revolution. When people abandoned the moral principle of abstaining from sex until marriage, innocent children became the oppressed group of men and women who wanted to hide the consequences of their shameful deeds.

      • deb

        Abortion is NOT NEW! I worked in the Homicide Bureau of the Sheriff’s Dept. during the 1970s. I can’t tell you how many cases of botched abortions (deaths of women) I read about that happened during the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s before abortion was legalized. Most people do NOT want to abort their babies but there are situations (rape, 13 year old girls, the health of the mother, etc., etc.) where is it warranted. Who are YOU to decide what a woman does with her body? Your religious beliefs don’t have anything to do with other people!!! You can practice/believe any religion you want but to impose YOUR beliefs on others is just wrong, audacious and arrogant!!! The extreme right wing wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood. Are you against birth control, too??? Women need access to birth control! Get over yourself.

      • Aldous

        Your argument makes it clear that what you really believe in is the relegation of women into breeding mares. Or they can just “choose” celibacy. Do you oppose birth control as well? Then your ideology is not “pro-life,” it is “pro-control-of-women.”

      • musicalbitch

        You, sir, are intelligent – well said!!!

      • Perrofelix

        Just because you believe in treating others as you would like to be treated does not make you religious. That’s common decency, and a rational pact we make to live in society together. It’s a pact that is broken, in fact, by those who insist on things like mandatory Christian school prayer but would oppose mandatory praying to Mecca.

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        I agree that doing on to others as you would like to have done to you is not inherently religious, but the reason we have that concept is because of our Christian heritage. Before Jesus, the common expectation of man was to not do to others as you would not want done to you. There is a big difference between that and what Jesus taught.

        However, I’m not quite sure what that has to do what anything I have said and I’m not supportive of religious training in public schools. But, I am against anti-religious training in school, such as teaching all religions are equal or that a theory like evolution is fact.

        I am a strong proponent of treating the homosexual community with respect and insuring that they are not discriminated against when it comes to secular hiring. However, I think there are logical reasons to withhold marriage from then, as mentioned before.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        You do know that every religion has the Golden Rule, right? Every religion has a flood story & creation stories abound. What you are saying is that you don’t care to have the Bible taught in school; but you don’t or wouldn’t support a World Religion class & you really would support teaching Creationism 101 in school. Your understanding of religion????? I do not think everything is what you think it is.

      • deb

        I have yet to hear of any school who teaches AGAINST religion. Where do you get your “facts”? Fox News?? Sheesh. I went to public schools and at no time did anyone ever even mention religion. They assumed it was a personal thing within the families.

      • Socialmedic

        War is murder. Allowing people to die because of lack of health care is murder. In your view so long as it isn’t going line your wallet with cash it is murder.

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        Just war is not murder. Allowing someone to die is not murder. Murder is when you willfully kill someone who is innocent of any offense worthy of death. For useful conversation to take place it is right to use proper vocabulary. If you blur the meaning of words, no dialoge can help.

        What are you talking about, “so long as it isn’t going line your wallet with cash it is murder.” Murder has been clearly defined by God’s Word for over 3,000 years. Progressives seek to redefine words with cash on the mind – example: same-sex marriage for financial reasons.

      • webwriter

        Your misuse of vocabulary and subsequent admonishments to others for the same shows an underlying ignorance of your own.

        Murder is a legal term and includes several categories, but is defined as ”unlawful killing.” Abortion is not murder until Roe v. Wade is overturned. On the other hand, denying access to medical care resulting in death is manslaughter. Yes, a category of murder.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        Except rape is NOT a religious belief…As a matter of fact, if you read the old testament, rape was condoned…the victor got all the “maidens who had not known men” — Women molesting children? Murder? Those are secular things…We don’t condone rape, molestation or murder because they aren’t tolerated in an evolved society. The injunction of the law against murder didn’t come from the Bible or the 10 Commandments…Geez.

      • Daniel

        Are we forgetting that the people holding those of
        African descent in slavery were predominantly religious? And that religion was given as an excuse to why they were slaves and couldn’t be freed? And people do not say molestation, abuse, and rape is wrong because of a religious standpoint. If you need someone else to tell you those things are wrong then I fear for your humanity. Those things are wrong because of human rights, not because any religious says it to be so…. and let’s not forget many religions condone many of the things you mentioned…

      • James

        Where does it state in Genesis that life begins at first breath?

      • bintexas

        God created Adam and then breathed the “breath of life.”

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        Yes, that was when life started for Adam because before that, he was just a pile of dirt. However, God does not breath life into Adam’s offspring in the same way. Thus, your use of Genesis does not apply.

      • Exactly and very well said.

      • Brian Daugherty

        Thank you. At last someone gets it! Just because you don’t like something doesn’t give you the right to ban it for everyone else. There is hope for you.

      • deb

        Wow! Finally someone with common sense. No one (liberals or conservatives) really wants people to have abortions left and right! What we (liberals) want is affordable birth control and education! The right wingers want to get rid of Planned Parenthood and that is the last thing they should want!!! If people have access to birth control they will not NEED to get abortions. I mean, really, it is COMMON SENSE! Why can’t they people SEE that? The right wing people who don’t educate their children about birth control are the ones who end up rearing their grandchildren! I told my daughter about Planned Parenthood when she was a Freshman in high school. I ALSO TOLD HER that I didn’t want her to have sex while in high school and why I didn’t think it was a good thing to do, but if she decided she was going to regardless of what I thought was the sensible thing to do, that she would be responsible and go to Planned Parenthood. That is exactly what she did and now as a grown woman she doesn’t have two or three children she wasn’t prepared to have! Why is that so difficult for people to understand!???

      • Garrett Winters

        What’s hard for me to understand is the two-pronged Republican approach of trying to stop abortions and the things that would be the best way to stop them (sex ed and birth control)

      • Shalom

        I believe it’s called “Pro-Life Personal, Pro-Choice Political” and I have full respect for it. I’m pro-choice as a whole but I don’t think I’d ever go for it myself. In certain cases (rape, incest, baby is going to die anyhow, my health or life in danger, etc.) I MIGHT. It’s all case-by-case. I am fortunate to never have been in any of those situations. But I acknowledge that not everyone is in my position, and I support a woman’s right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy, just as I support a child’s right to a safe and happy life. It’s a sad fact that in this world, public adoption agencies and foster-care are abysmal at best, not available to those who need it at worst, and I’ve seen way too many kids getting sucked into crime and the street stuff because they were born into a world that gave them no other choice. I say, Republicans, either you’re pro-life and you will help care for those kids who have nowhere to go, or you’re pro-choice and, since you won’t personally do anything for those unplanned pregnancies if they are carried to term, you choose not to force a woman into childbirth. On top of this, support either contraceptives or abortion–you really can’t get rid of both, and assuming otherwise is either completely ignorant or woefully naive.

      • rasslor56

        You ROCK.

      • meatwad_SSuppet

        Such a simple concept the busy-bodies don’t care to accept. They envision a planet full of them.

      • Sharon Beyma

        How wise you are!

      • Phil

        Can you point me to the exact verse where it says life begins with breath? I would be curious, though it would not alter my personal belief that life begins well after conception, a clump of tissues is not a human life, but before birth, certainly 7 month preemies are viable and human…

      • Ruth Oczykowski

        ahhhhh a breath of fresh air and reason, pro -choice is to allow one to make their own decision whether or not you agree or would make that your own choice.

      • Guy

        Actually it says “thou shalt not do murder” which is much harder to interpret

      • John Michael Hutton

        No it isn’t. Murder is when one kills a living being.

      • John Michael Hutton

        Maybe you don’t know your bible as well as you think. In fact, I doubt you’ve ever read the bible and are a long way from understanding what you read if you did read a passage or two.

      • James Westbrook

        Macabr you need to read your Bible again, or at least one that has not been changed around to suit the needs of man.

        The original wording was “Thou shall not MURDER”.

        Thus making all the killing in the Name of God, to be perfectly fine.

        Also do you support the Death Penalty? It is hard to call yourself Pro Life and still support the Death Penalty ain’t it???

      • samdog

        “original wording”? are you holding onto some big stone tablets and not telling? lol…not even putting my dog in this fight but “original” wording? would that be on the tablets that god inscribed and moses smashed or the ones moses chiseled? or the first guy who told the story or the first translator, or..or..or..

      • Lynda Naatz Richter

        That is correctly translated “Thou shalt not MURDER” or all those lovely OT wars were against God’s laws. The punishment for murder was death. The punishment for causing a woman to miscarry was a fine. OT life began at birth, not as a blastocyst.

      • Absolutely…it is a regrettable fact of social existance. But do you think that the government can control it? History suggests not!

      • Var Enyo

        But it’s ok to chase down someone with a pack of Skittles, right?

      • Deb Furlin

        Guess you also don’t believe in capital punishment.

      • Lynn Fletcher


      • secondlook


      • Roberta

        That was intentionally mistranslated from..thou shall not murder.

      • Mike Williams

        What your looking for is “Thou Shalt not Murder”

        Killing is not the same thing as murder.
        I always laugh when I see that very common mistake made. Mostly by those that claim to be devout.

        I also have issues with Idol worship and anything that has a cross with or without the image of Christ.

      • meatwad_SSuppet

        But you will go to the Liars wars no problemo, hypocrite.

      • Scott Davis

        Not when you have God commanding the Israelites to rip open the pregnant women of the enemy.

      • melloe

        NO, because it is not covered that way in the Bible…human life begins with the first breath. The human and Manual Fetus are indistinguishable for at least into the 2nd trimester

      • melloe

        NO, because it is not covered that way in the Bible…human life begins with the first breath. The human and Manual Fetus are indistinguishable for at least into the 2nd trimester

      • Joan Brown

        No it doesn’t, because at the time most abortions are performed there is nobody to kill. It is a cluster of cells that is basically a parasite living off the woman. Someplace in the Bible it says life doesn’t begin until the first breath is drawn, and that doesn’t happen until after delivery.

      • macabr

        The baby practices breathing long before it is born. My third pregnancy was very complicated so I was watched very closely. During the third trimester, i had weekly ultrasounds. The doctors wanted to see a few voluntary and involuntary signs of life. One of the involuntary things was evidence that the lungs were developing. The technician had to count the number of breaths the baby took over a certain number of minutes. I don’t remember how many minutes. That baby is now a perfectly healthy 28 year old. I saw his heart beating and I saw him breathe long before I got to hold him.

      • maryinbama

        How much killing is there is the bible? The entire Old Testament is filled with smiting and smoting. Liberals endorse comprehensive sex education, free and accessible birth control, a living minimum wage and universal healthcare. If we implemented those things in the USA, the abortion rate would go down by nearly 75%. So who is pro-life?

      • TerriP

        According to the Bible life begins with the first breath. How do you kill something that isn’t alive?

      • Stephen Staedtler

        This article is designed to make Christian Democrats feel better about themselves for voting for politicians who openly and outrightly support all forms of homosexuality and abortion. They are trying to buy an out clause. First off, when Jesus talked about the origins of marriage, He traced it back to Adam and Eve. All words of Scripture are inspired by God, not just Jesus words, so the author somehow claims only Jesus words count. What about when Jesus said to “judge righteous judgement?’ Did he leave that one out? Or when He told he prostitute to “Go and sin no more?”

      • Synn

        “That’s why there is no mention of it in the Bible.”

        What are you talking about?? The Bible not only mentions it, but COMMANDS that it be performed. II Kings 8:12 is one such example. Hosea 13:16 is another. And t here are several more examples on top of that!

      • John Cross

        These examples are warnings, not commandments.

      • Johnson Joe

        yeah and so the bible commanded to put goats on an alter and stone peopel. do you follow everything to the letter. It’s not as simple as you make it sound.

      • Diane

        Well then according to the fundies and mindless “so called” Christians the bible is to be taken literally. In no way was the bible written by God, it was written by all sorts of ? what I do not know, and varies with each writer.

      • RuthAnne

        It was written by men inspired by God.

      • Yes

        That assumption is as dangerously antichristian as any that have ever been spoken.
        The Book is naught without the spirit. It was written by men. It is a history.
        To deify any text is abomination and idolatry.
        Damn the Pharisees and their cult of Man.0

      • Eddie Higgins

        No it certainly is not History it is mythological at best !

      • skwills

        The Bibledoes contain actual Hisotry and to sya its pure myth with no Hisotyr is ignorance.

      • Sean Libecco

        The Bible is definitely NOT a history book. It is a theology book!

      • skwills

        Actually there’s very little Theology in the Bible, and far mroe History.

      • Sean Libecco

        Then your not reading the same Bible I am. The Bible is about religion. The writers were not recording history, they were trying to teach how we should interact with each other.

      • skwills

        Then I posit that you arne’t reading the Bibel at all. If you read the Four Books of the Kings, or CHrinicles, or even Joshua, you don’ find treatises on Relgiion, or moral lessons on how to get along with each other, but recorded events that tell the National History of ISrael and, later, the Divided Kingdms of Israel and Judah.

        Then again, you’re also approachign the topic from a post odern view that see’s Religion as a completey separate topic fromall other areas of thought , liek History or Philosophy pr Sicnce, and resumign this is how the peopel who wrote the variosu books of the Bibel thought. However, there w sno conceot of Relgiion at all in the Old Testament. They didnot distinguish “Relgiion” from “History” from “Philosophy”. To them, they simply wrote abotu what happened and what they saw or felt.

        There was no difference to them.

        For that matter, even the New Testmnt doesnt have a coneot of Relgiion liekmdoerners do.

        SO no, tey werent writtign abotu Relgiion, rather thanHisotry and the idea is silly anyway sicne Relgiion is not a separate issue that delas exclusivley with Morality.

      • Sean Libecco

        No, I’m Catholic, this is what we are taught and believe.
        The Bible is not a history book at all, it is a tholeology book.
        The Bible is not to be taken literally.
        The Bible is full of teaching stories and parables like Jonah, Job, Moses…..etc.
        Not history, stories.

      • skwills

        So you didn’t read the Ctechism and don’t knwo the complexities of Catholic Thought, as well as the ible itself?

        Look mate, the Bibel ca’t be just a collection fo stories. Not all of the books even have stories. You’d be hard pressed ot tell em the story of Eccleseastese, and I’m oretty sure Proverbs and Psalms woudl e acknowledged by you tonot have any stories in them either.

        The Catholic Position on he Bible is that it contain both Hoistprical Accounts, and Theological information. Catholic interpretaton of the Bubel understands that it places the Sacrdd Meaning above any Historical Fact, but still doens’t deny that Historical Events are recirded in the Bbel that actually happened. For example, the Catholic Chruch teaches that Jeuss was literally born of a Virgin, literally preaches srmons, literally had a Last Supper in which he quiet literally Transubstantiated the Bread and Wine into hsi own Body, Blood, SOul, and Divinity, which instituted the Fits Mass, in which eventoday the Poest at the alter literally Transforms the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, andthat he Literally died and Literally ros again.

        In fact, the Transubstantiation of the Eucharist alone shoudl tell you that the Catholic CHurhc has some very Literal interpretations of the Bible.

        Now, the Cahtolci CHurhc does sya theemphasis is on the Spiritual meanign fo the Text, and is mroe open to allegorical interpetatiosn fo some passages, but its just wrong to think thy deny any Historical validity tot he Bbles content at all or that the Church sees the Bible as not Literaly True in any part of it.

      • Sean Libecco

        Then tell ke why only 2 gospels have a birth story, and tell me why those two stories don’t match.

        Much like Genesis and the two creation stories that don’t match.

      • skwills

        As tothe firts wuestion, why does it matter? Just bece only two Gospels have a Birth Narrative doens’t mean anything other than tw Gospels have a Birht Narrative and two Don’t. it dosnt prove the Birht znarratives are fale, or that the other portiosn fo the Gospel arent Literally True.

        Also, cis of how the Birth Narraties contradict are invalid. The oly cotnradiction peopel can make stick is the Geneologies, and if you’re Catholic you shoudl knwo the official Catholic Posiion is that Mathew records the Geneology of Joseoh and Lule the Geneology of Mary.

        So even that inconsistency from a Catholic perspective dosn’t exist.

        What real incongruities exist aart from the Geneologies?

        Also, the “Two Creatio sotories in Genesis” is an overused trope. There arent two creation stories in Genesis. Genesis 2 records veens that happened after Genesis 1.

        Man in geneal was created in Gen 1, Adam and Eve specifically in Gen 2.

        Also, even if we were to acept zgenesis as pure mythology, that doenst mean the entire Bibel is void of any valid History.

      • Sean Libecco

        Genesis is just a creation story, not the way it actually happened, Thats why the inconsistencies.

        Noah and the flood, another story. Not actual history.

        Jonah and the whale, a story.

        Joshua, another story, and a bloody one as he was commanded to kill every man, woman, child and infant.

        Moses, another story.

        We have no historical evidence that any of these Biblical characters actually existed.

      • skwills

        I don’t know whch is worse, the fact that you think the entire Bible can be rejected as Mythology that contains no History based on a handfl of exampels of mythological stories in the Bible, or the fact that you compltley ignored what I said that would invlaidate yoru claim.

        There are no inconsistnecies in the Genesis cration acount, and there aren’t two creation acunts.

        Also, the Catholic Churhc accepts Moses and Joshua as havig relaly lived as actual people, an dyou seem ignorant of how Ancient Warfare was waged.

        Also, we dnt have Historical evidence for a lot of thigns outside the Bible, othe than oen or two accounts. Why treat the Bibels accoutns differently than other Ancient Texts though?

      • Sean Libecco

        Because those other ancient texts didn’t spawn three religions. (Judaism, Islam and Christianity)

        Even the RC’s admit Genesis is a story and accept evolution as fact.

        Are you able to produce evidence that either Moses or Joshua actually existed other than Biblical?

        As for Joshua, why would God demand the deaths of infants? Especially when todays so called Chistians are so dead set against abortion? I have no doubt that Joshuas soldier’s killed more than one pregnant woman. (Would that mean that God is ok with abortion?)

      • skwills

        SO, we have a completley different standard of Critical Analysis of Texts based on how much infeucne they yeilded? We’d accept as Hisotry somehtign recorde din an obscruee text, but not one thta forms the basis of a major world Relgiion?

        I’m sorry but thats irrational. We use the same standards of Critical Evaluation on all Texts, we donot make different rules for oens that sawn major Relgiions, even three of them.

        Also, Gensi is a rather logn work, NOT limited tot he Creation Account. And even then, you shoudl read what the Catholci position is. One can accept Genesis 1-3 and still accept Evolution.

        Also, why do I need evidenc eotuside he Binel for the existnce of Joshua or Moses. I won’t play the silly game of “The Biel must be treated differently than other ancient texts”. A bettr question is, if it wasnt the Bibel woudl you have a hard Tem beleivign these menexisted?

        for yo abortion rubbish, killing osmeone in a War is not Abortion. Only an idiot woudl say this.

        And Seige Warfare inAncient Tiems always playe out hat way, it was the ony way they had to wage War.

        Why dontyou leanr actula History, and how Ancient Texts are anylised, before makign such silly comments. Also, pick p the Catechism.

      • Sean Libecco

        You have trouble separating fact from faith.
        We have no factual basis to believe that any of the afore mentioned people even existed.
        We have faith that they were real but no proof or facts.
        Is that a hard concept to accept?

      • skwills

        FAITH and fact aren’t Antonyms. Faith can, and should, be based on Fact.

        With that said, you seem to completley ignroe what I
        m saying. You say we have no evidence these men ever existed. But we do have evidence, we have written texts. Just because those texts are part of a Religious Tradition doens’t mean they are invalid. They are still representitive of at leats a Traditional History of these men, and thus do serve as some evidence that they may have existed. But no, you see them as “The Bible” and evidence had ot be fromoutside the Bible. Well, why si that? Andwhy is it you accuse me of not beign able to separate Fact from Faith if I refuse to accept the ludecrous idea that The Bible as a collection of ANcinet Texts hasd to be held to a different standard thanany other Text?

        That’s the point.

        Faiht isn’t beleif withotu evidence, and Biblical Texts aren’t treated fundamentlaly differently than other Ancient Texts. Is that hard for you to understand?

        Then again, you dont even seem to understand the Catholic CHurches own posiitons on the topic. I doubt you know Academias views.

      • Sean Libecco

        You have a flawed definition of faith. Faith needs no evidence or truth or fact, it simply is.
        Without corroborating evidence we cannot accept these stories as fact.
        With facts one does not need faith. With facts one “knows” thus eliminating the need for faith.

      • skwills

        You say my defnition of Faht is flawed. Well, I can say the same for yours. Why shoudl anyone accept that Faith needs no Evid3nce osr Truth or Fact? Becaue you said so?

        Faith is a synonym for Trust. I would argue that you shoudl always build your Trust on Facts and Evidence, which means Faith shoudl be rooted in Evidence and have a Rational basis.

        It is not simply there.

        Also, you turn back to the “Without cooberatign evidene we cannot accept those stories as True” bit. But do we accept that Hannibal tried to Cnquer ROme with Elephants? Because we have only one ancient soruce for it, written a century later. What about Alexander The Great? His Biography and the bulk of what we knw of him came from abotu a century later too, from yet another single sorue. There are plenty of Ancient Events we knwo of from only one or two soruces.

        But they aren’t the Bible, and dint pawn three major World Relgiions, so I guess its K to presime that at leats some of the written text is True, and the bible has to be held to a different standard.

        I call Rubbish on that. I see no Reason why we shoudl Treat Biblical texts differnetly or demand text outside he Bible to coberate it when we dont make similar demands of other texts.

        Alo, Faith is not beleivig in soemthign withotu evidence, so the hwole “With factsyou dont need Faith’ crap is false. If you knwo somehign is True then yoru Faith becomes absolute, it isnt eliminated.

      • Sean Libecco

        One more time, with facts and evidence you have knowledge not faith.
        I know the sun will rise in the east. That knowledge does not require faith of any sort.
        Faith is belief without evidence.
        We have faith that Jesus existed but we have no evidence that he did.
        Beginning to see the difference?

      • skwills

        Just saying “One more time, with facts and evidence you have knowledge not faith” doesn’t prove that Facts and Evidence are the opposite of Faith. It’s just a reissuance of the same assertion. It’s also not True, and completely disregards the Catholic definition of the word Faith, the way Christians in general define it (See “The Westminster Dictionary Of Theological terms” for the actual definition) or even how most peopel use the word casually.

        Faith is not beleif without evidence, and simply sayign it is won’t mean it is.

        Also, the Jesus Myth, really? We don’t “Have faith” that Jesus existed if by Faith you mean we have no evidence. Every Historian on the planet, other than the really Biased Atheist Activist Richard Carrier, says he existed. The idea that Jesus never existed isn’t taken seriously by anyone in Academia and frankly, if you read Bart Ehrman’s book on the topic, you’d see why. By the eay, Ehrman is an Atheist.

        I’m sorry but, we do have evidence that Jesus, the man, existed.

        So, why don’t you see the difference between modern talking points and actual study?

      • Sean Libecco

        I see your spelling has improved.

        Since you brought it up, what irrefutable evidence do we have that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed?

      • skwills

        None that woudl convince oemone wh thinks Faith is beleiving somethign with no evidence and its a matter of Faith, but if you look at the actual Historical Method, then we can utilise everything from texts wehave to demonstrate the Highly unlikely prospect of him beign amyth. Even if the New Testament was all we had (ANd it snot, we have Josephus, which Mythers sya was clealry forged but the consensus is that it wasn’t, see Peter Kirby’s survey on it fromHistorians) we’d lknow the man existed.

        For example, the earliest New Testament writtings are those of Paul, written in their earliest letters less than a decade afte the events. Paul speaks of a Physical Jeuss in severla passages, and even goes so far as to say in 1 Corinthians 15. Pual specificllay says 500 Peopel saw the Ressurected Christ, and that while soem had died, most remain alive and can be asked about it. This means htat within the Living Memory of Jeuss,there were Eyey Witnesses that woudl talk about him.

        Oh, there’s also the Goslels, which Mythers sy were writen decades alter as if this cast ssupicion on them dispite this beign the norm for the Ancient World. The Gosels cntian minuet details we’d nto expect from fiction and evn recount things we’d not expect of a purely mythological Mssiah, like Jesus beign Crucified. As obviosu and powerful as that is to todays world, in the Ancient World, the wya you died signified how Great you were and Death on a Cross was shameful, he Deaht of a Criminal. The Entire poitn of executign Jeuss in the way hewas executed was to destory his Movement. If Jesus never existed at all, there’s no Rational reason to have him die naked on a Cross in the most shameful way possible givne how that woudl eb recieved at the Time.

        Oh, there’s also the fa tthat plenty of popel write about Christainity and ridiculed it, or sought to discrdit it early on, andyet none ofthem, even Gamileil in Talmud, bother to say “Idnt’ remember htis Jesus fellow ever existign”, much less oturight wuestioned it.

        I can give mroe, but the real wuesiton is, why do you think Historians accept Jesus was a real person and don’t buy the “No evidenc. tis all Faith” routien yoru feeding us now?

      • Sean Libecco

        Since you say faith needs truth and evidence, what truth and evidence do scientologists have for their faith in the great xenu?

      • skwills

        IT is disingenuous to misrepresent hwat I said. I said that Faith is a Synonym for Trust, and also said it should be base on Eidence and Facts, I did not say it always was. Howeer, you present a false DUalism inwhich it is either believing in somethign without evidence, or else it always has evidence.

        Faith means to Trust something or someone. Peopel can Trust things without evidence, bu this doens;t mean that all Trust is without evidence. I walk with a cane due to a spinal injury. I Trust my cane to support my weight as I walk. I do not, however, Trust it without evidence.

        I put my Faiht in its strength because I have used it often and know it well.

        Others give out their Social Security Nmbers to peopelwho call them out of the blue on the Phoensayign they work for the Govenment.

        Trust shoudl alwyas be based on smethign frm, and Evidence for claism shudk be the basis of our Faith, but that doens’t mean it always is.

        I simply contest the claimthat Fiaht isby defniion beleif withotu evidence.

        Now that I jhave explained this, do I nee to go into even Greater detail?

        I am also wlling, althoug a few hours formnow a si Iwll be leavign in a few minuets, to go back over why we know for a fact that a man named Jesus lived. Oranythign else you wish to discuss.

      • Sean Libecco

        It’s been a fun discussion, you did however miss a couple of good examples for Jesus existance.

        The Shroud of Turin and the plackard of crucifixions listing his name. (The plackard is stored at the Vatican).

      • skwills

        Sarcasm liek this only shows how shallow you are.

        I used the actual Historical method. You…just mock and ridicule.

        You also bounce aroudn a lot, to keep fro addressing my points.

      • Sean Libecco

        I used no sarcasm. I have actually enjoyed our conversation.
        The “dancing around” was to bring you to the admission that faith does not require proof or evidence.
        I notice that you didn’t touch on the subjects of the Shroud or the Plackard.

      • skwills

        There is a differencebetweensomehtign not requiringsomething, and somethngnevr havng something, or somethign ceasing to exist oncesomething else is added. Your argment is that Faith woudl cease to exist in light of evidence and facts sicne it is by definition beleiving in somethign withotu evidence. I simply pointed out that Faith is actually another word for Trust, ad is not always, and Always is aclarifier, given in the abscence of Evidencenor is it desttroyed by Evidence.

        The Reason I didn’t tuch on the Shroud or Placard isbecause they aren’t relaly relevant. I am usign the actual Historical method that convinces even Atheist Historians tat Jeus was a real person. I use the same methods Historians use.

        I’m sorry that you are unaware of this.

      • Sean Libecco

        Out of curiosity, what is your theological backround?

      • skwills

        I’m getting a Doctoate in Theological Studies, from a Secular University. (Forgive the lack of name, I do want some privacy online.)

        I’ve spent 13 Years learning about the Major World Religions, their History, and their beliefs.

        But I only bring this up if needed, and I don’t like to brag or come off as on of those fake degreed “Expert” on the net.

      • Sean Libecco

        Cool, you defended your position quite well.
        I did enjoy our discussion, sorry if I came across a might strong but it’s good to have someone challenge your beliefs every once in a while.

        On a side note, I also enjoy baiting southern Baptists. I tell them I met God and boy do I have a surprise, She’s black.

      • skwills

        Most Southern Baptists are black. Its an oddity of he CHurhc stated to defend slavery. (SOuthern baotists began when the Americn Baptists voted to support Aboition. Some, thugh not all, SOuthern CHruhcs in the US Balked and brike away, formign the Southern Baotist Churhc, whch today is 75% Black.)

        I do think calling God she is a bit drol these days though.

        I prefer challenging the Evanglicals who think God is supposed to give them money and power as if thats the point of Christanity, or that they are supposed to unquestiningly obey the Repubican Party that speaks for God.

        Imnot a democrat but knwo enouhg to know that Political partis arent divine ordenance.

      • Sean Libecco

        There are reasons why I didn’t capitalize southern.

        And what is wrong with thinking if God as a female?

        My own personal belief is that God Is a multidimensional being able to exist anywhere and anywhen and is able to manifest as anything God chooses at that moment.

        And, yes, many people treat God as their own personal wizard or genie.

        They forget that God can also say no to your prayers.

        I heard a joke years ago that if we want to make God laugh we should tell God how important OUR plans are.

      • skwills

        Calling God “SHe” or a womanrelies in shock value and itsnot that shockin now, so its overplayed and accomplishes nothing.

        If you se God as a Transdimensional bign its also not relaly more accurae than Traditional Languag and comes off as intentionaly caustic which relaly backfires.

        As for the rest, I agree.

      • Sean Libecco

        Have a great evening and enjoy your studies.
        I’m off to bed for now. Taxes to do and accounts to take care of in the A.M.

      • skwills

        Good Night. I will just wrap some Christmas Gifts.

      • William Hinely

        Shroud of Turin proved to be from the wrong era…

      • COMALite J

        I assume by “And it’s not: we have Josephus, which Mythers say was clearly forged but the consensus is that it wasn’t…”, I assume you’re referring to the Testimonium Flavianum. If so, you’re flatly wrong about “the consensus is that it wasn’t.” You apparently don’t know what the word “consensus” means. It doesn’t mean “majority” or even “super-majority.” It means near-unanimity.

        You said to refer to Peter Kirby’s survey “from historians” (I assume you meant “of historians”). So, I did. That link goes to Mr. Kirby’s most definitive work on the subject, and does include a survey of historians. This is what it says (copy-paste quoting verbatim):

        Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.

        First off, we see that Mr. Kirby didn’t do any such survey himself. He cited a survey by Mr. Feldman.

        But that survey doesn’t even give your side a majority, let alone super-majority, let alone consensus. Only four historians or scholars said that the Testimonium Flavianum was entirely genuine, and another six said it was mostly genuine. That’s a mere ten who hold it to be at least mostly genuine.

        Compare that with nine who say it has “several” interpretations (not sure how he quantified it) and thirteen who say it’s entirely an interpolation (forgery). That’s 22 who (depending on the definition of “several” as opposed to “some” as used by Kirby summarizing Feldman, but given the order he listed them in, it’s strongly implied that “several” > “some”) consider much if not all of it to be bogus. That outnumbers the “legit or mostly legit” scholars by over double! It also outnumbers the middle-of-the-road “some interpolations” scholars. Note also that the group of scholars who consider it to be completely legit is the smallest of all of the groups, while the group that considers it to be completely bogus is the second-largest of all groups (second only to the middle-of-the-road scholars), larger even than the group that considers it merely mostly bogus.

        Of course, we’d need to know just what parts the various “mostly genuine” and “some / several interpolations” scholars consider to be interpolations to be sure of what they mean. There would be a big difference between, say, considering “and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.” to be an interpolation, vs. “for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold.” The former would merely be an historian’s observation about the existence of the Christian sect, while the latter is a declaration that a miraculous resurrection indeed took place and that prophets had foretold it.

        There is powerful evidence of forgery as even Kirby admits (read the linked article in full).

      • skwills

        What you’ve posted here is, of course, sheer nonsense.

        Let’s start with the word Consensus. I know you want to make me look stupid, but there is no way in Hell you can defend saying that the word Consensus means Unanimous or near Unanimous acceptance of an idea. If it were, then we’d not see the term used nearly as often as we do. Virtually nothing in Academia is Unanimous or near Unanimous in acceptance.

        The term consensus actually means broad or general agreement, not near unanimity, and this fact can not only be easily found in any Dictionary, but can also be understood from how its used.

        Trying to present yourself as a well read intellectual talking down to a poor dupe who doesn’t even know what terms mean only works when you’ve gotten some sort of bede on the topic and the terms, which you clearly don’t.

        Which brings us to Josephus, who actually mentions Jesus Directly twice, and indirectly via John the Baptist once. Even if we were to discard the Testamonium, we’d still have the other two refrences, and unless yoy want to Richard Carrier the topic, and torture the interpretation so as to avoid the obvuous, Jesus is plainly refered to in Josephus.

        Which brings me to the Testamonium itself.

        There is broad, general agreement, or consensus, that the passage is partially autentic. This is especially True given the discovery of the Syriac Josephus, which contains the passage but in a diffeent form, not refering to Jesus as thr mesiah for example but rather saying he was “Called the Messiah”.

        You don’t even have to look super far to find this. Here is Wiipedia, it shoudl be about your level.

        Of the three passages found in Josephus’ Antiquities, this passage, if authentic, would offer the most direct support for the crucifixion of Jesus. The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to interpolation.[6][7][8][9][11] James Dunn states that there is “broad consensus” among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to Jesus in the Testimonium and what the passage would look like without the interpolations.[10] Among other things, the authenticity of this passage would help make sense of the later reference in Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 where Josephus refers to the stoning of “James the brother of Jesus”. A number of scholars argue that the reference to Jesus in this later passage as “the aforementioned Christ” relates to the earlier reference in the Testimonium.[1][2][58]

        Here’s a bit more.

        Arabic and Syriac Josephus[edit]
        In 1971, a 10th-century Arabic version of the Testimonium due to Agapius of Hierapolis was brought to light by Shlomo Pines who also discovered a 12th-century Syriac version of Josephus by Michael the Syrian.[71][5][72] These additional manuscript sources of the Testimonium have furnished additional ways to evaluate Josephus’ mention of Jesus in the Antiquities, principally through a close textual comparison between the Arabic, Syriac and Greek versions to the Testimonium.[7][73]
        There are subtle yet key differences between the Greek manuscripts and these texts. For instance, the Arabic version does not blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. The key phrase “at the suggestion of the principal men among us” reads instead “Pilate condemned him to be crucified”.[74][7] And instead of “he was Christ,” the Syriac version has the phrase “he was believed to be Christ”.[58] Drawing on these textual variations, scholars have suggested that these versions of the Testimonium more closely reflect what a non-Christian Jew might have written. [5]

        I can produce other references if you’d like.

        The bottom line is this, the Josephus Passage in The Testamonium is generally agreed to be partially Authentic. This is what the vast majority of Historians believe about it, and its supported by viable evidence.

        So lets not kid ourselves here. People who say there is no evidence at all that Jsus existed are just foolish. Even without Jospehus we have evidence (Which I noted), and the passage in Josephus is qualified Evidence.

        Stop being pedantic here.

      • COMALite J

        Sorry, I misunderstood your intent (you apparently typed the post I was Replying to on a mobile device or something else happened that heavily garbled it — I tried to make as much sense of it as I could, and when I quoted it, I corrected the spelling and grammar without altering the intent as best I could, and did not call you out on them or make fun of it or try to disparage what you said because of them, but it did make it more difficult for me to understand your intent).

        I stand by “consensus.” For a “general agreement” among a group of people, there would need to be near-unanimity. If there is even a small but significant minority that disagree, then there is by definition not “general agreement” and thus consensus.

        That said, I thought you were saying that there was “consensus” that the Testimonium Flavianum was wholely genuine (you disputed that it was forged).

        “Interpolation” is a polite way of saying “pious fraud forgery.” If it is even partly — as in one single word added, deleted, or changed in any way (this is after all the Biblical standard for the Word of the Lᴏʀᴅ as given in Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18–19 among others) — “interpolated” from what Flavius Josephus actually wrote, then it is not wholely genuine and is therefore at least partly a forgery. That is what the consensus says.

        It seems that we agree, albeit from different PoVs. I do consider it most likely that there was a historical Yehoshua (“Jesus” — a word He would never have heard in His life), but that most of what is given about His life is mythical.

        You spoke of Paul saying that there were 500 witnesses who saw Him at once after His death and alleged resurrection. Who are they? What are their names? Where can we read their testimonies of this miraculous event in their own words? Paul said that some of them were still alive, but he wrote that to the people of Corinth, who weren’t exactly in a position to go asking people in Jerusalem or wherever this was supposed to have happened (unless it was in Corinth or immediate environs thereof), especially since he didn’t name names. It’s not like they could whip out their iPhones and call them. or check out their blogs or Facebook Timelines or whatever.

        Here is me being pedantic: the Resurrection is the alleged miraculous event of Yehoshua coming back to life. For there to be a witness of the Resurrection itself (as opposed to the aftermath of the Resurrection: the empty tomb, the risen Lord, etc.), there’d need to’ve been someone mortal who actually watched His dead body come back to life. I know of no such witnesses of the actual Resurrection event, even in the Bible. Not Mary Magdalene, not any of the various other women whom the four Gospel writers disagree on who was supposedly with her, not Peter or John (the only two Apostles to come to the tomb, and that only in John’s account), not anyone else other than arguably one or two (the accounts differ on this as well) angels who wouldn’t qualify as mortal witnesses. Do you know of any?

        You talk about the Gospels as containing elements that would not be present in myth. But they also have major contradictions on such major events as the Nativity (“Christmas”) and Resurrection (“Easter”) stories, the last being arguably the single most important event in the entire history of all of creation since the Creation itself, or greater even than that, so you’d think they’d try to get that one right. I touched on a couple above.

        A biggie is that none of the four generally accepted canonical Gospel accounts allows for “the Sign of the Prophet Jonas [Jonah]” which He Himself said was the one and only sign that would be given as to the truth of His Resurrection: that He would spend three days and three nights in the heart of the Earth (the grave), as Jonas aka Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish (not whale).

        He did not, by any of the four accounts, even if we give as much benefit of the doubt as is logically feasible and count even one second of a “daytime” (from the moment of sunrise to the moment of sunset) or “nighttime” (from the moment of sunset to the moment of sunrise) as a whole daytime or nighttime, respectively.

        All four accounts say that He died and was taken from the Cross close to sunset on the Day of Preparation before the Sabbath, which would be Friday afternoon (thus “Good Friday”). He was presumably laid into the tomb very close to sunset, but before it, since that was the whole point of the soldiers coming to break the legs of the condemned (so they could no longer push up to expand their chest cavities enough to allow them to breathe and relieve pressure on the heart, speeding up the death drastically from what crucifixion would normally take), but He had already given up the ghost so they didn’t break his.

        Anyway, to give you as much benefit of the doubt as possible, we’ll count those few minutes (at most) remaining until sunset Friday from the time He was put into the tomb as a whole daytime. Tally so far: one day, zero nights. Then sunset hits, starting Saturday and thus the Sabbath by the Jewish reckoning. One day, one night. Then the sun rises on the Sabbath. Two days, one night. Then the sun sets on the Sabbath, ending it and starting Sunday (the “eighth day”) by Jewish recokning. Two days, two nights.

        But what happened next? The accounts differ on exactly when Mary and the (various, contradictory) other women came to the Tomb. Two of the accounts make it plain that the sun had already risen, but at least one makes it plain that it was still dark and before the sun had risen. The last one is ambiguous on this matter.

        Yet it doesn’t really matter which of the accounts is correct, since none of them allow for the tally to reach three days and three nights as required by the Sign of the Prophet Jonas. If Mary came to the tomb after sunrise, and if the Resurrection happened immediately before she got there so that it, too, happened after sunrise by even a few seconds, then we have three days and two nights. But if she got there while it was still dark, or before the sun had risen, then we’re talking about only two days and two nights in the earth. In neither case do we get even a tiny part of a third night (that’d require that the Resurrection happen at least right after sunset of the third day).

        Remember: this is the one and →⇒ONLY⇐← sign that He Himself said would be given as to the truth of His Resurrection! Yet all four of the canonical Gospel accounts say it fails that one and only sign!

        Didn’t Paul say that if the Resurrection did not happen, that Christians are of all men the most miserable, believing a lie!? How can you believe it if it doesn’t even meet the one and only sign that He Himself would be given to the world?

        This is just one of many such problems that I can go into just as much depth on. It is a biggie, though, as I said.

        Just so you know, I used to be a Bible-believing Saved-by-Grace Washed-in-the-Blood-of-the-Lamb Evolution-Denying Young-Earth-Creationist Straight-Republican-Voting Dispensationalist Christianist. For most of my life.

      • skwills

        My Grammar is actually flawless. My spelling is off, not my Grammar. I am also dyslexic.

        With that said, it doesn’t matter what you stand by, the fact remains that the term “Consensus” does not even imply Unanimity, or near Unanimity.

        And using terms like “Christianists” hardly makes you come off as unbiased. I don’t care what you use to be, except that it seems that your rejection of Christianity carries with it an eagerness to embrace anything that bashes what you use to believe in. Do you really think being biased against Christianity is in any way going to lead you to a Rational solution to any question? Just believing things because it helps you counter what you think defines Christianity doesn’t automatically make it valid or Rational. In fact, the vast majority of Arguments you see online against Christianity, including the ones you’re using here that I’ve seen before, are just rubbish.

        But then again, you also seem to think “Christian” means “Young Earth Creationist” and “Votes Republican” so I’m pretty sure any diversity in Christian Thought is lost on you, much less facts in hand, which is all we’re really discussing here.

        The only Reason I’m now focused on you is because you’ve made this about you, and its obvious that your arguments are rooted in a desire to undermine Christianity for personal Reasons. And frankly, that’s an unfair, unjustified, and Irrational way to go about Things.

        I mean, look at what you said about Interpolation. You fall back on the :Pius Fraud” claim, and I’d be willing to bet good money you’d say Christians in general commuted Pius Fraud a lot nd that Christians aren’t reliable at all. Because I’ve seen that too, where I’d cite a Christian Source to verify a Historical point only to have an “I use to be a Christian” type like you insist that Christians were all liars and so this must be Pius Fraud. Or I’d cite a nonChristain source which would be “Obvious Pius Fraud” written by a Christian. It gets old.

        Do you even consider that maybe, just maybe nefarious motives weren’t involved here? Because few Academics think the Interpolations were “Pius Forgery”. Texts were copied by hand, and people in Antiquity did not have the same standards as we do regarding texts. While some, like Sacred Texts, would be copied exactly, few woudl think altering a Historical text would matter much. In this case, the alterations were likely done more because the Christian wanted to revise the text to make it more in keeping with what he’d see as True, not as a “Pius Forgery”. But the Christian would not be motivates to do so if Josephus had not mentioned Jesus at all and the idea that he original text said nothing of Jesus and the text was just fabricated by a Christian and inserted is dumb.

        So is calling it Pius Forgery.

        The only Reason you call it “Forgery” is because you want to somehow punish the “Christainitsts” and cast them as the bad guys, and at this point your motive to do so is obvious. But is this talk really beneficial if all you want to do is cast Christian in general in a bad light without any attempt at admitting any error? And you still try to sidestep the main point; Josephus wrote of Jesus and his Historical existence is cooberated outside of the New Testament Cannon. Not that it’d have to be as the New Testament alone is 27 distinct books, by 9 authors, not one book.

        By the way, trying too hard to counter Christianity often makes your position weaker. For example, when I mentioned Paul saying 500 witnesses existed, you try to counter this by demanding the texts they wrote of it. Well, even if each and every one of them wrote a text that was preserved to this day, we both know you’d; reject it as evidence.
        This isn’t about evidence and being Rational, it’s about taking the wind out of Christianity. If it weren’t, then you’d see the major flaw to your Thinking here; Paul wudl have no motivation to mention witnesses if none existed, or if Jesus were a purl;y “Spiritual” beign who never had an earthly life as Doughtery claimed. It’s pretty obvious that Paul was speaking of actual, flesh and blood witnesses that coudl be questioned. Oh, and since Paul had himself traveled often between Corinth and Jerusalem, it’s hardly that difficult for others to do so. In fact, this was a major trade route, so saying this would be difficult is nonsense.

        With that said, Paul does mention a few names in 1 Corinthians, and do you really think he’d provide a list of each and every name of the 500? That’d be unneeded as those alive at the Time would have already known fo them, Paul was reminding them. This was also an age when oral s opposed to written Testimony was seen as more valuable, so its most likely that some from Corinth had, in fact, questioned at least some of the Witnesses themselves.

        Which is why we know Jesus, the man, lived.

        And your right, you are being pedantic about the Resurrection. Its pretty clear that when Paul speaks of witnesses to it, hes’ referring to those who saw Jesus after the fact, and its stupid to say this is false.

        I’m sorry but, if the meaning of what someone says is clear, you can’ use sophistry to define terms to create a problem and expect to be taken seriously.

        It’s oen thign to not believe in Christianity, or in the Resurrection, it’s quiet another to mock and belittle the belief system because you think bashing Christianity somehow makes you more powerful or Rational. At this point, it seems to me that you reject the story of Jesus’s Resurrection based on emotional Purposes, not because of Reason or Evidence.

        Also,m if Angels came down and said they’d witnesses Jesus rise, do you really Think we’d say “Not good enough, you aren’t mortal”? Because I find that argument absurd, too.

        Also, I never said this:

        You talk about the Gospels as containing elements that would not be present in myth.

        I said that the stories don’t read the same way as Ancient Pagan myths like copycatters say,. But I understand why you said this, ebcuse yoru objectiosn coem from websites and your offerign a preprogrammed responce.

        By the way…

        But they also have major contradictions on such major events as the Nativity (“Christmas”) and Resurrection (“Easter”) stories, the last being arguably the single most important event in the entire history of all of creation since the Creation itself, or greater even than that, so you’d think they’d try to get that one right. I touched on a couple above.

        I don’t see hwo the suposed cntradictions are relevant to our topic, which is the Historacity of Jesus. But I will say this though, I’ve seen Skeptics Web and Dan Barkers Easter Challenge. Did you know that The Easter Challenge has been addressed before? That its been solved before? Of cotue not, because Barker won’t pay up tor admit it has been. But it easy to find online the bloke who solved it.

        Just because an Atheist website spoonfeeds you a supposed contradiction doesn’t mean its actually there. I mean, Atheist sites still claim that 1 Kings 7:23 teaches us that Pi is 3, an utterly stupid argument which, while it’s been answered via mathematics, doesn’t even need to really be addressed beyond stating the obvious that the text is a general description of a Molten Sea, NOT a Mathematical teaching, or even Engineering Blueprint. 1 Kings 7:23 is not telling us the Pi is equal to 3, it’s giving a basic description of an object, and insistign otherwise is just lunacy that proves ulterior motives are at work. The Reason I brign this up is because all of he supposed contradictions in the Nativity or Ressurection story are the same. I don’t’ care that one accident mentions pnly Mary Magdalene and another mentions a group of women, that’s not a contradiction. The “Contradictions” ate all just nonsensical pieces of fluff, used by people to discredit the text because they want to undermine Christianity for personal or Political Reasons. It has nothign to do with Facts. That;s really not what those alleged contradictions are of. You yourself didn’t even read he Bible and discover them on your own, you sought out arguments to use against Christianity and uncritically accepted junk from obviously biased sources.

        Why else even bring them up here? I mean, there are contradictions in Biographies of George Washington, but no one doubts he existed. If the Bible were just a collection of Ancient Texts with no Divine Origin, that still doesn’t make it utterly unreliable and any contradiction is unimportant. So why do you care?

        Come now, this isn’t you presenting a well thought out position, you just copied an argument from The Freedom From religion Foundation or some other site and presented it here, as if its really important, even though we all know its just a lark, a peice of propaganda used by those who have their own Fundamentalist Religion to peddle. And what’s worse, its not even relevant to the point we’re discussing.

        Sort of like Pi being equal to 3. But at least with that I only used it as an example.

      • William Hinely

        Facts do not require faith… Facts are not dependent on wether or not you believe them…

      • skwills

        Facts may not requitre Faith, but if you accept a Fact then you have Faiht in it. Again, Faith is Trustign somethign to be True, which obcludes Trusting Facts. Faith is not beleif without evidence.

      • George Wright

        You have no idea why God told Joshua to kill everyone in those cities. It was for the same reason He destroyed the world with a flood. Their wickedness was so great it had to be ended or civilization would have been wiped out. Their cup of iniquity was full just as the world today is fast filling their cup. God has promised to put an end to all sin and sinners. The signs He has given in His Word, the Bible, are seen all around us. His message to the world is repent and stop sinning lest you partake of the plagues that will soon come upon mankind.

      • Sean Libecco

        Sin and evil have been our constant companions since we evolved into homosapiens.
        You will never see the end of either any time soon!
        Without sin man would have no reason to strive to be “good and righteous” would he, thus eliminating the need for a benevolent Diety.
        There is no more wickedness today than there was in Biblical times, it is just more widely heard.
        As for God’s return, its been 2000 years, God isn’t returning any time soon.

      • George Wright

        You my friend are in for a rude awakening. The Bible says, “When you see these things happening, know that the end is near, even at the door.” “At a time when you don’t think it will happen, it happens.”
        Without sin, we would still be living in Eden where there was no sin until the devil tempted Eve and she fell for his deception. Without sin there would be no need to strive. We would be righteous. Hello!

      • Sean Libecco

        We can point at all sorts of natural disasters and celestial events and say this is a sign. None will be.
        The apostles expected the second coming within their lifetimes.
        We have had all sorts of end time predictions.
        The end is not coming any time soon. The earth will be here for millennia to come.
        As for the story of Adam and Eve, it is just that, a story. That story is not a historical record, it is a teaching parable.

      • Damian Caligula

        Matthew 16:28″Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” That was written (perhaps) in the first century. Those people are all dead, for two thousand years, yet no return of the messiah. So I guess he was wrong? Goodbye!

      • Jasper Taylor

        The holocaust, World War I, all the genocides that have ben going on for centuries — these aren’t jesus prompters?

      • George Wright

        You may be in for a real shock. Jesus is coming very soon and He would like to save you because He loves you.

      • Sean Libecco

        No-one knows when Jesus is returning, not even Jesus himself. We are to live as if he is returning soon, however, we (humans) are not ready for his return just yet.
        Tell me how you know when Jesus is coming please.
        As for being saved, doesn’t that depend on how one lives ones life? With faith and works!!
        The republicans in this article say they have faith but their works are quite lacking!!
        Didn’t Jesus say to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, give water to those who thirst, to welcome the stranger (with papers or not!).
        Doesn’t ole Rand Paul worship Ayn Rand? Aren’t Ayn Rands beliefs in opposition to Jesus and what he taught us to do?
        Why do republicans want to eliminate social programs for the poor?

      • Actually I am registered Republican, voting Libertarian, and consider myself Christian. How can I possibly hold all these beliefs at once.

        Well lets start with the argument of this article, and one that is made FAR too often in my opinion. That because the Republicans in Congress don’t want to tax individuals to ‘help’ other individuals that this somehow makes them less Christian.

        Jesus in all of his teachings never said, let us pray to Tiberius Cesar for him to take money from the Equites and Senators and give it to the Plebs so that they can survive. No Jesus preached that each should willingly help others as they were able. To give food to the hungry from ones own pantries. To give a coat to the cold that one may wear knowing that he had more himself to provide.

        As for what I personally do well let’s say that my volunteerism and acts of charitable giving fall in line with what I can afford as I am not going to stand here and brag about what I can and do, do. The fact that you assume the ONLY possible way to be a good Christian is to forcibly take the fruits of one persons labor and lay it aside by the government forcibly and then provide it to those that the government considers needy shows that you worship the government above your Catholic faith.

        I would prefer to find faith in a book that may have some exaggerated historical accounts [ex: whole world flooding as opposed to everyone that a group of people knew being killed in a flood] and many misreadings over the years, and misinterpretations of what was written [The Bible itself (nor the Torah of which it is based off of) does not suggest that the earth is merely 7,000 years old; Young Earth creationism is actually a very young concept] over time.

        The idea that having a giving heart and wanting a smaller government are not mutually exclusive.

      • LZT1

        Pretty sure most Republicans’ way of thinking with respect to this that it’s by “faith alone”……which is….convenient!!

      • Jasper Taylor

        where is he coming from? Mars? Hawaii?

      • William Hinely

        Of course!! That explains Hurricanes, tornados, floods, and all the acts of god!!! He loves us.. Wish he would love the Trump family that much!!!!!

      • Eric Porter

        I think he is already here. 😉

      • skwills

        It’s Jesus’ retur, not God’s return. God never left.

        ANdhow do you know he won’t come back soon becaue its been 2000 Years?

      • Sean Libecco

        Actually I have serious doubts about the Noah myth. Doesn’t seem quite plausible to me.
        By the way, The Word that the Bible speaks of is Jesus, not the Bible.
        The Bible was written by nomadic tribsmen in the bronze age, God may have inspired the writing but God certainly did not do the writing personally!
        Don’t confuse the Bible with a factual history book, it’s a theology book.

      • skwills

        OK, so somehow in your Mind, if texts spawn thre religions, it means they can’t contain actua History? DO you realise how absurd what you said is?

        Because that makes no sense as an argument. The validity of a texts istorical claims cannot be determined by if they started a Rekiion or not.

        Oh, and why do I even need texts other than Biblical oens ot attest to Moses or oshua? I mean, ther ar such texts, and you cnan readily fidn them online, but if there werent, how is that an argument? Ar eyou seriously sayign that the Bible can’t be used as a Historical soruce simply because its he Bible?

        ALso, ANcient Societies were ribal and obligation driven. If you didnt kll the CHildren, then they’d grow up and have an honour based duty to ill you. This isn’;t the modern World where wars end and that’s that, these peopel woudl literally be a hreat o you down he line.

        Try reading some Acient Hisotry.

      • Eddie Higgins

        The bible was written by man to control man ,nothing more nothing less !

      • skwills

        This is pure bunk. The Bibel was not wortten by man to control man. Th Bibelk is a collection of different works, soem of it Hisoty, soem Poplitical commentary, some Wisdom Literature, ect, not a book of “do what we say” rules.

      • bdrew


      • skwills

        WHat I said as self explanitory.

      • infojunkie

        No it really isn’t.

      • skwills

        Yes it is.

      • OldCowboy

        At least they claimed as such.

      • deb

        Really? Inspired by god. Sheesh.

      • Shawn Fierro

        Prisons use drugs to kill people. And Republicans use guns. What’s the difference?

      • EverTheGreen

        Synn, New Testament, or Old? Old is NOT the testament of the Christian!

      • KishinD

        “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” Matt 5:17, 18
        “It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.” Luke 16:17

        Jesus disagrees with you. Um, do you call yourself Christian when you don’t know or heed the words of your demiGod? Is that really wise, since he’s basically the bouncer at the pearly gates?

        Well no, okay, that makes sense. It was a ton easier for me to believe in it when I knew less about it. Heck, many atheists will say that actually sitting down to read the Bible was exactly what killed their faith. Not for me, though. But all that Biblical knowledge I acquired comes in handy when exposing the parade of ignorance behind the mask of devotion.

      • melloe

        You are right if you check his audience. To the Jews, he said above. The the gentiles and converted Jews, he said, I bring you a new commandment. But in any case, much of the old testament Laws were designed by the Leaders for safety and good social conduct. As an example, pork could be cooked sufficiently so was prohibited. and many other cases like that.

        The statements about life are not contradictory either, Life begins with the first breath.

      • COMALite J

        Actually, He never taught Gentiles. He Himself said that He was not sent but unto the lost sheep of Israel. When a Gentile woman came to Him to heal her son, He said that it was not meet to take food intended for the children and give it to dogs. She said that dogs could eat scraps that fall from the table, and He was impressed by her faith.

        But even so, not once did He seek out any Gentile, nor teach them. He did the occasional miracle for Gentiles who came to Him of their volition, but He did not seek them out.

        “I bring you a new commandment, that ye love one another” was said by Him only to the Twelve, and they weren’t converted yet (that wouldn’t happen until after His Death and Resurrection when the Holy Ghost came to them on the Day of Pentecost). He also said nothing about this new commandment nullifying nor abrogating any of the Law.

        He said that until Heaven and Earth shall pass, that not one jot nor one tittle (roughly analogous to the dot of an “i” or “j” or the cross-stroke of an “f” or “t,” respectively) would pass from the Law. Have Heaven and Earth passed away yet? I can’t speak for Heaven, but I just looked out my window and down at the ground and the Earth sure seems to still be here. So, sorry, but the Law still applies. All of it. Unless, that is, you think that He, your Lord and Savior, the Prince of Peace, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, God the Son Himself, was wrong, perhaps? Feel free to correct Him on this matter next time you speak to Him.

      • Brian

        There are just a few scriptures which to be contain the essence of that big, big book. Yes, I’ve read it and continue to. You read one. Jesus basically says, I have fulfilled all the commandments before and now I give you a new one, and it is really, really simple: Love God with all your heart and mind and soul and love you neighbor [as though your neighbor] were you. Which, if we are one in Christ one in God, he is you.

      • RuthAnne

        The Law was given to bring us to the knowledge of sin and to point us to Jesus. Jesus fulfilled the law.

      • Kathy Ruth

        Jesus did, indeed, come to fulfill the law. Once he had done that-with his death and resurrection-the law was finished! We, therefore, do not need to follow the law!

      • skwills

        Christianity doesnt follow a Demigod. Jesus is God incanrate, makign him 100% God. The whoel Denigod crap is just ignorance. if you say Jeuss is a Demigod, you have no basis for beign critical fo others fo rhwat you say hristainity is and how they dont follow it, a syou do’t undestnd it to begin with.

      • Damian Caligula

        Angels and demons are the same as Demi-Gods. So Christianity is still a polytheistic religion maquerading as monotheism. As any religion that needs a devil is. If there is only one God, then there is no room for an evil God or Demi-God devil. God is the master and creator of all, good and evil.

      • skwills

        ANGELS AND DEMONS are not Demigods, and the whole idea is ludecrous. Just becayseyou want to make Christianity (Which is harldy alone in havign Angels) into a Polytheistic Religion doens’t mean that you can just reinterpret thigns to suit yoru Agenda.

        Also, Christainity doesnt “Need” a Devil. Ssatan is said to exist but he is not the oppopsite of God. He sint an Evil God, or even nessisarily the sorue of all Evil.

        Instea of tyrign too har ot bash Christianity, why not Try tolearn what it actually is?

      • Damian Caligula

        I can interpret the things I read as I want. Can you tell me then what you think the difference is between a Demi-God and an angel or demon?

      • skwills

        It doesn’t matter if you can interpret thigns as you want, you won’t be correct as a result.

        Angels are created beings thst Serve God and who are fully Angels. A Demigod is either a mortal who became elevated after Death to a position near divinity, or else a Half mortal and Half god hybrid, orsimply a lesser god. Angels are not gods, and are not half gods,and are not elevated to their positions.

      • Damian Caligula

        And how is suggesting a religion with three Gods in one, a devil, arch-angels, and demons isn’t truly monotheistic bashing it? Just pointing out something that’s obvious. I grew up in that cult. I know exactly what it’s about.

      • skwills

        Christianiy doens’t have thre Gods in one. It has one God in Three Persons. That is a Hue distinction. Dont tell me you “Interpeet” things syu pleae, as yoy’d still be wrong here.

        The Devil is just an Angel, so are Archangels. And Angels are not Divine.

        You are not pointign out somehtign thats obvioud, yoru crratign a caicature of somehing to bash it.

      • COMALite J

        Heck, many atheists will say that actually sitting down to read the Bible was exactly what killed their faith.


      • Curt Siters

        if that is the case, why do they preach it in church? why all the hubbub regarding the 10 commandments?

      • TerriP

        Some denominations are not preaching the New Testament. They are preaching the Old Testament. For example, Dominionists like Pat Robertson claim to be Christian but they preach the Old Testament. Many Christians don’t consider Dominionists Christians at all. The Moral Majority, The Christian Coalition,.. these are Dominionists. They are not considered Christians by those who follow the New Testament.

      • Ian

        So,does that mean they’re (to all intents and purposes) Jewish? Many people view christianity as a sub-sect of Judaism but maybe the Dominionists are actually another sub-sect altogether?
        Wonder what the bible thumpers would make of that? Ignore it,i assume.

      • Jingles

        They preach it so the unsaved will know that they are a sinner (because they can’t keep the 10 commandments) and in need of a Savior, Jesus. Jesus came to die for sinners, so that they who accept Him will spend eternity with Him.

      • Eddie Higgins

        To control man ,if it takes the threat of eternal damnation to make a person good then that person is not good. What a person needs is empathy not religion !

      • scottlee67

        Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as ‘the commandment of God’ (Matthew 15:3) and as the ‘Word of God’ (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that it was indestructible: ‘Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished’ (Matthew 5:18).

      • EverTheGreen

        If that is true, why did he not allow for the stoning of the prostitute?

      • adcbeast

        Scott .. Jesus NEVER said that .. people who wrote the bible did ..

        There is NOT 1 verifiable word .. spoken or written of Jesus in the bible ..

        You know .. because it was just written by religious philosophers and had nothing to do with Jesus

      • Brian

        Ok you first two points are irrefutable, but just as it cannot be verified that Jesus said these things, you cannot say that there wasn’t a Jesus and that he didn’t say these things. We don’t know is the right answer. But I’ll say this: There is so many things that are attributed to Jesus that, given our understanding of the times, were plainly remarkable and, well, modern. Here was a person who urged people to love their enemies (their enemies by the way routinely tortured them), to quit worrying, to live life more abundantly, to quit being so enchanted with moral codes and come from love instead, to quit the judgement. Jesus also informed us that heaven is not a place removed in time and space, but within us, i.e., a state of consciousness. And if there was any group that received his rare rebuke, it wasn’t the tax collectors, or the harlots, or the faithless, it was the religious / political leaders of the day. He came to completely upset the established, right-wing structure of that time and not with a superior physical force. I think the use of the words traditionally associated with Jesus are the perfect counter to the words known to come from, say, Ayn Rand.

      • Ruth Anne

        How do you know? Were you there?

      • adcbeast

        Ruth … No .. religious scholars admit this …

        NEXT !!

      • Ruth Oczykowski

        How do you know Ruth Anne were you there?

      • but yet, it is a work of fiction, it is a part of the bible.

      • RosemaryPeppercorn

        So when are you going to stop eating shrimp? And start stoning women? And keeping slaves?

      • skwills

        I’m a Vegitarian. Also, the Binel dosnt say “Stone women’, stonign was a commo Punishent for men and women who brike certan laws, not somethgin doen to women just because they were women.

        As fr slvery, it wsnt the Chattle Slavery Americans thinlk of, so the comparrison is moot. Especially sicne we are slaves t the modern Ecnomic system.

      • Charles Horrell

        you go quoting his word will stop this senseless rubble.

      • adcbeast

        Synn DOOSH .. the bible NEVER mentions abortion ..

        What you quoted NEVER mentioned abortion ..

        You quoted random B#$#SHIT ..

        Keep your day job flipping burgers

      • Brian

        It is interesting that you would bring up these passages from the bible and pronounce them to be commandments and yet ignore what it truly understood to be a commandment, you know, that one about bearing false witness. So Kings 8:12 is an account of Solomon bringing the arc into the temple and the verse you cite speaks of the Lord hiding in a dark cloud, which harkens back to Exodus. That’s it. No commandment. No mention of abortion in the slightest. Now there are references to a child in a womb in your Hosea chapter 13. But the more direct reference accounts for the subjects habit on playing with his twin brothers ankle in the womb. Toward the end of the chapter, there is dark prophesy. Because of his sins Ephraim will feel the pain that a woman feels in childbirth. At the end of the chapter, we are advised that the people of Samaria must bear the guilt for rising up against the Lord and amongst the afflictions that are said will visit them is that the storehouses will be robbed, their heads of their little ones dashed across the wall and their pregnant woman will be ripped open. And of course this is standard fare in much of the old testament (along with very, very beautiful passages). There are these gems: “Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against

        the rock!” (Psalms 137:9)

        “Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is

        joined unto them shall fall by the sword.

        Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their

        houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.” (Isaiah 13:15,16)

        “Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they

        shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare

        children.” (Isaiah 13:18)

        Here is the thing. I think the hour is upon us to save the undeniable themes of mercy, redemption, salvation, and love that are interspersed in the old testament but which reach and unmistakable crescendo in the New testament; to save these themes from the modern day philistines who are facetiously concerned with the adherence to literally interpreted codes (moral and otherwise) and who seem to lack altogether a conscience that could guide them. There only connection with God is by way of stories written long ago about someone else’s experience. They are baffled by the notion of a living God. This book which yield such beautiful insights if one explores its context and symbolism for the truth beneath, it being utterly bankrupted by people like you who think nothing of lying about its contents.

      • RuthAnne

        Christians don’t follow the OT, they follow the New Testament.

      • REN

        Totally out of context oh wise one

      • skwills

        2 Kings is about God allowign an invasion, not about openly commnding Abortion. The same is True of Hosea. Its not “Thou shalt abort”, its mroe of what happens when Ountries were invaded back then.

      • George Wright

        How you twist scripture,Synn. Neither passage is a command from God. Both are a prophecy of what the wicked King of Syria would do to Isreal.

      • Joatham Mcgainey

        1. There is no Hosea 13:16. Hosea chapter 13 only has 15 verses and verse 15 doesn’t say anything about that.

        2. ll kings 8 is Not God saying He approves of what the king of syria would do(killing infant babies that is); He’s just warning(prophecying) the Syrian king that that is what he(the future king)will. God sees all remember, so when Elisha said that, He was warning the Syrian what God saw he would do in the future

      • Jeanette Le

        from wikipedi: Infanticide – Whereas theologians and clerics preached sparing their lives, newborn abandonment continued as registered in both the literature record and in legal documents.[4] According to William L. Langer, exposure in the Middle Ages “was practiced on gigantic scale with absolute impunity, noticed by writers with most frigid indifference”.[41] At the end of the 12th century, notes Richard Trexler, Roman women threw their newborns into the Tiber river in daylight. ^ Trexler, Richard (1973). “Infanticide in Florence: new sources and first results”.History of Childhood quarterly 1: 99.

        Unlike other European regions, in the Middle Ages the German mother had the right to expose the newborn. ^ Turville-Petre, Gabriel (1964). Myth and Religion of the North: The Religion of Ancient Scandinavia. NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. p. 253.

        In the High Middle Ages, abandoning unwanted children finally eclipsed infanticide. Unwanted children were left at the door of church or abbey, and the clergy was assumed to take care of their upbringing. This practice also gave rise to the first orphanages.

        So now after decades in our country of trying to feed and educate our small citizens, these congresspeople want to stop providing assistance – Christian’s?? don’t think so

      • Brian

        I’m probably with you on this issue, but having just done research on early canonical law, I believe that if you are painting a picture of universal moral indifference to infants and fetuses throughout the middle ages, then you may have overlooked a wealth of statements against abortion even back then. I think its more murky. But I totally agree with your observation of the glaring inconsistency of Republicans who theatrical cry crocodile tears over the fetus, and then issue contempt against it and all life that doesn’t have sufficient cash, for that matter.

      • Exactly right on conservatism. Ryan is not a conservative in any sense of the word.

      • Jr

        Umm . I don’t know what denomination you are but abortion is specifically mentioned in the didache. Most guess from your lack of knowledge you are Protestant

      • brad

        republicans may not be as all bad as the left wing liberal media puts it. by the way most american’s are conservative in their own life. just because same sex marriage is legal this does not mean people like me agree with it because i do not it is sickening. but as a pro freedom guy if two FAGS want to be married fine go a head i do not care. Crack heads can do dope i do not care. 90% of conservatives do not care what others do with their life. all you left wing liberal nut jobs eat cake at your gay wedding and choke

      • COMALite J

        Abortion was not forbidden in Biblical times. It was openly practiced. That’s why there is no mention of it in the Bible.

        There are mentions of abortion in the Bible — just not the way the Christianist Christocrats want (I like the term “Christianist” as opposed to real Christians like Jimmy Carter or the late, great Presbyterian minister “Mister” Fred Rogers — Christianists are to Christians as Islamists are to Muslims, or Zionists are to Jews).

        In Exodus 21:22–25, a penalty is given for men through violence causing a pregnant woman to abort her fetus. That penalty is a mere fine unless the mother is harmed, and then it’s eye-for-eye, … and life-for-life. This, mind you, in the same chapter and a mere eight or so verses after a passage that says that if a child cusses out either parent, that’s a capital offense!

        In Numbers chapter 5, the Lᴏʀᴅ actually commands herbally induced abortion as a test for marital fidelity. The “dust of the Tabernacle floor” would contain dried abortifacient herbs indigenous to the region, which makes the water bitter when steeped in it (an abortifacient herbal tea). When the woman drinks it, if she’s in the early stages of pregnancy, it induces a miscarriage (induced abortion) which causes the symptoms described as the “curse” in the passage.

        There are also passages about the Lᴏʀᴅ commanding the slaying of pregnant women, which would of course kill the unborn child as well, such as Numbers chapter 31 among others. Indeed, the Lᴏʀᴅ through Moses was angry with the Israelites because they refrained from killing non-virginal women including pregnant women (a pregnant woman would be pretty obviously non-virginal) at first, and then made them do it!

        There are also passages of various kings and others ripping up pregnant women as part of genocidal war, but it’s not usually clear whether the Lᴏʀᴅ condemned or condoned or was indifferent to that.

        I know of no passage wherein the Lᴏʀᴅ or any of His duly authorized representatives, as a matter of Law or commandment, either forbids abortion or states than unborn human beings qualify as persons with value as such. Numbers chapter 3 (seven times therein, twice commanded by the Lᴏʀᴅ himself!0 and Leviticus chapter 27 (key verse 6) strongly imply that Personhood in the eyes of the Lᴏʀᴅ doesn’t begin until age one month after birth!

      • PA_Conscience

        “she has a right to chose not to have sex, choosing to have sex, she has the right to use any of the available methods of birth control, choosing not to use birth control,”

        Wow, you are EXTREMELY dense, aren’t you? So this is all up to the woman right? It is all her “fault” if she gets pregnant?

        And as for this BS, “I will give ya abortion in the case of rape or incest, that is quite enough to deal with, without a baby too,” all I can say is that you are absolutely pathetic. You fall right into line with the likes of Todd Akin Richard Mourdock.

        Go find a conscience, because the only thing you put on stark display in this disgusting diatribe is your own ignorance.

      • jerseyjoe

        So, are you saying those are choices a woman doesn’t have?

        You bring up Akin and Murdock — their comments were actually substantially different from those Lee has made. Your logic is embarrassing. You simply insult the individual and use read herrings. You can do better.

      • Jess

        It takes two to make a baby and yet the blame and shame always falls solely on the woman. She does have a choice; so does the man. But if a woman becomes pregnant, society makes it solely HER PROBLEM.

      • JerseyJoe

        If she has the baby and proves through a paternity test who the father is, he will have responsibility as well (might not be true in some jurisdictions). If she doesn’t want to have the baby and he does then he has the problem, because no one cares about his wish to take responsibility (I know this happens a minority of the time). If no one cares about the baby then there is no problem, I guess. Just abort it.

      • John Michael Hutton

        So how many more kids would be born that no one cares about? They certainly won’t be taken care of by ReThuglicans.

      • drklassen

        Because it’s not his life that affected, and possibly harmed and endangered, for 9 months.

      • Lee Herring

        Lol, when ya cant support your position, I guess insults are the next best thing. It is the woman that will be carrying the child isn’t it ? It is ultimately her situation that will have to be dealt with isn’t it ? If more men where honest men, more women wouldn’t be in this position, I by no means blame the woman. And my conscience is what made me write this, Killing babies is wrong.

      • John Michael Hutton

        so how many have you adopted that are not wanted right now? I don’t need an answer because I already know the answer is zero.

      • Lee Herring

        I don’t speak from that end of it, if ya must know, I was involved in the decision to abort a baby, its one I regret everyday.

      • tamcocar

        Until you have a vagina, you have no right to voice your opinion on the subject.

      • JerseyJoe

        Terrible foolish logic. Until you have a gun, you have no right to talk about the gun issue. Until you have are a man you have no right to discuss how he uses parts of his anatomy. Until you are a member of the armed forces you have no right to talk about our military.

      • taxirob

        The HELL we don’t have a right to talk about the military, we PAY for it, and after they are maimed in some total BS war to correct some foreign policy gaffe from the last century, we have to pay for them FOREVER. Don’t you DARE tell us we have no say-so on how our government spends its money and wastes the lives of our young while you put women on blast solely for NOT wanting to have children out of wedlock.

      • JerseyJoe

        I’m simply pointing out tamcocar’s logical error and why men have just as much say in the abortion debate.

      • John Michael Hutton

        Geez, simmer down.

      • Ang Leisure

        Well then, by that foolish logic, until you have a brain, you have no right to offer opinions on subjects that aren’t yours.

      • John Michael Hutton

        I hate to agree with Jersey but he’s absolutely correct.

      • Ang Leisure

        Even your bible says that life begins at the moment of the first breath, not one bloody second before. Heck, the bible has a recipe for herbal abortion right in there. (seriously, look it up) Even killing an unborn child, or even a born infant is only… ONLY punished with a fine, paid to the father of the child (Not the mum)

        Oh.. and hey, There is this neat thing, it’s called the Separation of Church and State. The founding fathers (of whatever faith, or none that they followed) did not want this country to become another Theocracy. So, by that logic, Your faith issues, including the completely biblically unfounded anti-abortion issues are Moot. Completely MOOT.

        See, not everyone is a Christian, or a Levitican, or a Republican, or.. whatever nifty name you want to attach to your death cult.
        Freedom of religion includes, freedom From it.

        Keep your holy books, They’ve given us plagues, the dark ages, inquisitions, witch hunts, rape, murder, incest, and superstitions that have held back science for thousands of years.

      • melloe

        To start with, the actual Bible states that the soul / life is given with the first breath. Till that pint it is not a person. The “baby” don’t have any rights till it draws the first breath. That said, I don’t believe in abortion except as saving the woman’s life, rape, or incest, but the right has used this lie so long, it has distorted the truth. Also, this should not be part of any political discussion. Religion should not be part of the political discussion. But if you want to, you need the whole .package… And Jesus was plane about what was required of Christians

      • Lee Herring

        we measure life by the beat of the heart, we pronounce people dead when it stops long enough to shut down other organs. You can hear a babies heartbeat at 28 days. I don’t understand how all these people can be so callused towards what will be if left alone a beautiful baby. Its not something you can just throw out if you don’t want it. Like I said, I’m not religious, I am a child of modern science. I think the bible was a book written to explain some very complicated things to a simple people in a way they could understand, and most importantly to control them. Having said that, I think the rules it states to live by are excellent, the new testament anyway.

      • John Michael Hutton

        I’m sorry, braindead, this discussion was about WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS not what science or you tell us today> You can’t pick and chose what you believe the bible says. Either believe it or don’t.
        I also wonder about your reading comprehension. And your skills of logic and argument are woefully lacking

      • Lee Herring

        I was replying to a post, not the article that started this, if you had read it instead of opening your mouth first you might have seen that, speaking of reading comprehension moron. Don’t bother with another smartass response, you wont get the satisfaction of a reply as it is below being worthy of a comment.

      • taxirob

        BRAINDEAD…that’s funny that you would use that phrase when we were talking about abortion. LeeHerring erroneously states that we measure life by the beat of a heart, when in fact we use brain death as a legal definition when pulling the plug on people in vegetative states. Thanks, John, for reinforcing my previous statements about the beginning of life.

      • melloe

        Maybe WE, but hat is not what the Bible states ( and “they” are using the Bible as source. ) Bible says “first breath”

      • melloe

        Maybe we DO, BUT the Bible does not because the soul is not present till first breath. Of course, if you are not going to use the Bible, that is another story. Then why are we having this discussion.

      • softrbreeze

        Oh for Pete’s sake, I am a Christian but I am still capable of thinking logically and THERE IS NO PROOF that the human soul even exist! To use that argument is foolish. What we DO know, is that life starts at conception! Cells that are alive are multiplying and organizing. A human heart is beating most times before the mother even realizes she is pregnant. A human life exists unseen for 9 months- FACT. You can’t argue that it’s not human or that its not alive. Its species is in the dna and it’s life is in the fact that is growing.

      • drklassen

        Actually, we don’t know that “life begins at conception”. In part because we have no way to measure that since it takes awhile for anyone to know that a woman has been pregnant. And, it also depends on your definition of “life”.

      • Kisma

        Technically cancer cells “are alive, are multiplying and organizing” but I wouldn’t consider giving them rights. Virus cells do the same as well. Not a valid argument in my opinion.

      • softrbreeze

        Cancer cells and viruses also don’t form a living, SENTIENT being. DEAR.

      • Robin Salvadori Allison

        40% or more pregnancies (or meetings of sperm and egg) never get to term without abortion. Some estimates are as high as 70% of fertilized eggs never implant, or miscarry before a woman knows she is pregnant. Mother Nature is pretty wasteful when it comes to making babies. Your beautiful baby you desire with all your heart and soul can die in the womb 4 days before it was due for delivery…..the medical procedure to remove the dead baby was called an abortion. As a matter of fact, a 40 week abortion, which I hear anti choice folks rail about all the time. And this happened to a friend. Modern science. Science is driven by facts. A heartbeat doesn’t indicate a baby. It shows a potential baby, and it may or may not indicate a healthy fetus. If that heartbeat at 28 weeks shows problems, and further tests show the fetus will need a heart valve transplant to survive, and this means finding the correct size child donor (and they were thrilled to get my late daughter’s heart valves- too much need, not enough dead kids) several times- the transplanted valves need replacing as the child grows>
        So you discover your child will need multiple surgeries )and might not survive even with them), will not be able to run and play normally, and the cost of this will run you several hundred thousand dollars…I’d personally need to soul search here- those medical costs would have to be eaten by the state, since I’m not rich. Should I cost my fellow taxpayers thousands-possibly uselessly if the kid dies anyway- do I let my child in for torture- and surgery on infants and babies is torture-they don’t understand why they are hurting. I don’t think I could do it, not if I knew I could end the pregnancy before the fetus knew anything but the womb, and wasn’t even thinking or dreaming yet,

        Unless you have walked in the shoes of women who have had abortions, who have saved their lives or sanity by having one, you can’t understand. And until you can understand the difference between what is a potential baby and a baby. A heartbeat simply indicates that cell division has progressed far enough to make a heart, and there is enough of a nervous system to tell it to beat. It doesn’t indicate that a beautiful little baby will come about in another 8 months. The risk of miscarriage is so high during the first 3 months, I told no one I was pregnant but my husband until past the danger zone. And my friend proved, you can carry practically to term and lose it. My BF had her second as an emergency C-Section because the baby’s heart rate had dropped severely- she was just lucky she had a doctor visit that day.
        I don’t see your post as one by a child of modern science. I see an anti-choice person acting out of emotion without seeing the issue as something complex that is best solved by easy access to family planning (don’t cut funding for PP, teach abstinence only, or charge money for birth control) and fighting poverty, since the vast majority of abortions are moms who can’t afford another kid. Support moms, like they do in Sweden, and more moms will choose to keep their kids.

      • Repubs (and Xtians) just want more cannon fodder. Once you’re out of the womb, you’re screwed.

      • John Michael Hutton

        Yes, you have the right to decide what is right for you. The state has no business deciding this for you. Dems want to give you the right to decide whereas ReThuglicans want to decide for you. Now which sounds more American to you?

      • Michael Naaktgeboren

        Where do you get this first breath idea? The Bible has plenty of examples of why a child in the womb is a living being and therefore deserves equal protection.

      • Souris Optique

        Give us one.

      • John Michael Hutton

        You got it right and could have stopped at the point you said, “I don’t think.” Nuff said

      • Lee Herring

        Why is it whenever I get in a discussion with liberals the majority of the answers/opinions I get are just insults, doesn’t speak well of the intelligence of the left or the willingness to have a open thoughtful debate. I don’t base any of what I said on the Bible, you don’t see any religious quotes in there, It was what feels right in my heart. Thanks for your time though.

      • taxirob

        BUT you called John a moron. So, what kind of person does that make you?

      • Lee Herring

        I guess that makes me a pissed off person, that was the 3rd conversation that I had tried to have with a liberal in as many days. All 3 wouldn’t talk facts ,data or just opinion, they just wanted to throw insults. That attitude is why we cant get anything done in this country, until we learn to talk things out like adults, without throwing insults, things are just going to get worse.

      • taxirob

        Dude, what facts are in the Bible? Sure, a lot of those people really did exist, but no miracles have ever been proven. Did God leave town with the invention of photography? And even by calling someone a liberal, you are stereotyping people you do not know. I only believe in certain parts of the liberal agenda, but also wish there were more REAL conservatives around, those who don’t want to push Christianity on their fellow Americans or the world. Capitalism as we know it=Christianity as it’s practiced=Cracker Jihad. Rich white man rule. If you are walking around decrying liberals, who don’t CARE what you believe, then you are the one putting yourself in the other camp. YOU are the one perpetuating the adversarial situation. Stop acting like you don’t know this, if you don’t then you truly are a fool.

        The rest of us aren’t always what you assume we are. The rest of us may or may not be current or former Christians ourselves, don’t act like you know the mind of God better than anyone else, or God himself. In the Old Testament, God protected and also punished his people.

        He gave his son to teach us that this life doesn’t matter a whole lot, that we should just be nice to one another. You don’t need God to do that, and you don’t need to look too far to see that the author of this article is correct. You can come in here and argue Biblical minutiae but it is you coming to comment on a progressive site and push your views, not the other way around.
        And those beliefs that seem to be all you want to talk about, not the reality of life in this world. And that’s why you and people like you are becoming more irrelevant, and more scared, and more willing to oppress others to get your views across to the world. They’re just not working, why can’t you see that?

      • Lee Herring

        Didn’t I say in my post I am not religious ? I just think killin babies is wrong. I don’t remember even mentioning what the bible says about it, mostly cause I don’t know what it says. I just looked up at my old posts, I stated in 2 out of the 3 posts that I am not religious and none of what I said is based on anything in the bible. You all hate Christians that much that you see them hiding in every post that disagree’s with abortion ? Btw, brain dead is very seldom when they call the patient dead, < worked in heart cath lab for 30 years.

      • Souris Optique

        …and yet you take exception to other people arguing their opinion. You aren’t special. If you are going to concoct nonsense rules for discourse, you should follow them yourself.

      • Kim Ferrari

        taxirob, I’m a Liberal, “educated elite”, Feminazi atheist. But based on your post, I think I love you. 🙂

      • taxirob

        Thanks…. I think

      • Kim Ferrari

        On a more serious note, you said exactly what I’ve been trying to say for about a decade, only in much better terms. May I “borrow”? I WILL credit you as my source.

      • taxirob

        Be my guest.

      • Souris Optique

        Yeah, we should just sit quietly and let you lie about and insult us! How dare we respond to you in kind?

      • Bob Fox

        She doesn’t have the “right” to use contraceptives if she’s Catholic, you get to choose coitus interruptis (pulling out before you shot your wad) or rhythm , timing your sex to when you are not fertile.

      • Jeannie Barber

        “I don’t think any republican wants people to go hungry or naked, they just don’t think its the governments responsibility.” Conservatives continue to insist that it’s the individual’s responsibility to do these tasks. But America is “government of the people”. Since anyone who wants to look can see the problem is too big for one person, we assign it to the government. That paradigm also removes most, if not all, possibility of favoritism or prejudice.
        So by saying “It’s not the government’s responsibility”,
        Conservatives are really trying to absolve themselves of responsibility.

      • Apparently it’s the government’s (particularly the REPUBLICANS) responsibility to subsidize companies that rake in billions in profits and then get refunds for taxes they’ve never paid, but in no way are they going to help a single mother feed her kids, educate said kids or help her get the training to get a job so SHE can feed her kids. Instead, we get corporate welfare. People should be FIRST in line, not last

      • Anthony Rivera

        you know the bible has a recipe in it for a husband to give his wife to force an abortion right?

      • Nice going, Lee. You bit the bait, hook, line and sinker. Abortion is a sham issue. Ryan and company are hoping that you will do just what you are doing. Go off on abortion while Ryan and his buddies steal you blind.

      • Pam Burch Simpson

        Well, on the issue of having access to birth control—do you not remember that many of the Teathug folks who ran wanted to do away with that as well? Can you tell me the Bible verse in which Jesus speaks of abortion? I don’t seem to be able to recall that! While I don’t think I would ever have had an abortion – one never knows what one would really do given any particular set of circumstances, it is really NOT the business of our government what a woman does with her own body. And abortions will not stop. This is a GREY world we live in–not black and white. It is not perfect. All that will happen is that the rich will be able to obtain them, as they always did—under the guise of needing a D&C and women who are NOT rich will get them in back alleys, with coat-hangers. Many will die as a result or will have serious health issues as a result of that. There is no black and white answer here.

      • Gail M Feldman

        abortion is not killing babies. it is disposing of a collection of cells that if allowed to continue to grow could become a baby. in the first trimester it has nerve endings but they don’t DO anything; there are no sensations. considering how little republicans care one a fetus actually BECOMES a baby and is born — until it is old enough to enlist anyway — i don’t see how they can call themselves pro-life. they’re just pro-birth. and actually there is a great advantage for plutocrats if people go naked and hungry. naked, hungry people don’t have time to consider what’s being done to them; they’re busy trying to survive, and if they have to do it by being subservient to the haves, so much the better for the haves. that’s why the republicans want to ditch the department of education. who wants an educated populace? no educated populace would put up with plutocracy.


      • Lady Yui

        So you think abortion in the case of rape or incest are okay, because that’s quite enough to have to deal with without a baby, too? So you’re willing to make exceptions for when a woman is in a situation where she already has too much else to deal with, and adding a baby to the mix would produce an undue burden upon her. Welcome to the pro-choice community.

      • singingsoprano

        I’d say the reason it is different to me, that since the entry was without consent, she has a right to remove that man’s product from her body, thereby ending an assault. I however, do not think this is the best or even always the most emotionally healthy thing to do. I have known women who have raised the children who were conceived by rape, and their children were well loved, beautiful children. That’s better. However, an early abortion or Plan B or something like that in response to an assault is not the same thing, morally, in my eyes, to ending a life for a matter of convenience.

      • Deb Furlin

        Excuse me, if you so love the clump of cells called a “baby”, how about the living, breathing, loving, feeling, hungry child who is ignored by the so-called, “compassionate conservative”? The call the poor “takers and leeches” and would cut programs to help the poor over the wealthy corporate interests. Sure, cut their taxes and cut any and all programs that assist the needy. You say it’s not the government’s job to help them. Then in the same vein it’s not the job of the government to tell a woman what she can do with her body. THAT’S BS. Yeah. Christian. Decidedly NOT.

      • musicalbitch

        “Women’s rights BS”? Are you a man or woman? I’m only curious because I don’t see any men having their reproductive or bodily rights infringed upon by the government. You’re right – women have a choice to not have sex, and a right to birth control. But the problem is that the GOP is trying to block access to BC by shutting down Planned Parenthood and other non-profit education programs and services. Soooo where does that leave those that need public assistance? Nowhere. Speaking as a teenage rape victim, thank GOD I had a nearby Planned Parenthood to go to for STD testing and pregnancy prevention. Each human being should have the right to make whatever decision is best for them when it comes to their body. PERIOD. Also, the left isn’t looking for a reason to hate the GOP – the GOP has made themselves a target by being completely ignorant and vile (among other things). The GOP and all those that follow the ridiculous Republican ideologies spouted off as of late have made themselves a target for hate. If you mess with other people’s rights, you’re going to get backlash. Plain and simple.

      • Socialmedic

        The party of war and no healthcare wants to talk about MURDER? Get of your self-riteous high horse, nobody believes your phony excuse for bastardizing politics with religion and religion with politics. In the nations founders eyes this is a form of BLASPHEMY!

      • Curious

        No one has answered this question for me yet, perhaps you will? – If a 13 year old girl is raped by her Uncle and becomes pregnant, at what point in time is she supposed to have control over the situation via birth control, consent? Is SHE allowed to abort the baby? (And for the record, as a general rule I am against abortion in 99% of circumstances. A life is a life from the moment of its creation, not the moment of its arrival)

      • TimboT

        Almost right on Guest. A Christian is allowed to hate the “sin” is he or she not? What part of “abstinence” does this whore-like society not understand? The child’s life does take precedence. Because the woman feels she can not afford to birth and care for the child is no excuse whatsoever. Abortion is murder plain and simple, only and evil person would placate if.

      • frumpus

        Only the most ignorant person alive would believe abortion is killing babies.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        Yes, a baby as a result of rape or incest is a lot to handle; but if you really believe, as you say you do, that a woman has a right to choose to have sex, to use birth control but not to kill a perfectly healthy baby, aren’t those babies as a result of rape or incest perfectly healthy too? Because of circumstances beyond a woman’s control, those perfectly healthy babies are OK to abort? What about if a woman uses birth control & still gets pregnant? Shouldn’t she be afforded an abortion also if she chooses? After all, she did try to protect herself? What about if she finds out that something is fatally wrong with the baby – no abortion? The problem is that women make the decision to have an abortion for many reasons. YOU, as a male would not ever even have a glimmer as to how or why to make this choice. It isn’t your choice to make unless it is your wife, your girlfriend or your daughter & then you get to HELP decide – not make the choice. Jesus never spoke to abortion. It has been around for longer than Christianity.

        So, Republicans don’t feel that it is their responsibility to feed or clothe or make sure people have a roof over their heads; BUT they feel it is their right to tell a woman to bring one more child into the world that they then don’t have to have any responsibility for? That is pretty damn illogical. What they have no business doing is deciding that a woman doesn’t have a choice.

      • Robert

        So you think it’s the governments responsibility to stop abortion but it’s not the governments responsibility to stop hunger?

      • Sparatacus

        “I will give ya abortion in the case of rape or incest”…why? It’s not the baby’s fault. Hypocrite. And SHE has the right to choose…SHE has the right to use…HER rights…SHE doesn’t have the right…where’s the HE in all this? My guess…you’re a misogynistic piker who didn’t have a positive male role model in his life. I also see that you suffer from Know-It-All Syndrome. I hear that the best treatment for that is the consumption of a gargantuan penis. Have a nice day. Wait, strike that. You don’t deserve one.

      • hurricanemaine

        Honestly, I would go along with your statement about birth control but your delusional if you think that it is available to everyone. It is costly. Where many insurances cover a man getting viagra, there is little coverage for birth control. And again, it is always the woman who has to take the precaution first. Add to that the new laws that are closing Planned Parenthood whose 98% of business is offering health screenings for women, counseling, and birth control. And most of the Republican legal maneuvering is to cut any aid to those who need it: health care, adequate food for their children, preschool… The list keeps growing. But they won’t stop their corporate welfare to the already very rich.

      • margieR

        @ “guest” I understand why you are hiding behind anonymity. you know nothing about rape or about a family that cannot afford another mouth to feed. I am a rape survivor and I’ve worked with kids, whose parents could no longer cope with them.

        Furthermore, a fetus is definitely not a baby until it can live on it’s own, which is about six-seven months into the pregnancy.

        Women’s bodies reject many fertilized eggs in the course of her life. Which means that nature is an abortion provider. Also, my mother was a physician and we kids all worked in her practice and you have not seen the horrors of a six year-old girl ripped to shreds from rape, or a 12 year-old rape survivor who is pregnant with her attacker’s “baby”. Go to the woods and the mountain tops to find some compassion, before you spout off about something you apparently know little about!

      • secondlook

        Jesus never spoke about abortion. The earliest recorded one? 500 BC. So Jesus was fully aware they were taking place. So you think Jesus left here without clarifying everything he needed to clarify? This is MY belief. YOU are welcome to yours. But do me a favor and stop judging me for mine. And please remember, we do not live in a theocracy. God is about free will. We are ALL sinners and elevating abortion above all other sins goes against his teaching as well.

      • nmandine

        9% failure rate with the pill. 6% failure rate with the shot. 0.2% with the IUD. The patch 9%, unless you weigh more than 198lbs in which case it can be higher. The ring 9%. Diaphragm 12%. Female condom, 21%. Spermicides, 28%. 3500 women give birth to babies from being raped every year in the United States alone. Do these women also have that wonderful right to choose not to be raped? As for what Jesus would or would not want, don’t you think you should let Him be the judge of that? It’s not up to you to decide, judge, and punish anyone who decides to have an abortion. It’s up to that woman and if she believes in God, her God. Not you. And I didn’t see anywhere in your post where you said a man or rather in most cases a boy, has the right to choose to wear a condom. Which by the way, has an 18% failure rate. And as far as “murdering” a perfectly healthy baby, you don’t know if that baby will be healthy or not. If the abortion is done in the first trimester, that embryo is nothing but a blob. Yes, I’ve had two children. And they were blobs till I was about 4 to 5 months pregnant. It’s not murder. It’s doing something incredibly difficult that no woman takes lightly. Usually, done because the man she slept with didn’t wear a condom. Stop putting the blame solely on the woman (she can’t get pregnant on her own and I’m not seeing too many men not enjoying the moment!!) and stop judging.
        Now, as far as homosexuals, again, it’s not up to you to approve or disapprove.

      • formerroadie

        You do not understand issues surrounding abortion.

      • EverTheGreen

        Hey, Guest, try declaring yourself and join Disqus od log in through Facebook or Twitter. Be Counted!
        One other thing. There are no “left-wing loons.” That’s exclusively right wing.

      • Grizzled1

        You are awfully ignorant of the facts of life. Two women of my acquintance had abortions BECAUSE THEY WANTED A BABY! And they are both married women. The first had an ectopic pregnancy [look it up, it’s clearly a term you are unfamiliar with]. She knew that the baby would not be viable, and if she tried to carry the baby to term, she’d probably die or have her female parts torn up.
        The second was pushing 40 and she and her husband learned that their baby was so badly deformed [some critical organs were forming outside the body] it would not survive for long, if at all. They wanted to have a baby [their first] and her biological clock was ticking. So they had the abortion.
        The point is, if you oppose abortion, that’s your business, and I truly hope you don’t have to face the reality these women faced. But if you do, I hope some smug politician hasn’t taken the choice from you. In the meantime, stay the hell out of the wombs and bedrooms of other women; it’s none of your d**n business.

      • The article never claimed that Jesus would have agreed with abortion, that’s a typical conservative tactic of creating a straw man argument and railing against it. The two things the author did mention you admitted he had a point on, but you’re arguing a point he never made. You say you don’t think republicans want people to go hungry or go naked they just don’t think its the governments responsibility Knowing that no other entity can provide the needed resources how could they or you expect them not to go hungry and naked ? And how can you say with any degree of certainty that republicans don’t hate a particular thing when they use the most vile, despicable hate speech when referring to or discussing that thing ? Also you claim that you’re not religious nor republican but your views absolutely coincides with religious, conservative republicans.

      • Stacy

        So when a woman gets pregnant, it’s all her fault, and the man has nothing to do with it? Shame on her, she should have kept her legs shut? And anyone who believes women or people who were born gay should have rights is a “loon?” But calling others names is a good Christian thing to do and isn’t hate? Okay, got it.

      • meatwad_SSuppet

        Birth control does not always work as intended. Thanks for showing the world that once again, *they* don’t get it. Your god killed babies,,, or it is alleged it gave the orders to do so.

      • Phoebe Moody

        An embryo and/or a fetus is NOT a BABY! GOT THAT??

      • nitalynn

        The “Christian” Right have attacked both abortion and birth control. It is shown that such an agenda actually raises the abortion rate rather than lowers it. I prefer to actually lower the rate of abortion rather than pay lip service to some lying politician’s political agenda! If the “Religious” Right we concerned about saving babies they would not be cutting them off food stamps to starve right and left! I can tell by what you say you are not concerned about babies rights. You and the rest of your kind want to institute yourself into other peoples bedrooms. Small government indeed. Small enough to fit up women’s you know whats! Such thinking is perverted!

      • sandman839

        If it is not the governments responsibility(we the people), then who is responsible?

      • Susan Paxton

        You do know that somewhere between half and a third of all pregnancies self-abort before the woman knows she’s pregnant? And that Catholics have abortions at the same rate as everyone else?

      • Kerry Watkins

        Even repubs have abortions. Some abortions, mostly the late term ones the right so loves to demonize, are WANTED babies, that cannot live to deliver, will suffer excruciating defects and not be viable outside the womb, and/or present the mother with imminent death if not aborted. This is a heartbreaking decision between a woman, her husband, if present, and her doctor. I am infuriated by any one without the knowledge of the disorders and complications that can occur in any pregnancy up until birth, who presumes that anyone in that situation gives two shits about his opinion.

      • Your Conscience

        Maybe you need to read the new testament one more time, instead of compassion for the poor, the Republicans show contempt, they are also hell bent on destroying the environment for financial gain and profit, and really? Does Christ say to get guns, start wars, kill? Or does he say to turn the other cheek? Maybe you need to call yourself something other than “Christian” . You’ll sleep better.

      • Sharon Beyma

        Dodo!! Republicans do not want birth control either. To them the only good woman is bare foot and pregnant and under their thumbs!

      • CherMoe

        The article discusses what the teachings of Jesus were as translated in the Bible. Don’t try to put words in the mouth of Jesus. The article speaks the truth. This is not political BS but your rant is. Anybody who shuns “the least of us” yet defends to death a few dividing cells as opposed to live, BREATHING human beings and children, has a head problem. If you want to take everything back to the “cellular stage” then men can’t masturbate without killing “future human beings.” Another person picking and choosing what you want to fight for. And, by the way, we don’t want to hear the BS about women having to “submit” to men because they have this natural, uncontrollable libido that has to be satisfied …. and then when women get pregnant, it’s because they “chose” not to remain celibate. You can’t have it both ways. If women must remain celibate, then men cannot demand sex. PERIOD. Men are NOT better or more superior than women. By the way … GOD is our Judge, not you or anyone else of this earth. And people who judge and those who turn their backs on the “least of us” are the ones who won’t enter God’s kingdom.

      • Terry Major-Holliday

        Have you noticed that the GOP is trying to make it harder for women to get and use birth control, as you suggest?

      • MMikeJBenN

        “Not the government’s responsibility, huh? What if the people in question can’t help themselves?

        Sorry, some things ARE the government’s responsibility.

      • xbj

        The Bible ITSELF tells us life begins at birth, with first breath, as God breathed a soul into Adam. It made not a shred of difference when the lump of clay had a beating heart, could “feel” “pain”, or when it “looked” human. We are not human until God gives us our soul. EVERYONE knew this in Christ’s time, and that is why HE never mentioned it. The very concept of “Life begins at conception” would have been instantly recognized for the blasphemous heresy it is, for it would make God out to be a sadistic horrific monster giving souls and humanity to unborn He knew full well would never come to term. And also when He allowed miscarriages to occur.

        Man and woman ONLY create an empty container during sex; only GOD creates human life. At birth, with first breath.

        God only knows us before we are born because He knows which of us will be brought to term at the free will He has given Woman. Those who will not will never be, and He DOESN’T KNOW THEM for they will NEVER EXIST.

        EVEN Judaic Law agrees.

      • Diane

        Republicans are NOT Christian by any stretch of the imagination. They are Pharisees, money changers and the Pontius Pilates of the government.

      • Brian

        What you see as your disgust with BS, I see as your naiveté. I personally believe that abortions end a separate life. I believe that the fertilized eggs, being technically a distinct life, that get thrown away in the the IVF process are not on the same level as, say, a ten year old. I grew up a Catholic in a predominantly Protestant, Republican town. We had just passed a state referendum outlawing all abortions when Roe v. Wade was handed down. To a person, all supporters of Roe v. Wade were Republicans. And that is the way it was in the country. In 1967, then Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Theraputic Abortion Act in California. That act paved the way for 2 million abortions. Basically the Catholics were alone in their opposititon. In didn’t become a concern for the Evangelical movement and the Republicans until they realized they could combine forces and turn it into a political issue that could dislodge Catholics from their traditional home, the Democrats. This required that the Evangelical and baptists quit saying the horrible things they said about Catholics as a matter of course. Politics make strange bedfellows and they all cozied up together. The Catholic chuch has been consistent and principled about their opposition as well as coherent (they do believe the Jesus the Christ charged us to have mercy on the less fortunate). But frankly Republicans are painfully incoherent. They affect this moral outrage for affect, and nothing more. it is clear they don’t care about a fetus. If they cared so much about that life, why don’t they care about any other life. They will have us to war with contrived rationale appealing to our fears. What about those lifes? Why don’t shed crocodile tears over any life lost in war? In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, they were quickly moved to protect and care for, not children, but guns. Even if the wholesale anihilation of so many species of the planent were a dim possibility, if you loved life, you would be concerned. How can they not take a 96% rate of agreement by the worlds scientist about just that. Well, if you love the money that comes from your outdated coal burning plants much more than life, you could do that just fine. And if an early term abortion is murder, does that mean you would have them tried for murder. What does that accomplish? Isn’t it better to work real hard to make abortions exceedingly rare? Time and time again I see republicans who are not motivated by genuine reverance of life to lift up people, but people who are seething with a contempt for life and jumping at the change to condemn others. Their phoney fetus-fetish is just a pretext to allow them to do that. They are completely indifferent to that life once it is born.

      • Susan Weber

        I think if you approve of the GOP methods of preventing abortion you are actually making more unwanted babies and thus more abortions. Many of us liberals would like to see a world without abortion and are pretty conservative on this issue but the pro-life movement is only making things worse. Everyone has a right to universal health care and access to birth control. You talk about women and their responsibility and their ability to refuse sex– all this talk and no one EVER mentions men. What about their “responsibility”. Why don’t we give poor families the opportunity to have family planning and if that enables young people to have protected sex, even if you dissapprove, it will prevent unwanted pregnancy and thus abortion so everyone is happy. I am so sick of the slut shaming on prolife pages. It is sickening. Just read your remark about incest or rape– is that the babies fault? This seems irrational to me. Either you are pro-fetus or not. Most republican voters have been convinced that the “other” (black, hispanic) are the ones mooching off the welfare system and therefore they have no problem cutting foodstamps and benefits for the poor. This is shameful. The corporate sponsors of conservative politics have pitted the poor against each other and use the poor conservative base to vote against their own interests and go against their christian values because they are so angry at the “takers” which consist of only 2-3 percent of the welfare recipients. If we could crack down on fraud and support the honest poor wouldn’t everyone be happy? I truly believe most people who vote republican have no idea how they have been filled with fear and hate. Just look at the tea party/republican pages. There is enough hate there in one glance to convince any sane person this is not any place where Jesus would reside.

      • Guest

        Hello?! Abortion is proscribed in the old testament for the adultress. Killing your already born daughter was required in old testament if she was not a virgin at her wedding. The bible is barbaric and full of killing … is that what you base your religion on??

      • Xerxes

        I guess there will never be a definitive answer to the question of “When does it cross the line between being a lump of cells and being a person?” Some people say it’s as soon as fertilization takes place, some people say it’s about 3 months in (which is the current maximum age in most states, after which you can’t abort). Interestingly, until fairly recently, the standard of most Abrahamic faiths was that the baby was a living being when it took its first breath.

        As far as “supporting this rubbish” maybe we care to have more than two issues – one of which (gay marriage) is entirely secular to begin with – define our faith. And I’m certainly not going to base my political decisions on what a bunch of pathologically dishonest politicians claim to believe on those two topics.

        Your comment about people going hungry and naked reminds me of a line from “Penn & Teller’s Bullshit!” – He makes a similar observation that the government should be helping these people, that we, as a society would do it. But that’s what the government IS – us, as a society, actually doing it. Whether it’s someone near or at the other end of the country; someone I would like or dislike; it’s us, as a society, admitting to the need and taking care of them.

      • bdrew

        And whose responsibility is it then? The church? The community? Yes, yes, and yes the government’s as well. It is the responsibility of all human beings to care for the less fortunate. Also, abortion is condoned in the bible. Forcing children to live in abusive and poverty-stricken homes who then suffer their entire lives is not something JC would be okay with so sorry, you are wrong on all points!

      • exit 7

        Do you think Jesus would say don’t kill babies before they’rs born, but also don’t make sure they have food, clothing or opportunity after they’re born? Make sure to send that baby off to a war started under false pretense once he’s an adult, because it’s okay to kill him then. People who pick and choose who and what they believe Jesus would protect are delusional.

      • FrancesMC

        If you are against abortion, why except rape or incest? Sexual intercourse is designed to produce a child, full stop. The child is not responsible for the rape/incest. If you are excepting them, what difference does it make to except other situations as well?

    • Lee Herring

      Lol, wow you all really go off the deep end to be liberal. Why so much hate ? No one was blaming the woman, the male has just as much responsibility if not more. If there weren’t so many dead beat Dad’s a lot of women wouldn’t be put in a desperate situation. As far as my religious views, I stated I am not religious, I don’t go to church, I have read most of the bible, but it was when I was young and pretty much forced into it. I just think killing a viable baby is wrong and believe that life begins at conception. Sorry if it offends ya but only a person with low morals, or self esteem in my opinion could support abortion. Not my place to chose for anyone else, you make your own decisions, just remember you have to live with them,. All I am doing is stating how I see it, hoping to save a baby or two through reasoning with people.

    • John Michael Hutton

      In other words, he’s a lying sack of shit who doesn’t love his Jesus.

    • Rebecca Anne Inkster

      BtW, You guys got a REALLY awesome pope this time around!

    • exit 7

      You are my hero!!

    • guestwhat

      About that “love your neighbor” stuff, maybe they hate themselves?

  • mriospitagiurfa

    llen: I’ve never read so many stupid juntas.I know that you are neither intelligent nor worship and, moreover, as a journalist you do not arrive or mediocre.But level, or a child in college and border disoriented is able to write this “rice handle “.

    I guess your post on this wall is at risk because almost nobody reads, and is pathetic level of what you’re saying …

    Think, using the first person do you get a close relationship with the few lectores.Usas, as now, the religion to cause polemica.Pero these, in this and in many, “more than a dog lost in moving”.

    Rachell gave you the job? … Do not think so because everyone chooses image.

    I am a Democrat, liberal and embargo deista.Sin that over 40% of the country is Republicano.Tus generalizations are an insult to the inteligencia.Pero, here I leave: Your mess the Democrat thinking and behavior.

    • JoeDutch

      Google Translate must be broken.

      • Kim

        No joke. Whoa! I’m so glad you mentioned Google Translate. I hadn’t considered that explanation. It certainly makes more sense than *concussion*’or *lobotomy* – my first impressions.

  • mriospitagiurfa

    Allen: I’ve never read so many stupid together.I know that you are neither intelligent nor worship and, moreover, as a journalist you do not arrive or mediocre.But level, or a child in college and border disoriented is able to write this “rice handle “.

    I guess your post on this wall is at risk because almost nobody reads, and is pathetic level of what you’re saying …

    Think, using the first person do you get a close relationship with the few readers.Use, as now, the religion to cause polemic.But these, in this and in many, “more than a dog lost in moving”.

    Rachell gave you the job? … Do not think so because everyone chooses image.

    I am a Democrat, liberal and embargo deista.Without that over 40% of the country is Republican.Your generalizations are an insult to the inteligens.But, here I leave: Your mess the Democrat thinking and behavior.

    • FactoryGuy

      Your post makes absolutely no sense…….

      • dumbness

        …and is one of the most hilarious posts anywhere, ever! Keep it up, you, and Rachell and your embargo diesta ride that polemic “dog.” Imagine, either Christian or Republican values could have us all speaking such dreck in only a couple generations of schooling. Truly, my desire is that my children can live up to your level of confusion in communication. They won’t, however, which makes me sad. 🙁 You’re probably a fluke, and they, nor others, will likely get such entertaining drivel babble 🙁

      • Kim

        And your reply is even funnier! Love it!

      • Gur Benpyr

        This looks much like a markov chain robot.

    • Constance Reader

      Just a suggestion gurfa, but before you call anyone else stupid you really should learn to use the English language correctly. You should also learn to spell. And type. After you have mastered these three fundamental skills (and if you graduated from high school, you should immediately mail back your diploma as it was obviously granted in error), then we will move on to basic sentence and paragraph structure.

  • saint23thomas

    The Reagan that Republicans worship is almost as much of a distortion as their vision of Jesus.

    • mmmmikkimac

      And I’d bet all of today’s GOP have NO idea about Reagan’s years before he went to CA. When he was a sports broadcaster in Des Moines, IA, he hung out at an old speakeasy, I think it was called the Blue Moon, in an area of what is now 73rd St. and University Ave. He was a drunk and mooched drinks when his money ran out. My parents and grandfather used to tell me about him as they were members of the key club. And no, they never abused alcohol, they were teetotalers if anything; this place was where people could go and dance and have drinks if they wanted to.

      • JerseyJoe

        Oh no! I’m so disillusioned. Do you really think people thought Reagan was a saint? I have high respect for his love of our country and strength of character, but I know no Christian that would be affected by this “revelation”,

      • John Michael Hutton

        You’re one sick pup Jersey and dumb as a brick to be taken in so easily.

      • ann baldwin

        Im sorry for your delusion

      • RolloMartins

        This would be the least of his “Christian” sins. After all, there isn’t anything in the Bible that prevents one taking a bit of the vino. (I said “a bit.”) On the other hand, Reagan’s sending arms/money/vehicles to the Guatemalan gov’t in order for them to commit genocide…I’d say that would shock some Reagan Christians.

      • John Michael Hutton

        REagan was a sham on all fronts. He was just good at lying in front of a camera.

      • Why they called him the COMMUNICATOR.

        Lying son of a bitch is what he was. B movie actor acting and play a PUPPET President for the !% and Corporation “PEOPLE” in THE PARTY’S eyes.


        Sounds a great deal like obama!

    • JerseyJoe

      I don’t know these Reagan worshippers of which you speak. If you are drawing any perspective from this article you have only distorted your perspective. For reasons I already elaborated on, this article is shallow and riddled with logic errors.

      • saint23thomas

        Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

      • JerseyJoe

        haha. I’ll wait.

      • saint23thomas

        Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

      • JerseyJoe

        Fitting Latin (translated): No one rejects, dislikes, or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure, but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful.

      • saint23thomas

        Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.

      • Deb Ty

        We currently have in the train comes to find fault with that produces no resultant pleasure is to be online applications.

      • John Cross

        On the contrary, Saint Thomas, one of the early themes in Christianity was precisely the rejection of pleasure because it was worldly and made one forget about the afterlife. For this the ideal life was one of exclusion from temptation (hermits, monks, nuns) and even Priests were prohibited from Marriage in the Catholic version–thus excluded from the pleasures of sex and money (but not wine strangely). All pleasure was considered sinful–even sex within marriage–and could be licensed only for express purposes such as the need for procreation. Any pleasure beyond direct needs could, of course, be ameliorated by a generous donation to the Church. Well, perhaps. Dead people tell no tales and as they say, Caveat Emptor.

      • Which is why the priests play with little boys, right?

    • Var Enyo

      They would hate the living Reagan who was for a certain amount of gun control and signed the first amnesty bill. I guess he looks better dead and unable to sign bills.

      • johnbuoy

        Yes, his best virtue to them now is that he is not here to refute their version of him.

    • ann baldwin

      Totally agree

    • Sarah Morrigan

      Once upon a time, fundamentalist Christians would have called Reagan a worldly sinner, just for the grave sin of being a movie actor.

    • Socialmedic

      Reagan was a puppet.

    • TimboT

      They all sucked to one degree or another. Slick Wille with his wonderful White House blow job is just one example of adultery and deception, greed and corruption unbecoming of a president of these United States. Frightfully sad how liberals love to make excuses for their sinful and deceptive nature by throwing stones at conservatives’ desire for decency, honesty and integrity. The previous 3 words “Decency – Honesty and Integrity” are obviously not in the liberals’ lifestyles.

    • TimboT

      I never have worshipped any president or any other human being for that matter. I have always worshipped God and God alone. You evidently worship carnal/worldly/materialistic things like most spiritually blind human beings. Reagan was just another man but he clearly had more virtue than William J. Clinton (Dem) who got caught with his pecker in Monica Lewinsky, and Hillary didn’t even care, what does that tel you about their lack of morals? It may be that there has not been a real virtuous president since Abraham Lincoln.

      • saint23thomas

        I doubt I’m as “spiritually blind” as you’ve inferred from my single sentence. Now, before we start any sort of debate, can you be more specific as to which god is your patron deity – El Elyon, Asherah, Baal, Yahweh?

  • Jeremy Stephenson

    Amen, my brother! They claim they worship God, but have made it perfectly clear they worship money. It’s as Jesus said, one cannot serve two masters; you cannot worship both God and money. They embrace everything the Lord opposes. The Lord opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble. I’ve humbled myself before God and I have no regrets. Since I’ve humbled myself before Him, He has blessed me far more than I could have ever imagined. God has been blessing me for years, but unfortunately, for over a decade, I was too blinded by my own misery to see it. Well, He gave me a huge wake-up call back in 2010! Since then, I’ve been getting my life back together and with His help, I am succeeding! The Republicans ought to be ashamed of themselves!

  • handmadehand

    I began openly defining myself as an atheist in 1970 while my Dad was stationed at Ft Gordon in Augusta, Georgia … 2 years after Nixon’s successful “Southern Strategy.” I would most likely have so declared eventually anyway, but the bigotry of the so-called Christian Republicans in the South made my declaration a necessity for anyone who respects cognitive assonance.

  • FactoryGuy

    Allen, once again you cannot make these types of claims. God does not give anyone the ability to see into someone’s heart. There are alot of Republican Christians who are misled, some are misinformed, and some are just plain lazy and too caught up in the world. Are they wrong? Yes some are, but the idea that we can look into the heart of ANYONE who professes a relationship with Christ and say they are not a Christian is just as wrong. I used to vote straight Republican until 2004 and since I stopped you’d think that I had never been a Christian from the way some have talked to me. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian…..God does NOT endorse any one of you. If you think He does then you are kidding yourself. I would hope we would keep to the issues and hammering the truth out to combat the lies that the Republicans mantra keeps spouting and keep the speculation on who is and isn’t a Christian out of the argument.

    • Republicans regularly claim that God is on their side, despite their hate and greed. What the writer is pointing out may not apply to all repubs, but we’re not hearing that many Republicans denouncing these loons. Therefore silence is assent. If Republicans who really do follow Christ’s words will stand and denounce these greedy freaks, mate they’d get a little respect.

      • Bine646

        His title is republicans are not christians? How do expect to hear the voice of all republicans? Dont generalize my man, its ignorant

      • von Wer

        As ignorant as most Republicans are about Christianity?

      • Bine646

        Hahaha okkkkkkk

      • doug

        you are so true. i am sure though that many of us have been generalized by Republican Christians as non believers simply because we do not follow their political agenda. I know I have much of my life, even by the people that I attend church with.

      • ridnhigh

        The fact that they are republicans and support republican policies against the poor, by thier votes , show theY r not true christians,
        As an athiest I wonder if any of them actually believe in the teachings of jesus. They are choosing politics and greed over their religion.

      • blueshift

        Part of this is burned into the American DNA, who confuse the American hiatus from history with some special status from God – nevermind that we are no longer undefeated, and we are increasingly vulnerable. Which is why retrograde thinkers want to go back to the 1800’s…when the nation’s promise was still in front of it, fearing that if we don;t our best days are behind us. (talk about a lack of faith!) And we get this DNA from the Brits (who have long believed that their ‘green and pleasant land’ is to be the New Jerusalem – sung in hymns like jerusalem and thaxted.)

      • doug

        Chris so true. I feel that we need strong Church leaders to stand up and speak out against the bias that is being spoken as Christian beliefs. We will never stop the elected leaders from saying whatever it takes to get elected and the easy money that comes with it. How about we instead direct our efforts to those who Claim to be religious leaders and ask them to preach directly from their bibles not their political beliefs. .

    • JamieHaman

      It really isn’t looking into anyone’s heart. Because no one has that ability 100% of the time. When you look at their behavior, however, that usually gives you a pretty good look at the way their heart ‘works’. Following Jesus is about doing good deeds, and loving God. Jesus really had a great deal to say about hypocrites.
      Following Paul, however, is apparently do any thing you like for by grace alone is one saved.
      If people talked to you like “Never been a Christian” that says a lot more about them than it does about you. Peace.

      • lurch394

        You shall know them by their fruits. Well said.

    • CommonSense

      Misled or misinformed? Then they are not letting Christ into their heart. Lazy and caught up in the world? Not a Christian value. Therefore, anyone who is any of the above is NOT a Christian.

  • Jennifer Eastep

    Politicians do not follow any religious doctrine, They instead “use” religion as a selling point to get elected into office. Politicians are first and foremost salesmen, who have to make themselves look good to their constituents using what ever gimmick they feel will get them elected. For a long time religion has been the best “selling” point, but as the GOP recently discovered, many Americans are fed up with hatred disguised as religion. A cultural shift is taking place and todays America is more capable of critical thinking than at any time in the past. We are no longer content to be sheep and as the last remnants of the “old” flock (i.e. the baby boomers) slowly fade into obscurity, The younger generations are denouncing all they see wrong with a very flawed system of beliefs.

    • JamieHaman

      Well put! The older I get, the more “sincere” looks like lying. If the ‘sincere person’ is lying, what about? In the case of some elected officials, if their mouth is moving…

    • Kee-o

      This member of the “old flock” is far, far from slowly fading into obscurity. I pride myself on being a rational thinker, active in the functioning of my country…..and it saddens me to see young punks like you think that I need to fade away. As a retired teacher, I disagree with your premise that America is more capable of critical thinking, etc. Our educational system has thrown out critical thinking in favor of mindless test-taking skills, resulting in a nation of children who cannot think for themselves or solve real-world problems. And we have definitely become a nation of sheep, force-fed our “facts” by the biased media, following whatever our favorite cable news network rams down our throats. Look at the lazy, inept politicians we voted into Congress! So I advise you to reconsider your bias against the “old flock.” We still have a fierce collective intellect and desire to rescue our nation from the jaws of corrupt, corporate-controlled career politicians.

      • Kisma

        I agree on the educational system being defunct as well. I’ve gone through said system many years ago and found I learn more in college than I did K-12. Most of my critical thinking happened because I read, a lot, and most of the reading were choose your own adventure, science fiction, fantasy and fairy tales both original and modern. Allowing children to make their own mistakes and learn from them is a sorely needed priority. I’m not saying to not be there but let them pick themselves up when they can but if they continue to struggle give them a nudge in the right or at least different direction.

    • Scott

      Hey moron, you’re as bad as the people you’re criticizing. Don’t lump everyone under the same umbrella.

      • Maura Dillon Elliott

        Scott, not everyone was lumped under the same umbrella in this post. It’s the mixing republican politics with cherry picking christianity that was lumped together, so to speak. I’m a christian. I didn’t get offended because I don’t see myself in the light of republicanity. Maybe read it again a little more objectively?

      • Scott

        I wasn’t objecting to the post nor the article, just the part about “baby boomers slowly fad[ing] into obscurity.” Not bloody likely when the younger generation, as a whole, is hardly doing anything to change the system. They’re too lazy and indifferent to the world around them, self-absorbed into their own latest Facebook posting or iPhone app.

      • Kate

        Good job with “lump[ing] everyone under the same umbrella.”

      • Scott

        Thank you,.

      • nontheist

        I don’t think he ‘got’ the irony of his comments that you pointed out, Kate!

      • mmmmikkimac

        Wonderful response.

      • Scott

        Typically simplistic and misleading.

      • Guest432

        I’d say only some of them are absorbed into modern technology. I’m a 20 year old college student, and I’d rather be learning about the world around me and thinking about how to help fix it than check facebook. I dont even own an iPhone.

      • mmmmikkimac

        The social networking is a way to keep people occupied and ignorant of what is going on in politics. These people are either focused on work or use social networking to tell the world every part of their day. Bloggers are even worse when they focus on things that are not relevant to our every day living. It makes me wonder if the entire social networking idea was thought up by the GOP. LOL

      • MBS

        Now who is lumping?

      • Scott

        I did add a caveat, if you read it properly. But “as a whole” their voting record is abysmal, their participation in civil discourse is equally so, and the record speaks for itself. But there are always exceptions. We are getting way off course, aren’t we? I am just defending baby boomers who set the bar high for government accountability and civil rights. I agree with the article 100%. Many of you can’t keep on point at all!

      • peregrine829

        You lament that the younger generation is lazy. That we lack accountability and drive to make a difference. You forget, we are YOUR children. We are exactly as YOU raised us to be. There are no bad children, only bad parents. WE had no say in the educational system we were forced to endure. If the only skill we possess is how to pass a standardized test, then it is because the politicians of YOUR generation found it more politically expedient to produce quantifiable results as part of their reelection campaign rather than actually encouraging educators to pass on the knowledge of the world to us. If we dare to cry out against the further destruction of the environment previous generations ravaged, we are labelled “alarmist” and bought-and-paid-for scientists are paraded across televisions to denounce established facts.

      • Scott

        You’re right. It’s always someone elses fault. Isn’t that the credo by which people today live their lives?

      • peregrine829

        Very trite of you, to utter a useless platitude rather than respond with any measure of specificity. Seeing as you wish to lay the blame for inaction upon my generation, I’d say you live by the very same credo. To reiterate my previous point, that there are no bad children, only bad parents, I ask you this: If we are so unaccountable, why didn’t you teach us better? I am 26 years old. I have had the ability to vote and actively participate in my nation’s business for a mere 8 years. For how long have our nation’s educational systems been falling behind? Our nation’s economy spiraled downward? It was OUR generation which demanded low emissions vehicles while yours were more concerned with how much leaded gas you could dump into your Camaros. I’ve seen my own high school teachers reprimanded publicly, in front of students, for attempting to actually teach rather than simply put check marks next to benchmarks in standardized syllabi designed to produce artificially high scores on standardized tests. All because administrators hailing from your generation chose to link school funding to standardized test scores. High scoring schools get higher budgets. Low scoring schools (i.e. the ones that truly, desperately NEED funding) get nothing. A classic case of “the beatings will continue until morale improves”. I say again, we are exactly as you raised us to be.

      • Scott

        Congratulations. You’re a good citizen and a smart person. Happy?

      • pjwils15

        First of all, we baby boomers were holding peaceful moratoriums and very active in environmental issues. We were involved in the civil rights movements and much more. A good portion of us did this while still in high school. You are afforded the opportunities many of us were not because of our actions to try to make things better for the next generations. Of course, we didn’t have color TV’s, black & whites with rabbit ears for antenna reception, no cell phones, we met at community centers or parks for recreation and communicated one on one. Technology grew rapidly during our times, born of the baby boomer generation to make things easier on our children and hopefully the world. What I do find odd (young and old need to think very hard about this) is the centering on religious extremism that came about when Muslims attacked us on 9/11. That same severe right extremism has taken of some (not all) Christians in the Republican party and that is what we should be very afraid of right now. It is the same mentality that the Muslim extremists use in terror and whether anyone sees it or not (some of us do) it is happening. Like Muslim extremists there are Christian extremists and both are very dangerous.

      • jerseyjoe

        You say that these Christian extremists exist and are very dangerous. But, where are their murders? Who is supporting them? There is no comparison between violent actions taken by Muslims and those of “extreme” Christians. If you can cite some recent examples of the violent Christian extremists, that would be helpful; and please show where these are organized and financially supported attacks paid for by Christian organizations in the way violent Muslims are supported by other Muslims.

      • drklassen

        What about all those bombings of women’s health clinics and killing of those doctors working there? I have yet to hear any Catholic Bishop or evangelical preacher denounce them, so *clearly* they are supported by all Catholics and evangelicals…

      • von Wer

        You mean like Republican “christians” do?

      • doug

        nice response, I am sure Christ would approve of you throwing out insults to those who might not see the world the same as you do.

      • Scott

        You’re mind is scrambled. Your statement makes no sense. I was referring to and defending how baby boomers have led the fight for civil rights for decades and will never fade int obscurity. Christ would approve of that struggle.

    • bernietilson

      “The younger generations are denouncing all they see wrong with a very flawed system of beliefs.” I seemed to remember these very words said about 50 years ago by said baby boomers.

  • Doug Wright

    it’s Randian hawkish talmudism with a co-opted cross stuck on.

  • demandequality

    So I guess you think that the Christians who murdered millions of Jews during the 400-year Inquisition were not Christians either.
    How about the Christians who enslaved and sold Africans, not Christians either right?
    How about the Christians who invaded every continent, murdering millions for 2013 years – not really Christians, really?
    How about Christians who forced Jews to live in ghettos and then murdered them in pogroms from the Middle Ages to the Final Solution – not really Christians?
    How about the Christians who forced First Nation people in the western hemisphere off their land, raped and murdered them – all in “Jesus'” name – not really Christians?

    Christianity was invented by Constantine as the First Solution to the Jewish Problem and the first order he gave was to KILL JEWS.

    “Jesus” never said anything about anything because a ghost never fucked a virgin and no virgin birthed a bastard son of a god, and no bastard son of a god died for the sins of the hundreds of millions of Jesus Freaks who enslaved, tortured and murdered hundreds of millions of people on every continent for 2013 years.

    Today’s Jesus Freaks are continuing the same legacy of genocide in Jesus’ name they ever did.


    • Jess

      @demandequality:disqus, It’s been a while sine I have read such a no-nuanced, frothing review of faith as yours. Ages since I’ve read someone hypocritically calling out cherry picking when indeed they are practicing just that. Oh wait, it’s the internet, so it was probably more like five minutes ago.

    • Mary K

      Whether or not you believe in Jesus as the actual son of God is your choice. However, Jesus, as an historical personage, DID exist, as is proven by contemporary records. He is even known in Islam as a prophet.

    • Nobody1

      Christian is a title many give themselves to identify that they
      follow the teachings of Christ. Adopting a title does not make you anything. Those who live out his principles are the true Christians. To all your example. How does one differentiate a apple tree from a pear. Certainly not by name alone but rather by the fruit it bears.

  • GMUPatriots

    I still consider myself a believer in an afterlife and in God. I am not an atheist and I’m not agnostic. As you wrote, I’ve simply left organized religion behind because I’ve been driven out by the religious right. There’s no room for an individual like me who understands that the most important thing Jesus taught was for us to love one another. Jesus didn’t teach hate and he didn’t teach that selfishness was a virtue.

    • klhayes

      I am not atheist or agnostic and have left organized religion for the exact same reason.

    • I left the church over the treatment of women as second class. If they don’t really have room for me or anyone like me except as a silent servant, why should I be there? Then as I matured, I saw all the other things. I was looking into a Protestant church and while I was visiting saw them throw out a woman who pursued divorce because her husband left her for another woman. They thought she should have stayed celibate, alone and legally tied to this man indefinitely even if he did not return. What good does that do for anyone?

      • chappy45

        Please don’t give up on God. We, in the United Church of Christ, are fighting for the rights of women and homosexuals. We voted for marriage equality in 2005, and also champion the freedom of choice on the abortion issue. Jesus is the centerpost of our worship. Please seek out a more progressive church and see what we are all about. Many of the old mainline churches are still based on God and on Jesus and the good we can do in our world.

      • Sunny

        To have left the church, in my opinion, does not mean giving up on God. I have grown closer to God beyond measure having freed myself from the stricture of the church structure. Church is for those who benefit from it. Not all do. And, one size does not fit all.

      • Stephen Staedtler

        United Church of christ is more a political denomination than anything I would call “Christian” or following Scripture.

      • MarneyPena

        chappy45 is right. I would encourage you to visit an Episcopal church or one of the UCC. We’re not all the same. We Episcopalians focus intensely on LOVE for all, without exception. We see it as our duty to fight against injustice of any kind. We vow to uphold these values in our baptismal covenant, which we take very seriously. It’s who we are. Also, our Presiding Bishop is a woman. ;). We aren’t second-class citizens in the Episcopal Church. Nobody is.

      • mmmmikkimac

        Exactly. That old double standard – what good for the goose isn’t ok for the gander.

      • mmmmikkimac

        And it is not any ‘church’ ideology but those members so a church ‘name’ doesn’t mean a thing. You can slap a name to any church, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Lutheran, Church of Christ, Congregationalist, etc., it is the people who are the church.

    • David Toomey

      I am an atheist, but have read the Bible more deeply than mo0st Republicans.

    • Mickey Fay

      Seeing the behavior of so many so called Christians, my parents include (whom I love dearly) has made ma an agnostic who is pretty close to being an atheist.

    • tres.stars

      I try to remind people of this scripture all the time. Above all else, His instruction is to love one another.

      • Stephen Staedtler

        If you love God, you will obey what He commands.

    • macabr

      All the more reason to stay. To leave lets them win.

    • drklassen

      If you are in the USA, there’s the Episcopal Church.

  • jdunaway65

    For some reason your comment about Jesus not mentioning homosexuality or abortion reminded me of a commenter — er, troll — on huffington post who said using condoms was a sin, and that it was in the bible. I asked him where the scriptual reference was, and what they used for condoms back then. He (she?) never gave a passage from scripture, but DID reply, “latex… duh!”

  • James

    After reading this article, I can only sum it up with just three little words: “Cult and corruption”.

  • blueshift

    if you’re going to get into guns, you can muster a much stronger argument. First, James Madison, who wrote the langauge for the second amendment, pondered why any Christian would want to buy a gun; he doubted any Christian of conscience would use them. Second: the second amendment is a complex idea that involves (as the supreme court acknowledges in Heller): ‘well-regulated,’ ‘militia,’ and ‘the right to bear arms.’ These are not three ideas, it is one idea. The second amendment is actually a ‘right’ to buy a gun (individual mandate), join a militia, and defend your country with your life. [militias went away during the civil war; the closest analog today is the National Guard.] and the idea that guns are there for a ‘second amendment solution’ is preposterous: the solution for political disagreements is debate, dealmaking, compromise, and ultimately, the ballot box.

    • Dg

      I am tried and true democrat and believe strongly that I (we) must present compassion, not passivity, towards the aforementioned group. If we lump all republicans into this mix, we become what we practice.

    • Doug Wright

      (as to throwing off tyranny)”Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
      “the militia is the whole people”

  • John Koskela

    Politics and faith are so intertwined with many Republicans, logical explanations about reality simply whoosh right through their heads because, “We believe,” they say. Facts are meaningless to most Republicans because what counts for them is their religious faith (bent as it is), a faith so melded with politics, there is no differentiation. Jesus does matter to Republicans just like he mattered to the Pharisees, and Sadducees. Jesus does not know them because they don’t take care of the poor, the sick, the beaten.

  • Dr. Dee

    The only prophet in the United States is profit aka love of money for it surely isn’t the teachings of Jesus Christ that Americans base their lives on… I don’t assert that all Americans are greedy and self-centered but a significant portion of the population adheres to the notion.

  • nate

    I don’t like how you claim to be a Christian and then swear during your article… It’s not that it doesn’t make you a Christian, but it sure takes away from your credibility.

    • Lauren Vachon

      The author wrote, “damn sure” and “no damn sense.” If that is too much for you, if that is so much swearing, in your opinion, that you had to comment, I don’t even know what to say. Um, how do you navigate our modern world? You need to relax and calm down. Language has changed. If “damn” gets a rise out of you, it’s you with the problem. Swearing has NO relationship with the moral content of a person’s character. Swearing does not equal “bad person.” It is time for you to self-reflect and realize that your own really messed up moral code (“a person who swears is a bad person”) is just a way for you to feel superior and judge others. Which is truly un-christian.

      • Nobody1

        Lauren I don’t even use those words. Sometimes we have to rise above. I am not judging anyone. I don’t permit my children to use those words or even things that are similar. I don’t permit my children to call anyone stupid, retarded, or any of the such. I believe that what comes out of our mouths says a great deal about us. Just because the world has changed does not mean that we have to do the same things. No doubt you would say that I am judging. I am not you have the right to use whatever speech you want and I will respect you just the same. I ask all in my presence why do you feel you have to use those words? Why is it important to use those words to make a point? Can you make a point without them?

        You know what someone told me. Yes, you can but it just sound so much better common out of your mouth.

      • Nobody1

        I meant coming out of your mouth sorry for the mistake.

  • John Smith

    Religion is bullshit period, if you’re an adult and you fall for that shit, you shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce.

    • Kris Quinn

      John, you are of course entitled to your opinion. But the belief in a higher power helps to comfort many people in the times of their life when they feel out of control. There’s nothing wrong with that, and to insult people for their belief is equally wrong from the fanatics who persecute and put down those who do not agree with them. As a liberal, it is my belief that wisdom can come from any corner, and to dismiss someone else’s opinion just because, is a mistake. Hell, I have even heard a few things come out of Sarah Palin’s mouth I agree with (rarely… I think it happened once). Do not make the mistake that too many people make and dismiss others because their opinion appears to differ from yours.

    • Nobody1

      You are right. I don’t have a religion. I have a faith. Christianity is my faith. I don’t have any ritualistic practices. I live by the golden rule. That means to love those whom mistreat you and bless those who say all manner of things against you. That means you.

  • blowhard recognizer

    and democrats are? last i checked committing murder (abortion) was against one of the commandments and our Lord Himself condemned homosexuality… not just St Paul … and you may wish to investigate what social justice is all about by looking at what our Lord’s Church is doing in that scenario

    • wiredpup

      Jesus said nothing about abortion or homosexuality.

    • I Once Was Andrew

      No, no one said that Democrats are Christians. While some Democrats are (considering America’s demographics, probably a majority, unfortunately), Christian doctrine is not at the center of the Democratic Party. Which is kind of the point.

      The greater point is that most Democrats these days don’t go around pretending that Jesus justifies their ideology. Republicans do. Regularly. Constantly. If you don’t think the Republican Party is the party of the Christian Right, then I congratulate you on waking up from your coma. Good news if you’re from Boston: The Red Sox won the World Series while you were asleep — twice!

  • Timothy P. Gregor

    I don’t understand why conservatives don’t just accept the apostle Paul as their lord and savior. Paul contradicted Jesus at every turn. He was the anti-Jesus. And he stood for pretty much everything which modern conservatives believe in.

    • 65snake

      There are christians = followers of christ (there are some out there!) and then there are what I like to call “paulians”. Seems a more accurate title.

  • AFuller

    Because your ideologies are so much better? All I hear is self-righteousness….which is what Jesus preached against clearly. I reject your sales pitch just as much as I reject a Republican one.

  • anonymous….

    GOP GREED AS USUAL!!……soon gop you’ll see whays it like being chastised….we are legion..

  • Guest

    The author says that Jesus “taught love, hope, compassion and forgiveness. He warned against those who would manipulate the word of God for their own selfish ambitions.”

    I agree, but then the author has a puzzling way of applying compassion. Chopping up little babies or drowning them in a toilet is “compassion” according to the author and his Leftist religion. That’s why this little piece won’t get any moral traction; it’s bankrupt ethically.

    • Lauren Vachon

      Oh, so the author chops up babies? Are you kidding me? Your logic is very seriously flawed. Nowhere does the author say that liberal ideology (what you call “leftist religion”) has ANYTHING to do with christianity. The author argues that Republicans inappropriately co-opted christianity, and that they do terrible things in its name. Democrats have NEVER used religion in that evil way. Democrats do not ever use religion to trick people into voting for them, the way Republicans have. (And that is the point of this article.)

      Additionally, Democrats want women to have access to non-abortive birth control methods, so that the number of actual abortions is as low as possible. We want reproductive freedom, which means very few abortions because women are able to prevent pregnancy. Nobody “likes” abortions. And women would not need to have them if “conservatives” would stop controlling women’s bodies, women’s lives, and women’s access to birth control.

  • Brandon

    Taliban are to Islam as Republicans are to Christianity.

    • Mr-DJ

      Here Here !! Absolutley. I’ve actually been saying for awhile the the “T” in T-Party stands for “Taliban”.

    • Adam

      My father constantly complains that the republican party should move to a Taliban controlled area where their ultra conservative views will be appreciated lol.

  • wyclif

    The author says that Jesus “taught love, hope, compassion and forgiveness. He warned against those who would manipulate the word of God for their own selfish ambitions.”

    I agree, but then the author has a puzzling way of applying compassion. Chopping up little babies or drowning them in a toilet is “compassion” according to the Leftist religion. That’s why this little piece won’t get any moral traction; it’s bankrupt ethically.

    • wiredpup

      So, what bible verse says abortion is bad?

      • wyclif

        There isn’t, but there doesn’t need to be for anyone to call out murder on ethical grounds. Otherwise, I assume you’re cool with being eliminated if a hypothetical special-interest group decides you’re unfit in some manner, right?

  • Scott


  • Anne2

    I was taught to believe half of what I see and nothing that I hear…when I start seeing republicans act like empathetic, charitable Christians who actually care about the poor and downtrodden, then I might take onto consideration that they are trying to be decent human beings (more likely they are trying to pull the wool over some poor suckers eye). From what I see now: charity is only worthwhile if it involves a taxbreak and they act like empathy is a disease that might be contagiousif they try it. So, according to the Bible I grew up reading (King James version) those acting like that do not meet the requirements set by Jesus to be a Christian.

  • Chris Pacia

    Someone tell me what is Christian about sticking a gun in someones gut and forcing them to do things they don’t consent to (which is, after all, what progressivism is all about)?

    Maybe re-reading Romans 3:8 will help:

    “And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.”

    Also, John Paul II had it correct when he wrote:

    “Let us say that someone robs in order to feed the poor: in this case, even though the intention is good, the uprightness of the will is lacking. Consequently, no evil done with a good intention can be excused.”

    Seriously, trying to claim that Christ would support the use of raw violence against innocent and peaceful people is pretty disgusting in my book.

  • wiredpup

    I was raised by two “good Christian” women, my alcoholic mother who used to beat me with lumber and choke me, and my Southern baptist evangelical grandmother who used to tie me to a chair and blindfold and gag me and then stood there and prayed over me and tell me fire and brimstone bible stories, right before bed, about an angry vengeful god. To me, this religion, along with the rest of them is nothing but a bunch if garbage. You can go ahead and believe in what you want,and I won’t judge you, but if you try to use it as a means to control other people’s lives, you’re what I would consider to be a false prophet. I’d rather believe in a hire power that loves everyone no matter who/what they are.

  • Kevin

    I myself am atheist, but the author of this article is a very wise person. I’ve noticed how little of the bible they actually use, and feel it would be a safe bet that I, an atheist, know the bible better then most republican politicians spouting off about “christian values”

  • Karen

    This is the best thing I’ve read EVER

  • John

    Of course, your remarks are an exaggeration, even if they have a ring of truth to them. Not everyone in the Republican party is an Ayn Rand fan, though some key players are.

    Since Abraham Lincoln is at the heart of the founding of the Republican party, we need a lot more historical reflection. How did this political party arrive where they are now? Just recently, Bob Dole, former Republican party presidential candidate and longtime senator, was very critical of the GOP.

    So again, much needed here are reflections by many people on the trajectory of the GOP and the ideas that they have picked up in recent years.

  • von Wer

    Republicans will quote the Bible to say if you are on Welfare, you deserve to die, which seems to trump what Jesus said about helping people.

  • Bob Coleman

    Both parties used to be against abortion and homosexuality. It is only a majority of the Democrat party that has changed its position on these issues.

    Just like Jesus never mentioned abortion or homosexuality, these “rights” aren’t mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. However, the Courts have found these “rights” to exist. Most Democrats support the creation of these “rights” by the Courts while many Republicans do not. In my opinion, the creation of these “rights” by the Courts is what drives the political division on these issues more than anything else.

  • Tony

    You claim to be a Christian then curse in your article, that is not a good example of how a Christian should be. Examine yourself before putting stumbling blocks in other peoples paths.

  • Micah C Brown

    If Reagan tried to do any of the stuff he did in the 80s now, he’d be shot down by own party, demonized and hung out to dry. In many ways we’ve gone backwards.

    Did you know that Martin Luthor King, Jr. was caught having affairs and that McCarthy wanted to bring him down using that knowledge, but both Republicans and Democrats said they didn’t want his personal life interfering with his public life – that the two weren’t related? If that happened now, he’d be smeared all over the news and tabloids.

    The world we live in is a stark contrast to the world these people say they’re trying to bring back.

    I would love to say I was a Republican. I’m all about old Republican ideals of fiscal responsibility and smaller federal government while putting more power and expectation on local government. But that’s not what the Republican party is about, regardless of their mantra. Federal Government grew more overreaching power under Republicans than it has under Democrats, so they need to change how they’re doing things or shut up.

    This won’t happen, mind you. But it’s a nice delusion to think that it might.

  • dissenting voice

    This article clearly illustrates the overly simplistic thought process of ‘progressives’ One can very much follow the teachings of Jesus, care for others and be very generous, yet not believe in the federal government being the best avenue to take care of those in need. I would much, much rather give money either directly to someone who needs it, OR to a local charity/church/organization that provides for those in need than to a bunch of non-elected people in Washington DC who have no idea what the needs are in my local community. Study after study have shown that charities are far more effective with every dollar given to them than the federal social programs are. With all the scandals in DC now, can anyone really believe that the federal bureaucracy is what we should trust to take care of people? Also, the last time I read the Bible, it sure seemed like it was MY responsibility to care for others. Jesus never once mentioned outsourcing that responsibility to a government agency…

    • leemd46

      yeah, let’ s not use any of those nasty anonymous governmental social programs that would allow the receiver some dignity in receiving help…let’s give directly, and only to those WE as good christians determine to be worthy of gifting. Also that allows us to tie our gifts into evangelizing and proselytising for our own God-loves-best denomination.

    • haloadora

      So, how many drug addicts, drug dealers, pimps, prostitutes, & others of the “least among us” do you personally give to? Does it trouble you to read of all the accounts of charities, including faith based charities that direct very little of what they take in to the people they’re supposed to help? What about the fact that most churches discriminate against those lead a life style or participate in activities the church deems wrong? How about the fact that churches are actually infringing on religious liberties? There is virtually zero credible evidence that churches can meet the needs of all the poor in one state let alone the poor of an entire nation – unless they pass a law that everyone has to tithe 35% of their income…

    • haloadora

      Didn’t Jesus say to render unto Caesar? How many scandals have plagued religion? How many “men of the cloth” have involved in child sex, prostitution & drug scandals?

  • Mickey Fay

    I have a perfect example of why I find conservative Christians to be hypocrites. I know someone who got pregnant outside of being married. Not what I consider to be a big deal in this day and age. Well, due to medical complications, the baby had to be taken prematurely. He seems to be doing fine and we are all keeping him in our thoughts. The conservative Christian I know, what was her response when she found out about his birth, “Well, look at the way he was brought into the world.” Yes, you read that right. The same woman who once said that anyone who doesn’t take Jesus Christ as their savior is going to hell, meaning my innocent, Jewish nephews. Honestly, you believe that the Jesus and God you worship are punishers of the innocent??? That is messed up!

  • this is a keeper!

  • Saydi

    I am a Christian and this has made me angry for years, of course Republicans are not Christian, if you have any common sense and believe in GRACE, and the ministry of Jesus you know that. Even the Nuns ON THE BUS before the last election knew that. It took me over a year to find a Church that believed the teaching of Christ. My pastor always says he can’t wait for the day when the church is filled with pimps, hookers, drug dealers, and drunks, and believes in reaching out to these people. This is why I chose this church, because I am one of those people. He lives the message. When another church met a young man who had just been released fr jail at the door and said we don’t want your kind here, my Pastor embraced him and his family. When a gay couple came to church my Pastor welcomed them in and loved them as the Savior would. What amazes me about all of these comments on the page is WHY WOULD ANYONE LET ANOTHER PERSON KEEP THEM FROM JESUS?? And as much as people hate to admit it, even God says we need to gather together. Pray for the “religious” churches and the people in them who think they are “PERFECT” BUT FIND A GOOD NON-DENOMINATIONAL CHURCH OR A REAL CHURCH WHO BELIEVES WHAT IS TAUGHT BY THE SAVIOR. But please don’t let other people determine your destiny. And remember they are saved, they are not perfect, they are HUMAN, not yet glorified.

  • OK, what do guns have to do with this? Also, you need to brush up a little bit on the Founding Fathers, because the general idea they put out there (Jefferson in particular) was that people are born with rights, whether or not governments acknowledge them. If you are born with the right to self-defense, then of course you’ve got the right to own a gun, and all the government’s doing is either acknowledging that right or blocking its expression.

    If you think you are not born with the right to self-defense then go to the doctor right now and ask him to destroy your immune system. I imagine your next blog post will be written from a psychiatric ward.

    Never mind the wacky right-wingers–there’s a larger issue here. I consider myself liberal or progressive or whatever, but sometimes it feels like the more statist elements of the Left want to leave me stupid, sterilized, homogenized, and defenseless, and I’m kind of not okay with that. If that’s not what certain statist elements of the Left are about then fine, but they should be more clear about their intent in the future.

    And finally, I don’t care whether Republicans are Christians or not. I’m not a Christian, therefore it is irrelevant to me.

  • Dean G

    Yes indeed, every party, person, religion, race, doctrine, creed, etc. has its ills and to villify an entity (unless its terrorism) gets the human race nowhere. I am a conservative Christian registered independent that can believe in the virtues of feeding the hungry, healing the sick, loving thy neighbor, and helping the downtrodden, while I can still believe and think all others should cling to personal, financial, and moral responsibility, such as the sin of relying on the government to take care of them when they are a willing able body or such as using abortion as a form of birth control, or such as runaway irresponsible spending by mostly the left having no accountability as to how that spending will harm future generations. You see people, you can have your ying and yang all in one person and the lesson here to be learned is that each issue much be approached with the perfect balance of clear rational thinking and moral aptitude. Not the sole feel good of the left where compassion overides the right thing to do and not where capitalism determines all as the right would suggest.

  • redwild

    Hahahahaha, let you followers believe……There is such hate in this article, yet you want us to believe Democrats are the kinder, gentler party.?

  • melmom

    I am almost laughing at the pathetic view here. Jesus did speak on abortion and homosexuality. He said that he came to fulfill the law. Homosexuality is against God’s laws and abortion (murder) is also against God’s laws. As far as welfare goes, Jesus said people should take care of people, not the government robbing from the haves and giving it to the have nots. I do ALOT for the poor. I am in charge of a food pantry through my church that gets food and gives it to poor and don’t require anything from them in return. I, also, give of my own food when I find someone in need. I know many conservative Christian, whom you are calling not Christians, who give to the poor regularly. But it’s their choice, not taken from their paycheck before they even see it. That is what is WRONG! Just because “progressive Christians” have thrown out the parts of the Bible that they choose not to believe because it may go against their sinful lifestyle, they say that true born again Christians are not Christians at all. And you who lead the masses into believing that you can leave out the laws of God that don’t fit in to your lifestyle are going to have a worse eternity for it. That is if you even believe in Heaven and Hell.

  • mmmmikkimac

    I enjoyed the article and agree with most of it. I find there are a lot of good people who truly try to follow the teachings of Christ; however, in this day and age, I see very few true “Christian’s” – only those that profess to be one while failing miserably. And most of those of the GOP fail to meet the standards.

  • Greg Patnude

    Please keep your politics separate from your church please — oil and vinegar do not mix.

    Oh… and by the way… I don’t recall Jesus having said ANYTHING in at least 2077 years. So unless you can play us back the audio tapes, we really don’t want to hear it.

    • Jonk

      2013-2077=Learn to do math.

  • Dan King

    Most GOP claim Christianity, but actually prefer Paulianity. What Christ is reported to say and what Paul was reported to say is often contradictory, and the GOP will always choose Paul over Christ.

  • Bob

    As usual, it all comes down to the WWJD question, and I bet Jesus, if he voted at all, would vote on a candidate’s integrity, not his/her party affiliation.

  • Rick Kosinski

    Republican vice-presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, a Catholic, claims his
    policy is in line with church teaching. Well, Mr. Ryan, I was looking
    through my New International Version of the New Testament recently, to
    see If I could find “Atlas Shrugged”,
    which appears to be guiding your own domestic policy agenda. While I
    found no “Book of Rand”, I did come across some fascinating passages.
    James 2: 1-50, for example, forbids favoritism for the wealthy, and
    James 5: 1-6 warns the rich oppressors for hoarding their wealth and
    exploiting their workers. Acts
    2:44-45 and 2 Corinthians 8:8-15 even prescribes sharing
    of wealth for believers so, “There were no needy persons among them”.
    Mr. Ryan, considering your intention to cut programs assisting the least of our
    brethren in favor of preserving tax cuts for those who need them the
    least, I fear that your own theology seems a bit “Randy”.

  • gdimgood

    Allen, if I am a republicanity, than you are a democratanity… the poor….how much do you give….it is not gov’ts job or do they have the ability to bring all the poor up. How much and how long is enough of generational welfare. Do you want to pay for illegals housing, food programs, education ? We do take care of the sick and needy but alot of healthy takers as well. Maybe we could do even more if it wasn’t for our $7 trillion in nat’l debt, thanks to obama’s careless spending.
    Don’t call me selfish or greedy and having a gun is not a God given right, it is a constitutional right. Don’t tell me what I think. You don’t know me and hundreds of millions more just like me. Jesus did speak of homosexuality, and was the original right to lifer.
    You should probably spend your time with your political science degree seeking the truth about Benghazi, the IRS scandal, and Doj’s cluster…
    Quit trying to separate us and just once worry about your side of the aisle and its failings and dishonesty,.

  • Stephanie

    What a generalizing, polarizing, insulting, and just plain ignorant article. Anytime you lump people together in a group and make blanket judgments, you are stereotyping…. I thought Democrats were supposed to be above that kind of thing? I hope most people who wasted their time reading this have enough insight to recognize how one-sided it is and how the ‘facts’ cited were manipulated to serve the author’s purposes. I am quite conservative, and I am a Christian. I am far from perfect, but I try daily to follow Christ’s example in how I live my life. The choice to follow Christ is entirely irrespective of political affiliation. This article is yet another attempt to pit people against each other and encourage hate. How sad.

  • Jimski

    Honestly, You really believe that Jesus would be for abortion and homosexual marriages? You should be getting your marching orders from the Vatican,not from a political party…

  • Lisa L. Rose-Hawkins

    What a total load of bull ^^! And if you’ve left the “Church”, it had nothing to do with anything or anyone else other than doing the bidding of satan. Don’t try and lay your weakness on another human. GOD says homosexuality is wrong a number of times, the commandment “THOU SHALL NOT KILL” ring a bell for any of you? Liberals aren’t any better, we all have faults, but really, what a load of crap.

    • pjwils15

      Just because someone does not belong any longer to an organized religion does not make make them no longer a Christian. God’s church is anywhere you want it to be, there is nothing in the bible that says you must worship within a church and with a group of people. It says to live by his word, not others words. What he was talking about is right wing Christian extremists, kinda like those Muslim extremists we like to lump together? Those right wing Christian Extremists incite fear and terror to support their own view (not particularly gods view) on others to profit themselves and if you don’t agree with them they consider you useless and garbage that can be thrown away. It is not very Christian to uphold thou shalt not kill in the same sentence of a very uncharitable action of but if you have that baby we don’t care if you and the baby die of hunger, no medical care or shelter. Is that really Christian? Does going to church every Sunday make you a Christian or is it following God’s word and doing the best to help others and not do them harm. I pray every day and no longer go to church. I am not perfect, I make mistakes, but I try to not make those mistakes again and learn from them. That is what God wanted, not a politician to use his name in vain.

  • Dale

    Some good points. What is said is true as far as it goes, but Clifton doesn’t seem to know what makes a person a Christian. A really good example of ignorance and manipulation of perceptions of other’s faiths and motives, to influence the reader’s political views. Allen doesn’t seem to know what motivates a Christian to act like one. Love of God. He also forgets that Christ also taught the value of protecting family, property, friends. Being armed and ready. He identifies himself as a Christian, but knows very little except what he has been told, could have read in the paper. I doubt he has ever read the Bible, or the New Testament at least. Pot calling kettle black.

  • eggle

    Christianity is the bible. Murder, rape, selling your children, hate, fear, heaven, hell…all that bullshit. If you call yourself a Christian you are endorsing every word of that heinous book and the practices of that horrific institution. Stop calling yourself a Christian if all you like are the teachings of Christ. You are just a philosopher. A secular philosopher who appreciates kind teachings.

    • Nobody1

      No it is not. The bible is a record of events regarding the nation of Israel prior and post mosaic law. Christianity did not even take root until after the death of Jesus. Biblically this account is given in Acts. Christ’s teaching were different than those of the scribes and Pharisees who believed that one had to uphold all the laws that had been subscribed. In Christ teachings man is incapable of upholding the Law as it was proscribed. ‘An could never earn anything through good works. Although man’s heart is in the right place he will fall short every time. Rather Jesus taught that grace and mercy are necessary. The total bible and Christianity are not synonymous.

  • shadow5d

    You had me until, “a bunch of slave holding old men in the late 1700’s (sic). Many of which weren’t even Christians.” Many of the men who wrote the Constitution were from the non slave holding North, most of them decidedly were Christian and a lot of them weren’t old by today’s standards. Jefferson, for instance, was 40, John Adams was 48. Spouting the far left party line is the quickest way to lose an audience.
    Anyone who abandons the Christian faith because of the Republican party wasn’t really a Christian in the first place. I consider myself a Christian IN SPITE of the Republican Party.
    Oh, and by the way, “1700s” is a plural not a possessive and doesn’t need an apostrophe, and when you are referring to people, it’s “who” not “which.”
    If you want to do more than preach to the choir, you need to stick to the first part of your article, which was strongly worded and forceful. I agreed with all of it, until you went for the big finish.

  • JerseyJoe

    Very poor article. Austrian and conservative economics existed long before Ayn Rand. The GOP is not basing their economics on her teaching. Most of the signers of the Constitution were not slave owners by the way, but thanks for the additional red herring. What specifically do you have a problem with in the Constitution? Is freedom of speech wrong because some of the Signers were slave owners? Nice logic.

    Your Christianity ignores much of the Bible. It sounds like you think Christianity is simply: give money to poor people regardless of how they happen to be there. The Bible sure could have been shorter had they followed your plan. Yet, Jesus said “go and sin no more”, Repent means “turn away from” — there were standards of behavior expected. Certainly Paul warned of going back to sinful behavior and had the Corinthian member disfellowshipped till he got his behavior right. You would say that was unchristian.

    You simply do not understand that many caring Christians recognize that enabling ill behavior does not help in the long run and does not allow people to develop themselves in a meaningful and rewarding manner. But, rest assured, Christians are givers to the needy. Christians give more to charity than you “progressives” at every economic level (look it up). Christians also drove the movement for the abolition of slavery.

    Christians are much more “nuanced” than what you apparently understand. Christians basically view the GOP as the only real alternative to the destructive policies of the Democrats No one I speak to believes the GOP is an arm of Christianity. I am embarrassed for you in your writing of this article. I really am and believe you can do much better.

  • George

    And this is why we truly need to separate church from government. A true Jesus follwoing Christian would oppose the death penalty, would oppose war and be a passivist, would love our neighbors, would sell what they have and give all they don’t need to others… I am a Christian, but I don’t do these things — not one of us does. But to take the position of the Republican party and still call yourself a Christian is truly choosing two incompatible beliefs. I’ve drunk the Kool-Aid on it in my past, but the more I study about Jesus and about what he stands for, the more I see how different that is from what most “conservative Christians” believe and say and do. Thanks for calling us out on it!

  • Jamin

    I just find it wrong when people link their political beliefs to their faith like they’re one and the same. Christianity is supposed to be above the fray.

  • Tearlach

    Just to let you all know … Ayn Rand was a Eugenicist! So what do you expect???

  • suburbancuurmudgeon

    Matthew 25:40

  • Oppelganger

    politics, culture wars and co-opting Christianity are central to the GOPs Southern Strategy because only racial and class resentment could convince poor white Southerners to unite with corporate America and old-money “fiscal conservatives”.

    You see the results now in a GOP whose House majority is dominated by the South but losing ground everywhere else, and whose supporters remain grossly ill-informed about basic facts regarding populations both inside and outside the U.S. with which they’re unfamiliar…

  • Oppelganger

    Right now the U.S. ratio of wealth of the top 1% compared to the bottom 90% is 20,000:1. Under the slave-based economy of the Roman Empire it was 10,000:1 (according to Professor Jeffrey Winter of Northwestern University).

    If the fact that a supposedly “Christian” nation has policies that led to a wealth inequality in the U.S. twice as large as the pagan slave-owning Romans doesn’t wake you up to how uncharitable to the poor our society is, then nothing will. You don’t think government has a role? Well our government-free corporate tyranny has our society robbing from the poor to give to the rich every day of the week and twice on Sundays….

  • I don’t know if Jesus would support cuts to welfare or not, but I am surprised to learn that WWJD has become the animating principle of American government and that progressives are behind it.

  • Brian

    Allen, this is nothing but an ignorant attack. For example, you are correct, guns weren’t in existence when Jesus was around. But neither was abortion. So using both of these in your arguments is disingenuous.

    Nice try. Seems like you are having a real internal conflict. Good luck in trying to reconcile true belief in Jesus with your liberal love.

    • Ang Leisure

      Dude.. Abortion was very much in existence when Jesus was around. It was an herbal abortion rather than a surgical one, but it was around, Way before Jesus, it’s even mentioned in a recipe in the old testament.

      Numbers 5:12-28 (the bitter water is an herbal blend, most likely rue, tansy, pennyroyal, ergot, or other herbs)

      Every good herbalist can name you a list of herbs that can help a woman keep a baby, or lose a baby if it’s not a healthy pregnancy, or there are reasons to not carry a child (rape, incest, too many kids too close together, the mother’s age, etc.. )

      Jesus was a liberal, a huge political power against the status quo. Please remember, when he saw the money changers in the temple, he didn’t sit and share wine with them, He flipped out, tore their stuff up and kicked them out of the temple.

      Jesus hung out with the very people that these republicans hate. The poor, the sick, the young, the old, the weak, the downtrodden. He didn’t hang out with the tax collectors until those tax collectors threw away their jobs, and gave the money to those who needed it.

      Jesus was a hippy, and to try and stuff him in a suit and a boardroom is heresy at the very least, and sinful at worst.

  • Bill Olert

    “A bunch of slave owning white men”?

    Now look here, giving your personal opinion and interpretation of subjective material is all good. But a good writer checks his facts before publishing.

    Only about a quarter of the men who put together the constitution had slaves.

    Some of the men were staunchly anti-slavery, and were even members of abolition societies.

  • Clavell Jackson

    Great article.

  • Darthkuriboh

    Fact of the matter is, the only ones even seeming to look out for Christians is the Republican party. The rabid left, who are mainly atheistic communists, are trying their dead level best to remove Christianity and Christ from everything. I think that, without Christ in government policy, there is no real compassion in said policy. Do I believe most republicans are Christian? No. I don’t vote repub either. I’m a Patriot party person.

  • whatdoyouthink325

    Its you who don’t understand either religion or government.

  • Richard Billingsley

    I regard Republicans as practicing a secular religion I call Neo-Calvinism. It uses the memory of Christianity. But is based on select parts of Calvinism. Ayn Rand agreed with or expounded upon some of these Calvinistic teachings. Making her work something conservatives could use. And making her a prophet for their new religion. This is the religion that people are rejecting. Not the religion of Jesus Christ.

  • JBTascam

    And again, another person weighs in on what Jesus “taught.” “Paying Taxes” does not equate to “Charitable Giving,” no matter how much the left wants it to. Forcing people via the heavy hand of government to support charitable causes is not what Jesus meant when he said to give alms. Alms are voluntary giving – something Conservatives show a much higher affinity for than liberals at all income levels across all socioeconomic levels and in all states.

    As for what Jesus “believed” – the fact that he – as a Jew in 0 BC – did not talk about Homosexuality means that he lived under – and accepted – the Mosaic Law which condemned it. Silence, after all, is consent. When Jesus identified a part of the Law that needed updating, he was anything but silent – Marriage and Divorce being particular examples, but also on observation of the Sabbath, and whether certain foods were “unclean.”

    Forgiveness is not a Universal “Get out of Jail Free” card, but is conditional on REPENTANCE – that oft ignored “Go and Sin NO MORE.”

    • Sierra

      Did you SERIOUSLY just say “silence is consent”?

      • JBTascam

        Under the law, Silence Is Consent. If I were to stab you, and someone watching did not cry out for me to stop, then their Silence is construed to consent under the law. Sorry if this logic escapes you.

  • doodle108

    great article….Jesus said, “Love they enemy,” not “launch a cruise missile at thy enemy”….

    thanks for this

  • John1966

    wow, what a perfect liberal manifesto, repeating all the false stereotypes, and making all the nonsensical leaps of logic.

  • “…asking members to dislike, disown, or distance themselves from another group of people as a condition of ‘belonging’ is always about control and power.” Brene Brown in Daring Greatly

  • avenger_co

    I always wondered if they could answer what kind of gun would Jesus buy? Who would he deny health care to? Who would he take away health care from and sentence to death for being poor? Until they can answer that, they’ve got a lot to answer for.

  • John Michael Hutton

    Just one of many lies they’ve been feeding the American public for years. But it just proves Barnums truism.

  • itsamini1

    I was working at a Christian school in the early 80’s, the Moral Majority was just getting stated and their stated goal was to take over the Republican Party

  • Bill Rubin

    Let’s face it: religion is the bane of much of human history. Humanity isn’t the brightest, generally, and the masses seem incapable of independent thought and critical thinking–largely because most religion doesn’t encourage such and instead bans it so you only think what the religion wants you to think. As a result, it is easy to manipulate the small minds who blindly cling to the tenets of their religion without actually understanding those tenets. True Christians would never support robbing the poor of support in order to give tax breaks for wealthier people, but the Christian right of the GOP clearly supports that anyway. Christians are supposed to love thy neighbor, but most ignorantly hate people or distrust people who don’t think or look like they do. Ironically, it is the average liberal who most often does what Christ taught. Keep in mind that the rest of what is in the Bible is what the Church decided to leave in and interpret for its own purposes–not those of Jesus.

  • Rick Kosinski

    Republican presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, a Catholic, claims his
    policy is in line with church teaching. Well, Mr. Ryan, I was looking
    through my New International Version of the New Testament recently, to
    see If I could find “Atlas Shrugged”,
    which appears to be guiding your own domestic policy agenda. While I
    found no “Book of Rand”, I did come across some fascinating passages.
    James 2: 1-50, for example, forbids favoritism for the wealthy, and
    James 5: 1-6 warns the rich oppressors for hoarding their wealth and
    exploiting their workers. Acts
    2:44-45 and 2 Corinthians 8:8-15 even prescribes sharing
    of wealth for believers so, “There were no needy persons among them”.
    Mr. Ryan, considering your intention to cut programs assisting the least of our
    brethren in favor of preserving tax cuts for those who need them the
    least, I fear that your own theology seems a bit “Randy”.

  • Exactly, dont’ those people know that Jesus loves them and if they don’t believe in him they will be tortured for eternity in hell. Stupid people.

  • Truthspew

    It’s true – my first twelve years of education were in Catholic schools. So we were taught the whole of dogma, doctrine and even read and discussed the Bible.

    The theory of Christ is interesting and the central message of Christianity is love, for one self and for others.

    This whole warrior Jesus thing perplexes me.

    But then I gave up believing in God and Jesus awhile ago so that shouldn’t be a surprise.

  • Stevie P

    Stop saying that God didn’t give people arms. Jesus himself asked for swords.
    Stop saying most of the founders weren’t Christians, it’s just plain inaccurate.

    Stop saying Jesus didn’t say anything about abortion, because He told us not to kill the innocent.

    Quit saying Jesus was a socialist, he wouldn’t have jailed anyone for not giving to the poor.

    Learn your scripture, man. This is just plain false prophecy.

  • Michael Naaktgeboren

    This article lacks commonsense. It reeks of progressive propaganda. Republicans have always supported more traditional Christian values (ending slavery, civil rights – neither of which did Jesus ever mention). The Republican party has typically supported the values of Christian men and women, which is why most Christians align themselves in that group. However, I’ve never met a Christian who gives greater allegiance to the GOP than it does to God Almighty. Even more, to separate Jesus from the rest of the Bible is just ignorant. The wisdom of Proverbs would never encourage spending more money than you have. Paul spoke against homosexuality. God hates the murder of innocent life. Jewish tax law was even across the board and the poor were supported, but they still lived like the poor. The GOP has its issues, but Allen Clifton has drawn a picture that does not exist.

  • NeonVincent

    decades, the GOP has tried to make both “Atlas Shrugged” and “The
    Handmaid’s Tale” into reality. That the two are mutually exclusive
    doesn’t bother them one bit.

  • I hate to bear bad news for anyone, but most Americans are not religious in a strict sense. Many see the problems of having too many children as more difficult to solve than have an abortion if needed. An awful lot of them prefer the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to homosexuality. Most of us simply don’t care what people do as long as they “don’t do it in the street and frighten the horses. ..”…or stop traffic in any way. Over the years I have had many “gay” friends, some of which wanted to come out of the closet. I usually tell them, “I know it may be a problem for you, but for me I would rather that we BOTH keep our personal lives to ourselves.”

  • Well said. Christians need to take back the label from the fundagelical tribe that inspired the theocratic GOP.

  • Josh Brown

    Republicans worship the golden calf of corporate greed and political graft. They are not interested in democracy only it’s subversion. They endorse fanaticism, reject scientific fact, claim the constitution is a theocratic document, are opposed to civil right for those in society they feel were designed and damned by god to remain inferior, subservient or to remain hidden in the shadows of society, cowering in self-loathing and shame. They endorse teaching iron age superstition over age of reason, space age and digital age science. They have been convinced that the programs of the new deal and the great society are evil, by the wealthy and the corporations who decided they didn’t want to pay taxes to support the programs over 57 years ago and have been hacking away at the tax codes and the ideologies of the programs ever since. They are militaristic, hateful, spiteful, ignorant, fanatical and choose totalitarian theocratic politics over egalitarian democratic politics and they support continued corporate control of the government and our politicians. Seems to me like a new model of the same old 1930’s Volkswagen, if you get my meaning. However, these frontal assaults on our civil liberties, our faith and our progressive government programs are just a ruse for the larger crime that both parties have aided and abetted over the past 50 years, steady lowering of top tax bracket rates and the continued legal facilitation of hundreds of billions of dollars a year, since ’67, to be siphoned out of the economy slowing real economic growth, creating artificially inflated stock values and starving the government of trillions of dollars in corporate tax revenue forcing us to deficit spend for the past 44 years, with the exception of the Clinton surpluses. They knocked the bottom out of the ship of state with a giant cannon ball called Reagan’s trickle down economic theory. This guy and his cronies were corporate raiders, plain and simple, using the government like Paul Sorvino used the Chinese food restaurant in “Goodfellas”. It is as we were all sailing in a giant schooner and the captain convinced us that the reason we weren’t traveling very fast wasn’t because the sails weren’t unfurled enough, it was because the ship was the problem and if we just let more water into the boat, we would all be cruising at top speeds. What he failed to tell us was that top speed would be created by the ship sinking to the bottom of the ocean and not cruising on it’s surface. So he dropped giant cannon balls, called 22% top tax bracket tax cut and another called corporate tax revenues 13% of what total individual revenues, right the through the hull and all the idiots cheered as our progressive government and ship of state has been taken on water ever since. Then they actually have the nerve to blame recipients of programs whose spending average 7-19% each of collected revenue before any deficit spending over their whole existence. Well those programs didn’t cause the debt to expand exponentially, 3 times it’s size in the 80’s, almost doubling through the 90’s and triple from 2000 to the present, yeah, welfare, healthcare and social security didn’t do any of that, any of it, at all. The constant cutting of important revenue sources did that. They demonize the meek and the infirm while they helped starve the government of trillions of dollars over the past 30 years so they could live the lifestyles of the rich and famous, cripple the government in debt, subvert our democracy and do it all while distracting us by using these ignorant fanatics to distract us with frontal assaults, designed to fail and waste time, to pull off a giant monetary shift in power, like some bad Oceans 11 sequel. We could call it Reagan’s ’83. They created credit bubbles over and over to create the illusion of growth and prosperity, only to be followed by downturns when the public was insolvent in personal debt. One scam after another with these crooks and the public falls for it every time. Loosen credit restrictions and no one will care that corporations and the top 1% are robbing America blind, just keep them busy defending against our armies of ignorant, fanatical, fundamentalists so the democrats have a villain to fight while they, too, do nothing to impede the destruction of our progressive government. “The table is tilted folks, the game is rigged” It’s never going to get any better until we simply just say no to these idiots and elect those who say the same, not wasting time explaining why to them. Just say wrong and move on. There are larger issues at stake that have nothing to do with the NSA, the religious right agenda and who shot roger rabbit. We have to force our government to fix the hull and stop allowing hundreds of billions a year to get away from us, billions that could repair our roads, fix our bridges, fund our schools, eliminate the deficit and pay down the debt without demonizing the poor and disenfranchised and without cutting a darn thing beside a defense budget that has been at double the norm. for way too long. I believe in fighting against these numbskulls but people have to be more aware of their surroundings while engaged in the good fight. It doesn’t do us any good to defeat invading pirates and ignore the sinking ship. By the time we will have won, we will have sunk to the sea floor. It’s a trick right out of Sun Tzu’s Art of War and leave it to those wall street hacks to use a tactic from that book, just like Gordon Gecko himself; use a confounding frontal assault to draw the opposition from the city and the larger force sacks the city from the rear, brilliant but were on to it. I hope it’s not too late.

  • denise

    Bravo once again Allen Clifton.. I now read everything you post since you make 100 %sense. I am sharing this. I live in Mississippi, need I say more. This message is so true, and people here really need to hear it. Thank you again for being so brilliant.

  • Dream_Time2013

    Maybe Ronald Wilson Reagan really was 666 and has led all these so-called Christians astray even after his death.

  • Geert Rombouts

    maybe you should stop being butthurt about someone jacking your true religion, and derive some morals from goddamn common sense instead of some 1800 year old book written by primitives in ancient times. stop whining about bad people perverting your beliefs. this is what all religions do, they divide between those who are just and those who are not. get some damn selfworth

  • coco flannel

    these people are sadistic sociopaths using a god to front their personal depravity and insatiable addiction to power, money and abuse

  • R Joseph Owles

    since most people seem to be genuinely offended or angry when I tell
    them what Jesus actually said about helping the poor, giving to those in
    need, loving enemies, and not using violence, I can assume that most
    Christians aren’t Christian. So my job is not to worry about how
    Republicans or anyone else may not be Christian, but to make sure that I

  • James

    The Republican 4 Sentences. it is an easy gig. They vette women by making sure they shut up when told to. Running for office then has the cream of the ignorant rise to their top. They have manipulated the masses. 30% of this country has stopped going to church. Parishioners can now realize that preaching Hate is not preaching at all.

  • Suz

    Um…”Judge not lest ye be judged.” I’m just guessing that I could find just as many verses to show that Democrats “aren’t Christians” but, I don’t know the condition of their hearts so, who am I to make such a broad stroke of the brush in such a hateful way (which is NOT loving thy neighbor). So, who are you all to be claiming that if people don’t follow the Democratic platform, they are not followers of Jesus? I totally agree with you that many/most Repubs fall into “Republicanity” but, Dude, I have to call you on your hate speak and your divisive diatribe.

  • I think that it is quite a stretch to say that Ron Paul speaks for the Republican Party. Ron Paul and those who tend to ascribe to his way of thinking are quite honestly not even conservatives. They sound like what I think of as radicals looking to bend American government away from principles that it has stood for since World War Two. But if you are looking for support at a more academic level of the writer’s hypothesis, read Kevin Phillip’s book, ‘American Theocracy.’ He makes and supports this very point…religious dogma has been radicalized into political propoganda.

  • David Farris

    “What they follow is some mix of Ayn Rand economic ideologies”

    Full stop. No they don’t, not even remotely close in fact. While I have problems with Rand’s Objectivism, the simple fact is that both parties represent the people Rand railed against in Atlas Shrugged: Looters & Moochers. Both parties represent the kinds of asinine ‘Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act’ drek that Rand rightly ridiculed.

    You are correct that the Republican party does not represent Christianity. In fact, neither do the Democrats. The closest anyone in the political sphere (and I use that term loosely) comes to representing Christianity are Voluntaryists and to a good degree Libertarians. That is because OUR ‘political belief’ is based on The Golden Rule which we call The Non-Aggression Axiom. All other political parties that I am aware of in the US are simply variations on the same theme: might makes right (ie – The State is legitimate since The State has the legal monopoly on violence in a specific geographic region). One cannot speak of Charity when speaking of The State since it is the polar opposite of Charity.

  • EatShit

    Who gives a shit? Christians of all kinds are STUPID. “Progressivism” is every bit as much of a fact-ignoring faith-based religion as Christianity. I am an atheist and I am a Conservative. So-called “progressives” don’t even believe in God (like me) somehow magically become creationists who believe that “all men are created equal” when it comes to the facts of evolution, you pretend to believe in evolution but you don’t really.

    • Nobody1

      I am a Christian and I am very intelligent. I am sorry you feel that way and have never met me. I don’t ignore facts. My belief is based on personal experiences not based on what a book or someone else told me. I have a rationale for my belief in God and Jesus. I just wish that you would not be so quick to pass judgement on those you do not nkow.

  • Pam Burch Simpson

    “Randian” Teathugs are NOT REAL Republicans. Those “Randians: have
    hi-jacked the party—with funding from the likes of the Koch bros and
    others like them. None among that group; including Paul Ryan are REAL
    Christians. They are NOT! And who am I to say that? I don’t have
    to say anything. Jesus said it ALL! And the messages HE delivered were
    NOTHING like what this bunch is selling! And selling it they are!

  • Robin Berss Ross

    Forget Ronald Reagan, who cares what he did or didn`t do. The point is all of these Republicans & tea partiers that profess to be Holier Than Thou….BULL SHIT. Republicans are the party of ME, what can I get, how much can I have, don`t take anything away from ME to give it to the less fortunate. If the less fortunate need something, let them earn it. Their mantra `No abortions` but I`m not gonna help you raise that kid & lets take away any help that you want ME to help pay for. These people make me PUKE. They say `lower MY taxes` I`m not helping anyone. Christians? most of them don`t act as HUMANS.

  • Eldergothfather

    Then more ‘christians’ need to stand up and make damned sure that these tosspots don’t include them in their rhetoric. It’s up to you to stop and expose them because they are taking you down with them.

  • Jesus may not have directly denounced homosexuality, but the bible does address it, and not in anything that could be considered a tolerant manner to put it mildly. At any rate, this article is basically preaching to the choir on the points it does get correct. Secular society is growing, and faith based beliefs are struggling, except perhaps in impoverished and theocratic societies where Islam is maintaining a strong hold due to its ability to play on the weakness and insecurity of its followers that comes from repression. The days of a religious majority are numbered. As an atheist I strongly disagree with religion in politics in any form really, and would much prefer a complete segregation of credulous beliefs from anything to do with the political process. Barring that though, I’ll take comfort in knowing that eventually religion will lose most of its relevancy, and then the real fun will begin.

  • TheOtherOne

    Jesus never tried to take anything away from anyone that was not freely given (called charity). And Jesus never forced the government to pay for charity. So, how do you justify the liberal way of handling the poor, etc.?

  • Roberto O. Millán Cintrón

    God bless you, for telling the truth!!!

  • Anthony Migchels

    Great! Thanks! Here’s a little quote for the Republican extremists, aka ‘Libertarians’: ‘My religion is just Ayn Rand’s philosophy with ritual and magic added’.
    Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan.

  • Sarah Morrigan

    There used to be Republicans who were real Christians, such as Sen. Mark O. Hatfield.

  • Elucid8

    They are the American Taliban.

  • Paul McNeer

    Well said!

  • Kerri Kezza McIntosh

    I cannot express how wonderful this was as a first read this morning. Thank you.

  • layla501

    Wish we could just treat (and pay) all people fairly, feed the hungry, and love our planet, simply because it’s the right thing to do, and not because of anything “jesus” said.


    Is that any worse than worshipping Obama, control, tyranny the killing of the unborn and ignorance??

  • NativeSonKY

    All I can say is AMEN to this!

  • Sams__Computer

    I call it “Republicanity” and I consider it a cult. It’s a perversion of Christianity mixed with a political set of man-made beliefs. These people view their devotion to the GOP on the same level they do their belief in God. To them, the Republican Party is the party of “real Christians.” They don’t need facts or reality to support their political beliefs, they have “faith.”

    Hi Allen: I call it The Cult of Republicanism – You just consider it a Cult — I KNOW it’s a Cult, from many years of Evidence. At their churches & fellowships I’ve read them scriptures of what they regard as (Jesus Christ’s Pure Blasphemous attacks) on their TRUE “Cult of Insanity.” I use the word Insanity because no sane Christian will reject Jesus’s New Testament Scriptures – They dismiss The Gospel of St. Matthews & Quickly jump to a scripture in the Old Testament that they follow such as “An eye for an eye etc. But for the Cult members who have read the New Testament of Jesus Christ – They must all be in a very dishonest Mode of Deception – To deny the words of Jesus.

    I also found through extended polite conversations with Folks from The Christian Wrong – Their devotion to This Cult of Republicanism Insanity is their TRUE belief. God & Jesus? – Are just tools that are used only for the ultimate goals of Republicanism. Mostly – In their minds they truly believe they’ve been anointed by God to spread the Cult Ideals & Principles

    They name Church’s “Faith Chapel” – “Freedom Church of Christ” Etc. But I don’t give up on them. Many of my good Non-Believing friends are very good folks – But they’ve all been brainwashed. They’ve been very carefully taught from early childhood that Liberals are bad people etc.

  • TimboT

    Truth be told there are many, many ignorant fools on all sides. Your argument is fiction to a large degree. God gave us al the right to “protect ourselves” whether from an animal or a tyrannical government, from a foe foreign or domestic. Therefore this is just one of your lame points “DEBUNKED”. Jesus Christ was against murder but you liberals do not see a baby in the womb as a human being. You are the deceiving manipulators changing the Truth of God for a bald faced lie. If you want more weasel slapping just let me know.

  • John Debar

    YES! Right on target! I’m glad you said it! Currently, I am working on an article pertaining to religion in government. Your post here verifies that I am not the only one who sees this.

  • TimboT


    Republicans don’t get a lot of
    but they really don’t get Christianity ( MOST
    what they follow (ONLY BECAUSE IT IS THE HARDEST

    See, a few decades ago the leaders of
    PAT.) did something very intelligent. History shows one of the easiest ways to
    manipulate, and control, people is through their religion (THE LIBERALS’ LACK OF MORALS CLEARLY MAKES THEM NON-CHRISTIAN
    AND EVIL). You can get people
    to do horrific things in the name of “their god” by convincing them that their
    actions are acceptable because they are the true believers, and those they
    oppose are the “heathens.”

    You see this with radicals of every
    faith. These radical leaders take a
    handful of excerpts from whatever book they follow and manipulate millions into
    believing whatever they want. (QUOTING THE HOLY

    Republicans knew two key issues could
    easily control millions — abortion and homosexuality (BOTH ARE IMMORAL AND SHOULD BE OPPOSED BY ANYONE WHO LOVES RIGHTEOUSNESS). Once they identified their two key
    manipulation points, all they needed to do was tie in whatever political
    ideology they wanted with these two religious-based beliefs and they could
    create a political party that was worshiped more like a faith than a political
    idea. (RELIGION AND
    THE SAME).

    And that’s exactly what they
    did. I always encourage people to stop
    saying Republicans represent Christianity, and call them out on what they
    really worship. (AGAIN, REPUBLICANS LIKE

    I call it “Republicanity” and I
    consider it a cult. (I
    BEEN AND ALWAYS SHALL BE IMMORAL) It’s a perversion of Christianity
    mixed with a political set of man-made beliefs. (IF YOU ASK EVERY INDIVIDUAL TO DESCRIBE GOD THEY WILL ALL
    people view their devotion to the GOP on the same level they do their belief in
    God. To them, the Republican Party is
    don’t need facts or reality to support their political beliefs, they have

    Except, your political beliefs are
    supposed to be based on facts — not faith. (ALMIGHTY GOD CREATED THE WORLD; THEREFORE EVERYTHING IS

    “A CHRISTIAN”, YOU ARE A LIAR) and these people damn sure don’t
    represent my faith (NATURALL
    NOT AS YOUR FAITH HAS BEEN PERVERTED). What they follow is some mix of Ayn Rand
    economic ideologies and a couple of select passages from the Bible.

    Which I always find hilarious
    considering Ayn Rand thought religious people were stupid and insane (HAVING SEEN CHRIST WITH
    who built his economic ideology on her teachings while claiming to be a devout
    “Christian,” just show their ignorance by claiming to believe in both. (BOTH RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT ARE DESIGNED TO GUIDE THE
    POPULOUS) How exactly can someone build an economic platform based
    on a woman who completely contradicted Christianity, while claiming to be a
    follower of Christianity? (PAUL RYAN IS NOT PERFECT

    It makes absolutely no damn sense.

    See, the whole point of being a
    Christian means you follow the teachings of Christ. I’ve actually seen many of these “Christians”
    try and say Jesus would support cuts to welfare and side with the top-down
    economic policies of the Republican Party. (PROBLESM

    As I’ve said before, whether you
    believe in Jesus Christ or not is not the issue, what he symbolized and his
    story aren’t really debatable. He spent
    his life helping the poor, sick and needy.
    He never once spoke about homosexuality or abortion. (HOMOSEXUALITY AND ABORTION WERE NOT NEAR AS PREVALENT IN
    embraced those from the lowest rungs of society by saying that those for whom
    much had been given, much is expected.
    He taught love, hope, compassion and forgiveness.(HE TAUGHT THOSE THINGS IN HOPE THE WORLD WOULD REPENT OF
    NOT DONE) He warned against
    those who would manipulate the word of God for their own selfish ambitions. (AND NOW THE LEFT WING HAS MANIPULATED EVERY FACET OF SOCIETY
    SO WHO IS DAMNED)? He opposed greed and encouraged giving. (HE OPPOSED MURDER [ABORTION] AND LUST [FORNICATION AND

    You know, the exact oppose of what
    Republicans stand for. (YES I.E. GAY ABANDON OF

    But that doesn’t matter to these people
    because they oppose abortion and homosexuality—again, two things Jesus never

    And honestly, can you name one other
    “Christian” value Republicans claim to value?
    Because I hate to break it to them, but guns weren’t invented by
    Jesus. Saying you have a “God-given
    right to bear arms” is just ignorant.
    God didn’t grant anyone the right to bear arms, a bunch of slave owning
    rich white men did in the late-1700′s.
    Many of which weren’t even Christians. (GOD

    • Monkey’s Uncle

      It’s time to seek help

      • TimboT

        Denial is a horrible thing Mr. Monkey

      • Monkey’s Uncle

        No that schizophrenic rant above is a horrible thing!

      • TimboT

        No you are in complete denial unless you have not read the comments made. Anyone with half a brain will have to at least accept the reasoning behind those comments. Of course if you are a liberal you will certainly DENY-DENY-DENY as that is what liberals do best.

      • Monkey’s Uncle

        schizophrenic ranting is what you do best apparently

      • TimboT

        My guess you are about 18 and gay prone.

      • Monkey’s Uncle

        You guessed it!!! Confession time…I’m kinda crushing on you, are you busy later? Schizophrenic ranting really turns me on!!

      • TimboT

        Never too busy for a douche bag like you dear~!

      • Monkey’s Uncle

        Aww, dear…we’re on pet name status *blush*

  • billybob

    Mr. Clifton, I believe you are confused. Christianity teaches self reliance and then being able to taking care of your family and your neighbors. Remember the parable of talents which is self reliance and being able to multiply what you have. It is not the role of government to provide social equality it is an individual duty. Christianity teaches that we should give 10% to the lord. Not 32% if you have more money or 15% if you have less. Why are you blaming republicans for being hippocrates and not liberals as well. Creating a society that rewards people for being lazy is not Christ like. If you want to take care of your fellow neighbors teach them a trade and to rely on themselves. It is not the role of the government to do everything. If you really want to look hard at a party which party wanted to keep slaves the DEMOCRATS (liberals) so which party is christian again.

  • *******

    BULL!!! He actually did speak out against homosexuality! In Romans it says it’s wrong! Also abortion is clearly wrong in the bible! One of the ten commandments is Thou Shalt not kill! Abortion is killing a BABY before it can do anything about it! It’s a hasty generalization to Republicans aren’t Christians! This is a lie!

  • Kelly Cowan

    What is so preposterous about what we mistakenly refer to as the christian right, is it’s alleged foundation in Christianity. This is actually an anti-christ­ian ideology, that should in no way be confused with Christianity. Their policies are clearly unchrist like in letter, and in effect. It is quite simply, the control of a portion of the population by a Machiavellian, anti-chris­tian, political and business machine. That is what the antichrist is – antichrist in the name of Christ. If Christianity still carried the death sentence, as it did pre-Edict of Milan, the pious politician­s and ” religious leaders ” of today would be throwing Christians to the lions. Their overt piety is the practice of a christianity of political expedience­, and business convenience. Their anti-chris­tic behavior is glaringly exemplified by their dissemination of fear and lies for manipulation, and their devious quest for material wealth and the earthly powers they buy with it. If Jesus came back today they would seek to kill him again. The anti-chris­tian right are the modern day money changers in the Temple. We must stop referring to them as Christians and call them what they are, ”anti-chri­stians”.

  • writingferret

    I’m very atheist, and I honestly feel that religion is rather absurd. However, I can only imagine how incredibly great this country would be if either party was truly Christian. I’d say Democrats are definitely the closest of the two, if only by a slim margin.

  • Vicki Brown

    Thanks for this.

  • Sam I-Am

    A few decades ago the leaders of the GOP did something very intelligent. History shows one of the easiest ways to manipulate, and control, people is through their religion. You can get people to do horrific things in the name of “their god” by convincing them that their actions are acceptable because they are the true believers, and those they oppose are the “heathens.”

    Correction: By Sam I-Am – – –

    The GOP did something very Tactical & Deceptive & with Only a short-term effectiveness until now that the truth is known. The Truths are Out – We all know Republicans are mostly, Not INTELLIGENT – Especially because of this blasphemous deed against God, Jesus Christ and The Religious-Wrong Republicans. Those idiots who set up The Religious-Right are brutal atheistic heathens who’ve made Punks out of Jesus Christ & The God of most conservatives.

    These facts need to be driven home in America & World-Wide to reach each and every person on Earth – To deliver & expose the whole truth about these stupidly deceptive tactics of Republicans.

  • gradkiss

    An occult is a better word for a politician, as their resulting actions cut their listeners or viewers off from reality, by interposing something erronious to the true nature of what their viewers or listeners should actually at that very moment, be concerned with…Proficiency and management is questionable.The public will find they never needed a poilitician to hold their hands to begin with.It’s cheaper not to.

    In the uS, everyone is in a delusion where the laws of physics resulting from being in the follow of a coin’s managemnent, has adverse psychosomatic effects on everyone…resulting in crime, disease, personal loss of liberty, discrimination, etc.

    Humans are indebted to an indebted government as indentured servants to the government that balances a monetary budget by imposing tax…This procedure disparges women and children from being recognized without their indenity in the form of a coin present…or a grown man with his.

    • Nobody1

      Politicians is a liars occupation. The truth is no one will elect someone who will fully stand on the side of truth. People don’t want to hear truth. Every year people rush to vote for people who will eliminate taxes. If we are truthful we need taxes. Taxes help pay for our schools, hospitals, streets, parks, (so on and therefore). You can’t have it both ways either you want those things or you don’t want to pay taxes.

      People can’t hack the truth. For the most part people are only out for themselves because they feel they have earned it. There is a huge problem with excess in this country. You will not believe how much food gets thrown out by the U.S. Government but they won’t send it to the poor in our own country.

      Politicians know the truth will not get you elected. Everyone knows this. If that was the case we wouldn’t be arguing about parties. We wouldn’t even have parties would so called agendas. We would have individuals simply lobbying for what is right. People would vote on that alone.

      People vote parties and classes and color. There is no wonder that politician are they way they are. They are exactly what we want them to be. In public they try to be all things to all people but you simply can’t be all things to all people. Its impossible.

  • Chris Korb

    I am one of those liberal Christians who has left the church, I am 63 yrs old and I grieve for the church that is today. I love my God and my savior and would like to worship somewhere where the true precepts of Jesus’ word is taught. The rising up of the “Fundamentalist movement” was the beginning of the end for the Christian church in this country as that is when the church moved into politics. You are right Allen, I WANT MY CHURCH BACK!!!!

    • Nobody1

      You are the church. The structure is just a building. God does not dwell in buildings. Any where you go and meet with two or three that are of like mind and spirit that is the church.

  • Diane G.

    I don’t hate President Obama, I believe a woman has a right to choose what she does with her own body, I don’t own nor do I want to own a gun and I don’t hate homosexuals. These days this is all you have to do to call yourself a Christian. Forget about helping the poor, the sick or the needy! This is when I came to the realization that after 40+ years I could no longer embrace the Christian faith. I now practice Buddhism, which is based on tolerance and compassion. Things Republicans, and most Christians, know nothing about.

  • colie

    THE BIBLE :If I understand IT CORRECTLY it says Thou shall not Murder ….It says nothing about “killing” in the ten commandments …There’s a big difference… “Murder” is of innocent blood …Where as killing it implies guilt… Lord knows there was a lot of killing in the Bible….It also says that in the last days they will invent ways to do evil .And so we have it ….Abortion is an act of murder on the unborn …According to the Scriptures….

    • Nobody1

      The bible actually says thou shalt not kill. There are so many translations. I am sure in one of the translations it say thou shalt not murder. What it boils down to is this. One should not take a life. The argument of semantics is really a bad point of reasoning for anyone’s side. One can twist a point to fit any stance. The bible also says that we are to esteem others better than ourselves. The bible also says that we are to forgive our brothers as many times as necessary thus the “70×7.” The bible also says the power of life and death are in the tongue. There is so much more. We can not pick and select. When you view everything in its entire context what does it say? This is how it must be looked at.

      • colie

        Indeed, “kill” in English is an all-encompassing verb that covers the taking of life in all forms and for all classes of victims. That kind of generalization is expressed in Hebrew through the verb “harag.” However, the verb that appears in the Torah’s prohibition is a completely different one, ” ratsah” which, it would seem, should be rendered “murder.” This root refers only to criminal acts of killing.

      • colie

        70 x 7, 7s No one is picking and selecting here by any means …

  • Daniel

    I love an article loaded with interesting historical facts, well researched statistics and primary source quotations. Too bad this article doesn’t have any of those.

  • DocBSchueler

    Do any of you really think Mike is going to change his mind about anything? He has it all figured out and nothing is going to change his mind except being reincarnated as a poor woman and having to bear 25 gay kids during years of famine, pestilence, war, and drought. He has no empathy for others and the terrible decisions they sometimes are forced to make.

  • Aldous

    The only part of your article I disagree with is the notion that Republicans simply seized an opportunity when adopting anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage causes. This is far too generous a proposal. The Republican party, ever since the “switch” in party affiliation after the Civil War, has been purposely and intentionally focused on two things — race and religion. With the advent of the civil rights movement and the women’s equality movement, Republicans have expanded their umbrella of oppression to include any social evolution that threatens white male privilege.

    Abortion and homosexuality both fall squarely in Republican/conservative crosshairs because of their insatiable desire to control and maintain sexual power and privilege. Abortion and homosexuality represent the autonomy of individuals to assert their own sovereign interests before that of the previously privileged notion of patriarchy. A pill that prevents implantation of an egg can hardly be called murder, yet that is the argument anti-abortionists use when reaching for a viable excuse to oppose birth control or the “morning after pill.” It is so transparently their true goal to control the sex lives of women, instead.

    It is the same with homosexuality. Why would someone else’s sexual orientation bother anyone, in the first place? Because “straight” males who subscribe to religiously-sanctioned notions of gender superiority might find themselves, if homosexuality is acceptable, to be the object of another male’s sexual attention. When sexuality can be expressed by anyone other than THEMSELVES, they find this threatening. It undermines what they consider to be their God-given superiority in the world. Sex is not viewed as an equal give-and-take sort of relationship; it is viewed as a mechanism by which to subjugate the other half of humanity.

    Republicans and conservatives have ALWAYS known this, and ALWAYS worked to perpetuate it. That is true here, in America, but also true in the middle east where precisely the same motives are behind the evolution of radical Islam/Al Queda and the Taliban.

  • GSWSyndicate

    Good article. Have been calling it a cult for years. And I live in the heart of it….but then again I know cult…I used to live in S. Calif. And the cults out there are rather mild compared to the GOP. But I give them a bit of a break. It could happen to any party and/or religion and often does. I lived in the deep south when the Dixiecrats hijacked the Democratic Party. It took a long time to convince the majority of them that it had become racist. MLK being a Republican might have been a subtle hint. JFK/LBJ took some big time chances by purging the party and making it valid again. The GOP has no LBJs or JFKs and I do believe they will go by the way of other cult-parties. Oh and as for abortion I have two things to say because I am “pro life” so I always vote pro choice. You see every country or region that outlaws abortion increases it by millions (See Central America except for Uraguay and many parts of Africa)….the way to less (much less abortion) is easy access to contraception, education, and family planning. The only thing the bible says about abortion is not about abortion, its about life. It’s in Genesis. It says life begins at the first breath. Sorry Christian wannabees. You wouldn’t have it right, even if you had it right. Go bye bye and come back when you grow up, IF you grow up. Sincerely, Mark T.

  • OldWorldSwine

    Let me guess… Democrats are the “real” Christians? Right.

    Well, the unborn don;t vote, I guess.

  • John Rolls

    If you are calling me non Christian? I’m a conservative- Mr. Clifton, you don’t know me and im really quite offended that you feel that way about me . Get to know me then accuse me of your BS if you find it true. How many of the millions of professed Christians do you know personally?I call your article political bull crap!

  • TropicDave173

    Sounds like there needs to be an “Occupy Christianity” movement “to take the religion back”…
    It’s not news that the leaders of the GOP engage continuously in holding ideas that contradict each other. The term is ‘cognitive dissonance’.

  • Caldron Buckner

    Republicans are capitalists. Capitalists worship money. That’s not Christian, it’s avarice. They’re not Christians at all, they’re Avaricians.

  • Ya think? I’ve been calling out the GOP on this since 1993; why has it taken so many of you this long to call them out? Better late than never, I guess. Spread the word.

  • Mummy

    Wow! Enough said! This article is exactly right!

  • Mary Hughey

    wow talk about propaganda. This is such a hate filled article. There are Christians in both political parties. Anybody can claim to be a Christian. A Christian means following of Christ. So that’s the litmus test. Jesus said alot of things. Anyone interested to know what Jesus said should read the entire bible and not just quote a few scriptures to manipulate the masses. In this article the author rants on about Republicans manipulating people when that’s EXACTLY whats happening in his article. Unreal. You can tell a tree by it’s fruit. Jesus was definitely not for “murder”. God is the making of life. Life begins at conception. In most cases abortion is nothing more than murdering a child that has not fully developed. I have spoken and read alot of material about women once they went through an abortion. It’s an awful ordeal. Most women are very sorry they ever had one. They suffer with guilt, shame not to mention always wondering what that child would have been like. The Lord offers forgiveness and healing. He is a Good and Loving God and Father. Trying to manipulate people into thinking abortion is OK because God is loving is such a twist of truth it’s satanic. God is the Giver of life and will help anybody who reaches out to Him for help. The problem lies with man not God.

    • tigerlily78

      In nature dozens of mammals can reabsorb developing embryos into their own bodies if environmental factors are unfavorable to the success of the offspring at that time. How do you think that factors into God’s plan and the unfaltering assertion that every life that is conceived is precious and MUST be born?

      Thank goodness Christians think men are totally different and unrelated and exponentially more valuable and blessed than animals…. otherwise you might have to contend with the realities of the natural world, where mothers are biologically blessed with the ability to CHOOSE when conditions are right for having offspring, and when they are not.

  • Elmer Gantry

    Neither the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) or the New Testament books of the Christian Bible explicitly prohibited abortion.

    The Hebrew terms ruach (literally “wind”), and neshama (literally “breath”) are used to describe the soul or spirit.

    Jewish law holds that human life begins at birth, based on Genesis 2:7:
    “And the Lord God made man from the dust of the earth, breathing into him the breath of life: and man became a living soul.”

    The rabbinical interpretation is (most often) that human zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses do not have souls.

    God never explicitly prohibited abortion.

    Moses was born a Jew.

    The six hundred and thirteen laws (commandments) found in the Old Testament that were revealed or attributed to Moses never explicitly prohibited abortion.

    Moses never explicitly prohibited abortion.

    Jesus was born a Jew.

    Jesus never explicitly prohibited abortion.

    Mary, mother of Jesus, was born a Jew.

    Mary, mother of Jesus, never explicitly prohibited abortion.

    The Twelve Disciples were born as Jews.

    The Twelve Disciples never explicitly prohibited abortion.

    Saul of Tarsus (the Apostle Paul) never explicitly prohibited abortion.

    Pope Innocent III (1161-1216) decreed that a monk who had arranged for his lover to have an abortion was not guilty of murder if the fetus was not “animated” at the time and that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of “quickening” – when the woman first feels movement of the fetus.

    The image of Pope Innocent III was immortalized during 1950 as a one of 23 marble bas-reliefs of great historical lawmakers installed on the chamber walls of the U.S. House of Representatives.

    The explicit prohibition of abortion is not biblical, but rather, papal in origin.

  • Tony

    Democrats are the ones that bring up abortions and homosexuality to grind the teeth of Christians/Republicans!

    • secondlook

      Do you live on another planet? lol

    • tigerlily78

      Sure, that’s why in states with Republican majorities in both state houses and control of the Governorship they are working overtime on passing laws to shut down abortion clinics in their state, often using laws of questionable fairness and constitutionality…. it’s because Democrats keep talking about abortion, hmm?

      That totally makes sense. (not)

  • jimcdg

    Jesus would not be in favor of welfare — his teaching were, “if a man did not work, he would not eat” … he advised those with fields of wheat/grapes to set aside a portion to allow those in need to help themselves, “to work” to obtain their need … Jesus would not support our welfare system as it “takes” from one to give to another … that is stealing, which is in opposition to the commandment “Thou shall not steal.” Jesus also was love and life (specifically, eternal life), he would not support abortion … abortion is pure and simple, murder and that is in direction opposition to the commandment, Thou shall not kill. You did have one true statement in your article – beware of those who manipulate The Word.

    • secondlook

      Jesus spoke about the poor over 2000 times. It was his biggest message. Jesus would likely explain to you that in a time of a jobs shortage it’s not Christian to try to suggest everybody hungry is that way because they are lazy. We know he sure never ever spoke in this manner. He might also explain that the almost half of the food stamps that are children and the elderly? Well, he’s not for child sweat shop labor or killing off the elderly because they cost us too much. He’s likely to suggest we respect them and help the child whose father fails to help feed them. In the end he’d likely go back over how all sins are created equal and a whole bunch of you seem to forget this. Beware of those who manipulate THE WORD alright.

    • drklassen

      You are misreading that. First, that was Paul, not Jesus. Second, he was talking to those who would go out an preach. The idea was that those who spread the word would move from place to place and rely on the goodness of the community wherever they were in order to be fed. He was telling *them* that they shouldn’t just presume to be helped but must work.

      Jesus *took* fish and bread from a *kid* in order to redistribute it. The early Church forbade its members from owning and holding back money from the group; they held all property in common and communally decided how to distribute it.

      Abortion is not murder. Abortions happened at that time and NOBODY even thought anything about it to even ask him about it.

      But, yes, those who manipulate the Word should beware…

  • Shalom

    Hey all, non-Christian here. I have a copy of the King James edition of the Holy Bible on my bookshelf. My Catholic aunt gave it to me, on my request, several years back. I requested it because I find some things people back with Christianity and the Bible as their sole justifications so bizarre (from my point of view as someone who was never taught bigotry–in fact, taught much the opposite) that I decided to read the book for myself and see if I could better understand them and their viewpoints. I quickly came to realize that most self-proclaimed Christians have never actually read the Bible–they go to church and take the preacher’s word for it. THIS is a problem, folks. Because they don’t know their own scriptures, it’s too easy to hoodwink the Christian majority because so few of them actually know what a “good Christian” is…most really seem to know nothing about Christ at all. Love thy neighbor as thyself? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone? Do unto others as you will have them do unto you? Feed the poor and heal the sick?

    Am I, a proud non-Christian, the only one who was actually listening?

    • tigerlily78

      I feel much the same, except I was raised Catholic. I know consider myself an optimistic agnostic (I honestly don’t know if there is a God. BUT if there is a God, I suspect he’s not the asshole and hypocrite that organized religions worldwide make him out to be. I imagine he’s probably more like a scientist who started a complex experiment and now sits back and observes the outcomes without the same flawed judgments humanity often ascribes to our existence on his behalf).

      I can still remember sitting in Sunday School at the age of 7 wondering why I seemed to be the only person in my whole church who thought the story of the burning bush seemed like total nonsense. I spent another 15 years going to church with my parents and making myself a pretty decent *student* of the religion and the bible, though the prolonged exposure didn’t ever strengthen my faith. If anything it made me all the more aware that the people preaching the loudest and most zealously, were often the people doing the least to actually live by the core of Christian Philosophy.

      I guess I am a pragmatist to some extent… I can’t help but wonder, isn’t it “better” not to sin against others in the first place, than have to ask the forgiveness of a God who may or may not exist? 😛

      But never mind me, I’m just a (relatively) Godless Heathen.

  • margieR

    The current crop of Republican extremists would put Jesus on the cross and wait for him to die , as well as torturing his family right in front of him as he died.

  • ricklee228

    You know some time ago the separation of Church and State was put into place and I believe truly, albeit covertly, the Church agreed simply because they were tired of watching their beliefs and practices being bastardized by the republicans. The Republican party thinks they are “smarter” than the average American and we are all but a bunch of idiots and will go along with anything they say is morally or religiously the correct thing to do. Jesus never had to deal with this political crap and for anybody, Republican or Democrat, to say Jesus would agree with this is the sign of a very mentally challenged, mentally disturbed individual and/or group. If you do not have fact and data to back your claim then please just shut up because you are now talking nonsense!

  • Laura26

    It is hard to stand up to the sanctity of the almighty Right. We honestly do not know what Jesus thought of many subjects, there were no tape recorders. The Nixon tapes have shown a whole other side of Billy Graham. The words of Jesus were in story form for over 400 years before being written. I do not know how we can argue abortion, guns and homosexuality from Jesus’ point from words in the bible. I believe all religions are based on faith and trying to run the world today in 2013 on faith rather than knowledge is the reason for all of the chaos and wars. How can God support one side, he loves all of his children. The fathers of our nation knew what needed to be done, separate religion and state.

  • secondlook

    My base belief is Jesus stayed out of politics for a darn good reason, and some “Christian’s” should ponder this big time.

  • tygr500

    They must learn how to read their Bible and not just thump their Bible, Jesus would not be good enough for the Evangelicals of today. I just heard a tape of a conversation between Nixon and Billy Graham where Graham states he wanted to “Slash the Throats” of the commentators on CBS who were commenting on his upcoming impeachment. This is anti all the scriptures represent , how can they claim to Love God whom they have not seen and hate their brother whom they see everyday.

  • Richard A. Tucker

    Well, the article was nice, anyway. Most of the responses are as impassioned and divided as ever. Better luck next time.

  • Clark Woods

    I’ve said this for many many years..and it all started with Anita Bryant who was used big time by those people !

  • Stewart Shayah Sallo

    “He spent his life helping the poor, sick and needy. He never once spoke about homosexuality or abortion. He embraced those from the lowest rungs of society by saying that those for whom much had been given, much is expected. He taught love, hope, compassion and forgiveness. He warned against those who would manipulate the word of God for their own selfish ambitions. He opposed greed and encouraged giving.”

    Except “He” is a myth that never existed. Despite the existence of plenty of journalists at the time that “He” supposedly lived, there is not one written account of someone who was born of a virgin (!), healed the sick (!), performed great miracles (!), and came back to life after death (!). So, while I agree that Republicans are not “Christians,” neither are those – such as the author of this piece – who perpetuate as fact a myth that has caused more human suffering than any other institution in human history.

  • Michael Hill

    Christianity = American Taliban.

    • drklassen

      If you make that Fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity, I’ll agree with you.

  • louis

    whats the most hilarious to me is the Reagan part. people seem to forget that Reagan was an actor/spokesman. he knew nothing about politics or running a government. however, he made the ideal perfect puppet. he was easily bought and paid for just as he was as an actor selling products. Alot of his ideals and practices were really those in control (corporate sponsors). Reagan was a total buffoon. An idiot without an intelligent thought of his own. besides Nixon, Reagan has to be one of the worst presidents ever, right under Nixon and G.Bush. I hate republicans and all they stand for. In my humble opinion (OK maybe humble was a bad choice) they are enemies of the state and traitors to our constitution. If only the white bred hillbilly hicks would actually get an education instead of looking for religion and racism in their candidates of choice. I always thought it was ridiculous that we concern ourselves with what religion our president follows or how often he attends church. Whatever happened to separation of church and state? These people should be shot and tried for crimes against humanity. to me they are no different than those idiots at the West Boro Baptist shit hole. I mean many of them have the exact same beliefs as the WBBC but are too cowardly to say so.

    • louis

      don’t get me started on Nancy fucking Reagan with her just say no bullshit. thank god they are dead! (well not god, cuz i dont believe in magical space creatures, but you get what I am saying). on a side note….why must I give my email in order to place a comment? what purpose does that have? heres alittle secret, I never give my real email, I dont know what your doing with my info so you cant have it!

  • gailillly

    Ryan is full of shit. He doesn’t follow his religion. God made all of us including the gays, and Jesus loves all of including the gays. Jesus also believed in giving to the poor, feed the hungry, shelter for the cold and take care of the children. Ryan wants to take away everyone’s food stamps that they depend on, food right our of a babies mouth and the poor elderly that do not have enough to eat, he wants to take food out of their mouth. He is so far from being a Christian it is sickening.

  • monkeytoes

    for those of you talking about Hitler and Christianity: Jehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, describes the real “god” of Hitler and the Nazis in his article, “The Trauma of the Holocaust: Some Historical Perspectives,” by saying: “”They wanted to go back to a pagan world, beautiful, naturalistic, where natural hierarchies based on the supremacy of the strong would be established, because strong equaled good, powerful equaled civilized. The world did have a kind of God, the merciless God of nature, the brutal God of races, the oppressive God of hierarchies.” In other words, definitely non-Christian.

  • Carson Ferreira

    No true Scotsman. Sloppy sloppy.

  • KishinD

    Nah, let’em have it. The world doesn’t need more faith, it needs more love, compassion, reason, and purpose.

    Yeah, Christian moderates are good people… but it’s rarely because of their faith. The recorded words of Jesus say some great things, but there’s no need to see him as a demigod or savior in order to receive that wisdom.

    • drklassen

      There *are* Christian liberals. In fact, when I returned to Church and really listened to the Word, it made me even more liberal.

      • KishinD

        Amazing! A vague and frequently self-contradictory Holy Book reinforcing already-held beliefs? I’ve never heard of such a thing!

        No, no wait. Thaaat’s pretty much all I hear about’em. I don’t mean to offend, but you’ve pointed out exactly why the world doesn’t need more faith. It increases certainty in one’s preconceptions without actually adding any meaningful information.

        If your preconceptions are good and honorable, you can surely become even more entrenched in goodness. And if they’re not… well, look at the people who feast on Pat Robertson’s pestilent bile.

        Disconnecting evidence and certainty is a big mistake, but often repeated. It impairs one’s ability to see reality as it is – perfect perception is of course impossible, but rejecting evidence because it doesn’t click with your worldview and accepting lies because they do… it forces you away from reality, by degrees, until you’ve lost nearly all contact with it. ::cough Teabaggers cough::

        Of course, if people were really that good at maintaining a solid connection between evidence and certainty, there would very few churches.

  • Tillmann Puschka

    no!! you mean to tell methey’re not christians after all????? here i am, thinking these people are the holiest among the holiest all this time, and now i found out that they are not christians by any stretch of the imagination….whoever woulda thunk THAT????

    • Gregg Michael

      Christians are not holy in themselves and never will be. They are declared holy by God apart from themselves and are only holy because Christ was holy. Without faith in Christ, no one gets to heaven. God gives heaven purely as a gift to those who do not work for it, but trust in the righteousness of Christ alone. A Christian’s works are to be a loving response and thank you to God for saving us, but those works earn absolutely no forgiveness or righteousness from God. God calls the works that anyone does for him as fruits of faith. They give evidence of one’s love and faith in Jesus, but they don’t merit anything from God. Heaven is a total free gift of God that is undeserved and is offered to all on the basis of Christ’s righteousness, not ours. God calls our self righteousness filthy rags and all they merit is eternal damnation. So the only way to avoid damnation is to trust in Christ’s righteousness, not your own. The Christian Church is not a museum of saints, but a hospital for sinners. Jesus invites all to receive the free gift of salvation, which he earned , not us, and as a loving response to what he graciously has done for us, he calls us to live a life of repentance and to daily confess our sins and with his help live a more godly life. He doesn’t call us to defend our sins or compare ourselves to other people. But if we compare ourselves to him and his holiness, we will desperately see just how much we really need Christ as our Savior. Because without his righteousness covering our unrighteousness, we are damned.

  • Cole

    Do we exclude books like ((( Romans 1))) where it makes it very clear what the((( LAST DAYS)))) would look like.(((Paul))) was a representative of CHRIST….He said , not only would there be a rise in Homosexuality but it included some stark words from the Lord… being haters of God… un-repented… lovers of themselves rather then lovers of God having a (((form of Godliness)))) but denying the power…They would create ways of doing evil and applaud each other for doing so… and so on ….Unless you have read the whole book ( New Testament)))) Please do not lead people astray …The Bible never mixes words…. making it plan for all …Are all repub. Christian Prob. not….. The church is not here to judge those out side the church only to judge those inside the church ….Does God love Homosexual ? Absolutely….:) Jesus came that we all could have life in him …. Whether Homosexuality ,sex outside of marriage , liars , thief’s, greediness coveting… it is all part of fallen nature behaviour and God has called you to a greater life in him letting go of old behaviours and adopting new ones …As far as taking away food from the poor…. Well, the word says a man doesn’t work he doesn’t eat .That being said .In the world we live in NOW… where there has been a corporate take over / Human greed …. I think God know the intention of the heart much better then Christians …If he or she is doing all he can to look after his family then by all means taking care of his or her other needs….We are to live at peace …We are told to warn a person of the error of his way teach the word of God ..and if a man refuses to listen the to shake the dust from your feet and MOVE ON…..Christians in my opinion have tried to hold on to a worldly system which will fail ,,Many will wonder from the faith and believe deceiving spirits & teachings taught by Demons ….

    • Gregg Michael

      I agree that many Christian churches are just following the ways of the world and even though Jesus calls sin a sin, the church has become very discriminatory and will accept some sins, but not others. Jesus never accepted sin. He called the sinners to repentance and we must do likewise. That’s the most loving thing anyone can do is warn people of sin. The entire Bible can be divided between law and gospel. The law can’t save us because nobody can keep it perfectly. But that’s what made the coming of Jesus necessary and why his perfect life and innocent death is so vital for every person. Because the fact of the matter is without his righteous covering our unrighteousness and his death atoning our our sins, there is no one getting to heaven. God gives us heaven on the basis of Christ’s life and death and without faith in him, there is nothing in ourselves to warrant God’s approval of us. We only have God’s approval through our faith in Christ alone. This is why Jesus condemned the Pharisees and teachers of the law. Morally, they were better than anyone else, but because they didn’t see their own sins and didn’t see a need to have this Jesus as their Savior, they threw heaven away because they trusted in themselves for rightteousness rather than Christ. Jesus tried to get them to see that they were sinners, too, and without him as their Savior, they were lost.

  • strathound

    I just want to thank the author for posting this article. It’s something I’ve been saying for years now. And it’s one of the main reasons that I left the Republican party and became a proud Texas Democrat. I was raised by my parents to be a “Man for Others”. And as a Republican, I childishly felt that we were doing good things for people through conservative principles. But it became clear to me over time that Republicans only care about money, maintaining the current standard of living, and protecting themselves and their family from people who are different than themselves. And the more they flaunted their faith and spread their filthy and hateful ideologies, the more repulsed I became. And finally it became clear. Progressives care about a lot of things. Key amongst these is helping others. They come from many faiths. Some are devout atheists. But as a whole, they care more about helping the less fortunate than conservatives. Sure, conservatives will quote studies that show they give more in donations than democrats. But all you have to do is go to one of their churches to see where that money goes. They give to themselves. And their hatred of the poor comes out every time you talk to them about politics. I agree. They are not Christians, not in the sense that I was taught in Sunday school. Every single person who supports the Tea Party should be ashamed of themselves. Every one of them is selfish, cold hearted and not worth a dime in my book. It’s becoming clearer and clearer that there are two kinds of people in this world … those with the gene for empathy and compassion … and Republicans. I’m proud to say I no longer have to live with the shame of being one of the selfish, uncaring, unfeeling conservatives anymore.

    • Gregg Michael

      The money in our church goes to pay the people who work full time as a pastor or teacher and, it goes for evangelism and Christian education expences and for basic things like heat and lights etc, and it also goes for outreach because Jesus wants his gospel preached to all the world. Nobody can expect anyone to work for nothing and they need to be paid a liveable salary just like anyone else since they are devoting their full time to this work. Our pastor has 8 years of post high school education, the same as a medical doctor, and yet he doesn’t get anywhere near what a doctor gets. In fact most middle class workers receive a lot more in salary than he does. With the amount of education that is required for our pastors, they don’t get compensated enough and work for a lot less than other occupations, which require even less education. It’s terrible, but if you want to earn a lot of money, clergy are not paid very well. It’s a simple fact of life.

  • Stealth Avenue

    You basically just asserted the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. While I agree with you that they aren’t GOOD Christians, you can’t really claim they aren’t “real” Christians. That’s not for you to decide.

    • jchastn

      I think that the more accurate point would be ” Christianity does not belong to the Republican Party”. The concepts of the Democratic Party seem to follow the teachings of Christ more closely.

      • Gregg Michael

        The Democrats views on homosexuality and abortion don’t follow the teachings of Jesus at all because Jesus condemns all sex (both gay and str8) that is not in the bond of marriage between one man and one woman. He calls all sex outside of the bond of marriage as immorality. Jesus never approved of sexual relations between anyone that is not in the bonds of marriage, which God established.

  • jude arsenault

    the early christians were also vegan or at least vegetarian but not many christians today are.they have been meat eaters since christianity was mixed with paganism and became the religion of the roman empire

  • RosemaryPeppercorn

    I love you Allen Clifton. You keep reading my brain and then writing what’s there.

  • Guest

    Mr. Clifton, Actually there is a passage that Jesus said in Matthew 19:12 “For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. To him who can comprehend, that is enough.”

    The born eunuchs in the above verse from Matthew are referring to homosexual men. The second part of the verse says: “and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men;” These would be the man-made or castrated eunuchs. Also, the eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men were those appointed by the king to be servants in the king’s palace. Some of these were prisoners of war, captives, and exiles (Isaiah 39:7). The third part of this verse should be read as: “and there are believers who made themselves celibates for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”

    Throughout the ancient nations that included Egypt, Babylon, Assyria and Persia; homosexuals were exalted to such positions as eunuchs that watched the women of the harem. Because of the mistrust of men, heterosexual or bi-sexual men were castrated; but homosexual men didn’t need to be. Eunuchs also had a recognized place in homosexual prostitution, and youths chosen as catamitic favorites were sometimes castrated. Homosexuality was long confused with eunuchry. Like effeminacy and hermaphroditism, eunuchry was sometimes thought of as creating a woman-man. The following verses will show that the Bible defines the trusted ones (or eunuchs) as homosexual men.

    So is the Bible against homosexuality? I think not.

  • CFarmer

    Mr. Clifton, actually there is a passage that Jesus said in Matthew 19:12 “For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. To him who can comprehend, that is enough.”

    The born eunuchs in the above verse from Matthew are referring to homosexual men. The second part of the verse says: “and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men;” These would be the man-made or castrated eunuchs. Also, the eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men were those appointed by the king to be servants in the king’s palace. Some of these were prisoners of war, captives, and exiles (Isaiah 39:7). The third part of this verse should be read as: “and there are believers who made themselves celibates for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”

    Throughout the ancient nations that included Egypt, Babylon, Assyria and Persia; homosexuals were exalted to such positions as eunuchs that watched the women of the harem. Because of the mistrust of men, heterosexual or bi-sexual men were castrated; but homosexual men didn’t need to be. Eunuchs also had a recognized place in homosexual prostitution, and youths chosen as catamitic favorites were sometimes castrated. Homosexuality was long confused with eunuchry. Like effeminacy and hermaphroditism, eunuchry was sometimes thought of as creating a woman-man. The following verses will show that the Bible defines the trusted ones (or eunuchs) as homosexual men.

    So is the Bible against homosexuality? I think not.

  • Charles Horrell

    Wel all I can say is greed was one thing Allen and Jesus talked about. It was Adam and Eve not Adam & steve maybe it was allen and steve. You are like so many that bash believers in christ peacefull way of life. I know that no one man or woman should have so much more the the next because they become pompous and proud Jesus did say that in the book of Matthew and Mark. My stand is whomever comes to my door to imprison myself or my family for believing in good values or put a mark on me in order to eat or buy things, they will meet the 2,800 feet per second bullet. Because we would rather die than serve in bondage in the name of this generations greed.

    • Mo Reno

      Another Christian with reading comprehension problems. Tell me, have you ever just sat down and read the whole bible? It’s full of violence, revenge, and murder. Get over it. The bible is full of evil.

  • ScudAg56

    I didn’t realize that when Jesus talked about charity and helping the sick, he meant it was the Federal Government (Roman Empire) responsibility.

  • angelady

    wonderful knowing you by your writings. without a flowery speech, you still create a grand garden of fresh thought and truth as it should be recognized. thank you for another great article.

  • Tom

    Allen Clifton and the so-called progressives totally miss the point. First, Christianity is about love, but it is not about making someone else “love” his neighbor, or about government “loving” their neighbor, but about you loving your neighbor. Christianity isn’t a Robin Hood tactic, where one robs from the rich to give to the poor. No, it is about everyone, rich and poor, loving each other, and doing for others as they would have others do for them. Forced love isn’t love at all. Second, the idea of taking from someone, what they have earned, and then giving it as you choose, is not Christian at all. It’s what evil regimes do to gain power and control. I am not rich, but I have given nearly one million dollars to charity over my lifetime, not counting the taxes I have paid, but I give as I choose, because it is my money (or God’s money that He has entrusted me with). Third, government is a horribly inefficient distributer of wealth. If I give one dollar to a hungry person, they get a dollar, but when government takes one dollar to give to welfare recipients, just a little over a dime gets to the needy person, assuming that fraud isn’t involved. Fourth, Jesus did speak about abortion, as He not only confirmed the Law, but He spoke about murder, stating that one has murder in their heart if they even hate another, and what is more hateful than to tear apart an innocent, defenseless, unborn child in the womb. Allen Clifton has defined Christianity in his image, but he has totally misrepresented the Christianity of Jesus Christ.

    • jchastn

      Not paying a living wage is stealing from the poor working class and giving to already over compensated executives. This is about “robin hood” concepts but you have them exactly backwards. The hard work is done and not properly compensated. The greedy robber barons justify their sinful greedy ways with comments like yours.

  • Your1Friend

    This is an excellent piece.

    Abortion and homosexuality have long been used, abused, and exploited by the Republican Party and by many “conservative” Christian denominations.

    These moralizing (or “moralized”) red herrings require little or no ethical commitment, financial commitment, labor, or sacrifice on the part of those cynically professing moral high ground.

    By deftly exploiting these issues, the Republican Party and the Christian Right have almost completely avoided the truly relevant problems of our day — while basking in the appearance of morality, piety, and patriotism.

    These issues are little more than bad theatre for the gullible.

  • David Hall

    Maybe people don’t follow Christianity, because it’s a false religion (like all other religions.) None of it’s claims are true. Why should we be surprised that Republicans are using it for political benefit, when that is why a religion was invented in the first place?

    • giankeys luvs shemale porn

      u mean noah and his band of gypsies aint true? the guy who lived in the huge fish for several days aint true???
      I like: “10 commandments” says using ‘gods’ name in vain is a MORTAL(!!!) sin,,,,,,,,,,,,,but NOWHERE does it mention raping a woman as anything? ” war on women “; verse 1

  • Mudflap

    As close to Catholic Mr. Ryan get his his 30 pieces of silver he took over his religious teachings….

  • Wilton Ledkins

    Behold, the Pontiff has spoken. “Ye Republicans/Heathens are heretics because ye believe not like me. Me, myself, and I,

    we all agree. Hang them !! Crucify them, because they hath blasphemed my hallowed opinion. Let them eat glass. As for

    me and my loving minions, we shall rule and reign in a kingdom blind correctness, tepid and false orthodoxy, the politics of

    division.” Hell has become heaven here.

  • Ellen Ireland

    Hijacked a faith? Christianity has been used to spill blood and take possession of people and property since day one of its existence as the official religion of the Roman Empire. From Constantine to Pope Benedict XVI, Christians have always used their religion to gain power, money, and the support of the ignorant, uneducated masses. Republicans are simply part of this long and grand tradition.

  • G-Loe

    Republicans are doing everything they can to keep us scared, fat, under paid, and stupid, so that they can tell us what to do, and they can go to the bank!!!

  • Green_Devil

    Their only principle is a hatred of anyone who is not white, straight, or hews to their twisted racist/homophobic/xenophobic ‘Christian’ views. The charity, empathy, and love expressed by Jesus are as alien to them as a black gay Jewish wedding.

    • Gregg Michael

      Jesus never expressed love for a sin. lol

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        irrelevant as jesus in not and never was GOD,,,,,, hes a dead prophet with a pretty good message; given that we ONLY know 7% of his life ( ever notice that??? SEVEN PCT%???)

  • JT

    While I understand and share the frustration of this author about the merging of a political party’s agenda with the Christian faith, I strongly oppose jumping to the conclusion that Republicans are not Christians. Let us not be guilty of the same type of misguided thinking that we are opposing. We all have out own biases and ways we distort the faith. No one knows a person’s heart except God Himself. Let us fight for the truth, but do it with humility.

    • Gregg Michael

      Probably many Republicans are not Christians and don’t claim to be one. You can be a Republican and have a different religion. Many Christian morals are shared by many other religions. It’s not one’s morals that makes them a Christian , but rather their faith in Christ. Many people have the same morals as Christians, but do not confess faith in Christ as their Savior. And because Christians are still sinners, they can often act in ways that Jesus would not approve. The Christian church is not a museum of perfect people, but rather a hospital for sinners. If they were sinless people , then there would no need to have a Savior.

  • Barbara Harrison

    Don’t back down from God; back down from your Republican politics!!!!

  • republicanindetox

    I am almost amused in reading through the 600+ comments how quickly the “conservative” voices latched on to 1) abortion and 2) homosexuality attempting to bible script justification against both TOTALLY proving the premise of Allen Clifton’s article!

  • Nicole S Page


  • Mike Gorman

    I disagree, If Jesus were alive today. He would starve the hungry, take the clothes off peoples back, support perpetual war, take from the poor & middle class to pay for the wars that help the rich, call low wage workers lazy, while defending outrageous CEO salaries & outrageous corporate profits

  • Mike Gorman

    You mean to tell me Jesus wasn’t a white , English speaking, clean cut , short haired , greedy corporatist, that denied people health care , starved the hungry, deport brown skin strangers, tax the poor & supported endless wars ?

    • Gregg Michael

      No, Jesus is the Almighty Son of God, who rules heaven and earth through his called servants on earth. Those who believe in him as their Savior will be saved. Those who do not believe in him as their Savior will be damned. Those are his very Words, not mine.

  • rememberhistory

    I’m an atheist and am a lot more Christian than the Paul Ryan and Todd Kincannons of the world.

    • Gregg Michael

      You can’t be a Christian and an atheist. lol A Christian is one who believes in Christ as his Savior from sin. Since you don’t believe there is a god or any sin, you aren’t a Christian. There are only believers and unbelievers in the world and that is how God will make the separation based on whether you believe in him as your Savior or not. Since, you don’t believe that God even exists, much less is your Savior, you are an unbeliever and therefore are not a Christian.

      • rememberhistory

        So you can be a horrible person and believe in Jesus and you are more of a “Christian” than a generous and good atheist? Really? Belief is more important than deeds?

      • Gregg Michael

        The Bible says it is NOT your good deeds that MAKES you a Christian, but rather it is the power of God working faith in your heart through the means of grace in the Gospel in Word and Sacrament. God calls people to faith through his WORD and good works are only FRUITS OF FAITH, which show that our faith is genuine. Good works are not the CAUSE of our salvation, but are rather the RESULT of our salvation, which Jesus earned for us with his perfect life and innocent suffering and death and resurrection. Our salvation is earned and won entirely by Christ and his life, not ours, and a Christian who truly believes this wants to do good works out of love for God, who saved us from our sins through the work of Christ. But a Christian is never a finished product of God on earth because he still sins daily and is in need of God’s forgiveness daily. A Christian on earth is always growing in his faith. A Christian will never be perfect in the eyes of God here on earth because we are all still sinners. We won’t be perfect until we get to heaven. But God declares the world forgiven of all sin because of Christ’s perfect life and his innocent suffering and death and resurrection and this is received BY FAITH ALONE. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever BELIEVES in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16) And Jesus also says, “Whoever BELIEVES and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not BELEIVE will be condemned. (Mark 16:16) You seem to have a different idea than what Jesus says makes us a Christian. It is our faith in Christ alone for salvation that makes us a Christian and our faith motivates and leads us to do good works out of love for God. “For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this NOT from yourselves. It is a GIFT of God, NOT BY WORKS, so that no one may boast. For we are God ‘s workmanship created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” (Ephesians 2:8-10)

      • Rememberhistory

        So what is the formula to determine what is a Christian? If a mass murderer kills 12 people, but has faith in Jesus , is he more of a Christian than say an atheist that helps his fellow man, works in a soup kitchen, and gives 50% of his earnings to the needy?

      • Gregg Michael

        When the thief on the cross next to Jesus confessed faith in Jesus as his Savior, he became a Christian. That’s why Jesus told him, “Today you will be with me in paradise.” He didn’t have a chance to do any good works because he died on the cross, but he was a Christian because he came to faith in Jesus as his Savior. The good works that Christians do because of their faith in Jesus are not what makes them a Christians. They are the result of being a Christian, not the cause. The only people who can do a good work in God’s eyes are Christians because the Bible says, Without faith it is impossible to please God. An atheist is not a Christian because they don’t even believe Christ exists. Only believers are Christians and only believers will be saved. Jesus spoke very clearly, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved and whoever does not believe will be condemned. The Pharisees did a lot of good works and thought they were justtfied before God by doing them. But Jesus told them that the prostitutes were entering the kingdom of God ahead of them. The tax collector who stood in a corner in the temple and would not even look up to God and said, “God be merciful to me a sinner was a Christian, but the self righteous Pharisee who was proud of his own good works ad thought his own righteousness and good works earned heaven was not a Christian because he was trusting in himself and how own works for salvartion rather than on Christ.

  • kenneth stanfield

    If you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God then indeed it does speak about homosexuality, In Romans, in 1st Corinthians, Jude and Leviticus just to name a few and it doesn’t say anything good about it.

    • jchastn

      The article doesn’t say that the bible says nothing about Homosexuality. It says that Jesus says nothing about Homosexuality. And Jesus didn’t say anything about Homosexuality.

      • Gregg Michael

        Since Jesus said he is the divine Son of God through whom everything was made and since Jesus called all of the writings and canon of the Old Testament Scriptures as truth and he quoted from these Scriptures again and again as the very Word of God, which pointed to him as the coming Savior, then all of Scripture is also Christ’s Word , as the preincarnate Son of God. Not just the red letters in the Bible are Jesus’s word, but ALL of the Bible is Jesus’ words from beginning to end because he is the very Son of God, through whom the entire universe was made. The red letters in the Bible are his words incarnate, but all the other words are also HIS WORD. You can’t separate the Bible. All of it is Christ’s words as the very Son of God. And even though when the Son of God became incarnate and took on flesh, he condemned as sin any and all sex (gay or str8) that is not in the bond or marriage between husband and wife, which is his definition of marriage when he instituted it. And Romans and 1 Corinthians are also Jesus’ words, since Jesus is God who used his apostle to the Gentiles to write these letters and there as God’s Word, Jesus specifically refers to homosexuality as a sexual sin of perversion, which abandons God’s order.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        news flash: no human who ever lived is GOD———————– even if his deluded ass said he was

    • giankeys luvs shemale porn

      inspired word of WHO’s god……yours???? another idiot believing in the invisible fella in the sky— .. now- about that VIRGIN birth; or the noah fairy tale,,,,

      • kenneth stanfield

        You poor pitiful thing, some day it’s going to occur to you that what you thought was a fairy tale was indeed the truth. But for you it will be too late. There is one and only one God who is 100% truth. I, at one time and for many years were as big a fool as you are now, but thank God for his mercy and grace. Take care.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        funny– I did the opposite: I grew up in a Christian home; a good upstanding religious mom- expensive schools and churches and summer camps. I then branched out in search of WHAT REALLY IS– and I found out ONE absolute—-
        …………. GOD TRULY IS!!!! GOD does exist: and GOD –in the absoluteness of GOD cannot be defined !!!!!
        those who are bovaristic enough 2 “think” they KNOW god as THIER god ( only) simply show how stultified and limited their scope is.
        I agree with you that GOD exists–
        I will fight with all who are sh*tbaggy enough to claim that any / all religion(s) ( see: voodoo/superstition) has captured and bridles GOD to THEIRS alone
        we don’t care that U believe differently: we abhor that U propagate such easy2 disprove bavardage and want US 2 BELIEVE such stupid stolid stuff– and the TRY 2 tell us we ( of course; WE) are going to an afterlife of death and misery if we don’t follow you?
        no WONDER religions fight!!!

      • kenneth stanfield

        If you believe in the word of God and I do as truth all I’m saying is what the inspired word of God says. All people are born into a fallen world and need a savior and that is Jesus Christ. The ones that truly believe that will have eternal life with him and the ones that don’t will be forever seperated from him. One thing nice is we are all free to believe what we want. All I’m saying is someday you will learn and no the truth as will everyone. It’s going to be a shocker for the unbelievers but that’s the way it is and the way it’s going to be. And no, I’m not a republican, far from it.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        dude,,,,U don’t pay attention: (a) Ive already been where U are now– (b) jeeeeesus is a dead guy/ NOT god/ and hes NOT returning….
        what part do U not understand?? why is it trhat YOUR favorite “flavor” is the correct one???? U are an imbecile; highly bovaristic and it amazes me that humans fall for ” do this and we give U life after death ” shit such as muslims and chritians promote….hey!!! if your next life is so radiant and perfect— why are U waiting?????
        PS: when will your fake deity fully cure an amputee? ever notice that it never happens?? I guess the miracle stick is limited

  • Alan Batterman

    The right-wing pseudo-Christians cherry-pick our holy Torah to support their anti-gay and anti-woman agenda, while ignoring the rest of it.

    • joelferguson

      Another area we’re in agreement, amazing huh Alan?

  • Robert C Deming

    Right on! Most people assume that Christianity is a religion of rules; not so, it is a religion of love.

  • Florin Neamtu

    Repuiblicans are Jewish, not Christian. That is, their ethics is Judaic – specific, and not universalist, tribal, and unconcerned with the “other.”

    And before you have that brainwashed, knee-jerk reaction to this description of the only religion you can’t criticize, you might actually *read* the Old Testament, or limit it to the Tanakh.

    If you think that is a book and ethos full of love and brotherhood for all – it’s because you haven’t read it.

    At least if they were faking the New Testament, they’d have to do something to make it look good now and then.

    The GOP is largely beholden to Christian Zionists, who worship the blood and vengeance father sky god of the OT, and hope for war to bring about the end of the world…. blame the Scoffield Bible and the Judaization of Christianity for *that*.

    • Gregg Michael

      Christians don’t want war. They want peace, and that eternal peace will come when Jesus ends all of history and calls everyone to an account for their deeds as God. The only way for anyone to avoid being judged for their sins, which everyone has, is through faith alone in the atoning work of Jesus Christ as your Savior. All deeds, even good ones for getting in a right standard with God will never work because you have to be all perfect deeds and there is nobody who does, except Jesus. So only if you are clothed in his perfect righteousness by faith will you be saved. That’s not my idea. As the very Son of God, that’s what Jesus says.

  • Gregg Michael

    You don’t have to be a Christian to be a Republican and you do not have to be a non-Christian to be a Democrat. There are Christians and non Christians in both parties. But the Democrats use to be more conservative than they are today and there use to be many more Christians in the Democratic party because BOTH parties were against homosexuality and abortion because both of these things are sins in the Judeo Christian faith, which was the faith of many of our founding fathers in BOTH parties.. The majority of the people of this country have been professing Christians and they are found still today in BOTH parties. My own parents are very conservative Lutheran Christians, but as far as politics, they are strong Democrats and vote Democrat most of the time. However, my parents are VERY STRONGLY against both homosexuality and abortion, which you may think is strange , if they are Democrat. But, they have the opinion that the Democrats look out more for the poor people and Republicans are for the rich. This is the way both parties were perceived to be, but some of this is stereotype. My Dad working at Banta’s was very pro union and he still is today. Unions serve a very good purpose and are necessary, but I don’t agree with everything that unions support and stand for. But because the Democrats have become so immoral and antichristian, my parents are really struggling right now whether they can continue to be Democrat in politics. My parents can see the Democratic party has changed and has become very unchristian in morals and now won’t even tolerate any Christian views in government and wants to even force Christian businessmen to to operate their businesses contrary to their faith, which many will not do. They will close their business, which is what I did with my photography business. The Democrats are going to lose the support of my parents because they have shown even hatred toward anything that is Christian and they are fighting against anyone holding to Christ’s teachings. But there are now Christian and even Lutheran church bodies in this country who permit both homosexuality and abortion. But that is another change. They never use to. Some are caving in to societies’ demands, just so they don’t get a bad name and lose outward numbers. Jesus never accepted sin, but he sat down and ate even with prostitutes because he wanted to lead them to repentance and save them just like anybody else. Jesus would not shun gays today. He would be in their bathhouses, not participating in with them in their sins, but helping them to see that they are sinners, just like everyone else is, and they need him as Savior, and he would offer them forgiveness, just as he did the thief on the cross. But, you can’t continue willfully in these sins and remain a Christian. Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery and did not want her stoned by the Pharisees, which was the OT civil penalty for adultery, but he told the woman, “Go and sin no more.” In the Judeo Christian faith homosexuality is a sexual sin against the 6th commandment which forbids any sexual relations (gay or str8) who are not betrothed in the bond of marriage between a husband and wife, which is God’s definition of marriage in Scripture. In the Judeo Christian faith abortion is a sin against the 5th commandment, which forbids any and all murder and abortion is murder in the womb. But both homosexuality and abortion are not just religious battles. There are atheists against both of these things for CIVIL REASONS because they see both of these things physically harmful in society from a secular viewpoint, not religious or morally and because science has proven there truly is a human life at conception, they are against killing babies in the womb. It is the Democratic party who has changed their moral views on these things and who under the Obama administration has become very aggressively anti-Christian. They were not this way before when I was a kid in the 1960’s. Obama isn’t even a Democrat, nor a Christian. He is a Democrat and Christian in name only. He is a Socialist and his religious views are ”evolving” to the Muslim faith.

  • debvan6

    Well said! I have been saying the exact same thing for years!

  • MMikeJBenN

    Finally, somebody else sees that. They are nothing but idol worshippers, as they worship money and other things of this earth, notch God. Need proof? Watch them when they have to choose between following Christ’s teachings vs boosting profits. Profits wins! REAL Christians choose GOD first.

  • xbj

    It’s not just Republicanity. The problem is christianism in general, the perversion of True Christianity over the centuries into a warped militant movement (often imperialist) which aims to acquire great wealth for political power. It started long before the Crusades. The aim is to force Judeo-Sharia Law on the US and Holy War against every other religion.

  • mackthefit

    The person that wrote this article is an ignorant fool. I suppose incivility is a christian characteristic according this fool. This person calls good evil and evil good…what a pathetic human being!

    Republicans are non christian because they don’t support special rights to homosexuals and they don’t approve of the killing of babies while they’re still in the womb? Really?

    Jesus most definitely spoke about sin and He was the eternal author of the old testament, according to His own teaching. He said unless you repent you will parish. Jesus spoke more about hell then he did heaven. The Jesus this person is talking about is in his imagination.

    Homosexual behavior was capital crime in the old testament. Moreover, the apostle Paul unambiguously said no one who practiced that kind of sin would inherit the kingdom of God. These ideas didn’t come from liberal preferences.

    The didache, teaching of the apostles, explicitly says abortion is an abomination. And all through the new and old testament many examples are given of the sanctity of life in the womb.

    • Kelly Cowan

      You are a slave of the lowest order.

    • giankeys luvs shemale porn

      hey F*CKFACE— ” special” rights to gays???? whats so special about being allowed to join ALL other americans in the so-called “right” to marry??? ..and— just because YOUR favorite hero and some loser book full of many many contradictions has mention of not liking some stuff U and your lemming flock now decree it as bigger than OUR COUTRIES FOUNDING FATHERS documents? really?? your scumbag BIBLE usurps OUR constitution and OUR bill of rights? you truly are deserving of a life after life,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the ultimate hypocrisy!!! ” we are going 2 nirvana after we die” OHHHHHHHYEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!

  • psittacid

    Can there be anything more obvious that all Christians (I use the word in the broadest sense to include all who claim to follow the faith) in this discussion are reading their holy book to have it support whatever they independently believe in? They are exactly like atheists and agnostics with one exception – atheists acknowledge that they are choosing their belief and behavior. If you are a Christian who chooses love, compassion, generosity, tolerance, and kindness…take credit for it. You chose it. If you are a Christian who chooses greed, oppression, stinginess, anger, and other forms of hatred – you can’t blame it on Jesus. It is you.

  • Kelly Cowan

    What is so preposterous about what we mistakenly refer to as the christian right, is it’s alleged foundation in Christianity. This is actually an anti-christ­ian ideology, that should in no way be confused with Christianity. Their policies are clearly unchrist like in letter, and in effect. It is quite simply, the control of a portion of the population by a Machiavellian, anti-chris­tian, political and business machine. That is what the antichrist is – antichrist in the name of Christ. If Christianity still carried the death sentence, as it did pre-Edict of Milan, the pious politician­s and ” religious leaders ” of today would be throwing Christians to the lions. Their overt piety is the practice of a christianity of political expedience­, and business convenience. Their anti-chris­tic behavior is glaringly exemplified by their dissemination of fear and lies for manipulation, and their devious quest for material wealth and the earthly powers they buy with it. If Jesus came back today they would seek to kill him again. The anti-chris­tian right are the modern day money changers in the Temple. We must stop referring to them as Christians and call them what they are, ”anti-chri­stians”.

  • adcbeast

    EARTH TO CLUELESS … People like Paul Ryan are NOT religious at all

    They are 100% political .. and they think shrouding their political beliefs in “religion” makes their political beliefs beyond contestation

  • johnmpls

    Absolutely right Allen!!
    You and me….WE are the only ones who know Christianity. EVERYONE else, especially those clueless Republicans, are completely stupid and self-righteous.
    I can’t believe how narrow-minded those others are. If only THEY were as tolerant and understanding as we True Progressives are!

  • johnmpls

    Neither republicans nor democrats own Christianity.
    To even put them in the same sentence shows how little you understand the work of Jesus.
    I belong to a community of believers that strives hard to follow Christ in all we do. As you get to know us well, you find some are very progressive democrats. Others are very conservative republicans. Know what? No body cares! It’s like arguing over the Yankees vs. the Red Soxs. It’s fun, but we need to remember that Jesus didn’t come to earth to take care of the poor. He didn’t come to earth to promote social justice. He didn’t come to earth to tell us to love our neighbors. HE CAME TO EARTH AS THE ONLY WAY WE CAN REGAIN FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD. (Now, while he was here, he told us we need to do these other things, and we need to pay attention! But to ignore the saving grace of Jesus and put social things first… or conservative, is dead wrong.)
    One other point…..Jesus never said to go to Rome and change the laws. He never said to change the tax codes so that the poor would be taken care of. He said “GO MAKE DISCIPLES”. He told US to take care of the poor, and the widows, and the socially unacceptable. When we stand before God some day, he’s not going to care one bit who we voted for, or which party’s sign we put in our front yard. He’s going to care what we did for that neighbor of OURS who lost their job. The widow up the street. The alcoholic on the next block. If we say “yes, but I voted for…..”, he will rightfully cast us into hell. WE are responsible for what God told US to do. Never, Ever, confuse that with politics. Progressive or Conservative.

    • giankeys luvs shemale porn

      regressive white trash republicans SELL Christianity— tax free

  • katherine norton malek

    I do not believe P. Ryan ever read Atlas Shrugged or any of Ayn Rand’s books. They’re long … and deep. At best he may have read the Cliff Notes & decided at some point that touting Rand made him sound rather ‘intellectual’. If he did read it, which I doubt, he missed its message entirely. Injecting this type of ideology into his so-called patriotic all-American good Christian soldier “numbers guy” image is ignorant & contradictory. He’s a walking, talking contradiction. Spoke out against the stimulus package then requested stimulus money for his State. A member of the religious right who denigrates the poor, disenfranchised and disabled? “Support our Troops” bumper sticker poster boy who voted against every program that would benefit veterans. A so-called “numbers guy” who doesn’t have basic budget knowledge. Stare at his face long enough; he even looks like Satan, or John Galt. Pfft.

  • xbj

    It goes much farther back than the GOP. It’s more properly called Militant “christianism” with a small “C”, and it was originally the perversion of the Catholic Church itself via the Crusades, evangelism, imperialism, and eventually the blasphemous and heretical doctrine of “Life Begins at Birth” hatched in the 1960’s when the Church feared abortion AND birth control would cut into future collection take cash-flow.

    “Republicanity” goes much farther back than the GOP. It’s more properly called Militant “christianism” with a small “C”, and it was originally the perversion of the Catholic Church itself via the Crusades, evangelism, imperialism, and eventually the blasphemous and heretical doctrine of “Life Begins at Birth” hatched in the 1960’s when the Church feared abortion AND birth control would cut into future collection take cash-flow.

    Militant christianism in this country has TOO OFTEN led to domestic terrorism.

  • cj

    Well this article is full of crap. Of course what do you expect from the disease and heresy of progressive/liberal Christianity.

    • giankeys luvs shemale porn

      wow— lets all return to the sterling federal policies of bush?? PRAISE JESSSSSSUS

  • Patrick Morrissey

    Wow.. Sorry Allen, but your understanding of Christianity is flawed. While I don’t believe that republicans have cornered the market on Christianity, it is not why YOU think. Jesus taught feed the poor. Statistics prove that charitable giving by republicans far outweighs charitable giving by democrats. Why? Faith in Jesus. You are incorrect that Jesus never spoke about homosexuality and abortion. Take a peek at John 1. The Word because flesh. All of the scriptures are from Him. The bible is the Word of God. So, since there are no “red letters” with those specific issues addresses, Jesus certainly agreed with them being wrong. Don’t like that people (Christians) think it is ok to be armed? Check out Luke 11:21, Luke 22:36… The point is for INDIVIDUALS to act compassionately. When, like the democrats want to do, you remove the opportunity and choice to be compassionate, and place the efforts of the individual in the hands of the state to distribute, mostly to those who refuse to work. 2 Thess 3:10, 1 Tim 5:8… No party can claim Jesus. That much is obvious. But don’t try to muddy the issue as to whether or not moral, bible grounded, Christians are more or less likely to gravitate to the republican party, because, in light of scripture, there is little doubt that the beliefs espoused by republicans are far more reflective of Christian faith than that of Democrats. Matt 7:13… Look at who is in office. Look at the votes cast.

    • bluedog2384

      @Patrick – Your comments leave me without words. It is safe to say that YOU, your thinking and your ilk are the epitome of exactly what the author is trying to convey. There is no convincing you otherwise. Thanks for showing us a perfect example of a Republican.

      • Patrick Morrissey


    • giankeys luvs shemale porn

      ” bible is word of god”??? really?? do U eat shrimp? how about all all all women who get married NOT as virgins? and,,,,,,,, that silly noah tale: how did he get to Australia and western hemisphere to accrue all the animals and then PUT THEM ALL BACK? that book sucks

  • Xian Satirist

    I don’t know what kind of crack-pot theology classes you took, but Jesus definitely spoke against abortion and homosexuality. He kept the law to. the. letter. The Law speaks against murder and homosexuality. By preaching “love, hope, compassion and forgiveness” you are preaching against the opposite of those respective things. It’s called “logic” and has been fundamental to the progression of man AND the Christian faith. This is as much propaganda as anything Mr. Ryan has said. You twist, accuse, and blast your enemies for doing the same thing you are: twisting God’s word to suit your cause.

    We both know that what Jesus really taught does not sit well with either party. Granted, both left and right groups in this country have a few good points about them, but they are all a far, far cry away from what Christ taught.

    • giankeys luvs shemale porn

      there wasn’t abortion in jesus time,,, and how do we know jesus wasn’t a homosexual??? he never married; so————-
      perhaps he didn’t care as he simply wanted humans to live and let live; not LIVE AND HELP (??) LIVE

  • D.j. Maverick

    Spot on!

  • Barry1159

    ‘this article merely mimics all those conservative pronouncements that I have always found so offensive. There is a vast amount of Republican ideology that I find abhorrent, not least of which that they would lump everyone who disagrees with their stands as immoral, radical, un-American parasites. Why would we now join them in the name calling? I might disagree strongly with my Republican friends and neighbors, but I do not doubt that while they might see the world differently, many, if not most of them are decent, well meaning people, trying to make sense of an extraordinarily complex world.

  • glassa

    And you think the Democrat Party…with it’s passion for killing babies (abortion) IS Christian-like? Please spare me.

    • giankeys luvs shemale porn

      hey stupid- republicans also do abortion.
      now- whats this about never having the ersatz scumbag religion able to FULLY CURE ( see: miracles) an amputee??? why do we never see this?? too tough???

  • Shahla Khan Salter

    I hear ya. Salaamualaikum and Peace from Canada.

  • disqus_qGsnN0JqZL

    Why don’t you “forward progressives” defend your ideology, show how your policies work and generally be proud of your message instead of having to vilify and demean your opposition. For me, it just shows how ineffective and vapid your ideology is.

  • Obilio222

    Wow! Though there are many points of view here, most all seem to come from study and thought. I wish the people here would speak out when the political false prophets are being discussed elsewhere, like on Facebook. To say that thoughtful Christian dialogue is under represented on FB would be putting it mildly. The Atheists of course have a right to their opinion, but terms like “mythical sky-daddy” are rude, unnecessary and immature. Why bother?

  • Dan

    Christianity has been twisted, recycled, and re packaged since the 3rd century in Rome….why is the author surprised? This article was clearly written by someone who doesn’t know their history. Which brings me to my next point: the quote from this article: ” your political beliefs are supposed to be based on facts — not faith”…. How about for the sake of eliminating the authors one sided opinions, and for the sake of equality, we apply that same concept around to Christianity: “Your faith is supposed to be based on facts”… and since the Catholic Church officially acknowledged the existence of EVOLUTION just last week, (155 years after the rest of humanity) I don’t think I’d be claiming that the church is any more “factual” than politics…. Remember the church used to think the Earth was flat and the center of the Universe? ? And would put to death anyone who said otherwise? Doesn’t sound very “factual” to me… Any Rand was right. The real problem is religion, and all the brainless people who follow it blindly, therefore allowing their own manipulation. Politicians only exploit weaknesses in which the public is too stupid to fix for themselves. Politicians have tried telling the straight truth and it never works, because the public doesn’t demand it/value it as important…”It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”-Mark Twain

    Stop blaming politicians for taking advantage of public ignorance. If the public wasn’t ignorant there wouldn’t be anything left to exploit, and the truth would reign supreme as it would be the only thing left to “exploit” in order to get votes. I blame the public; our current political environment is only a symptom of the greater problem that is public ignorance.

  • There’s so much circular logic here that I’m getting dizzy. Oops! Fell as I got up from the chair. Dizziness you know.

  • Morris King

    It must be nice to cherry pick the scriptures to make yourselfs feel good or give yourselfs a feeling of superior intelligents, but in doing so you are being judgemental an showing your ignorance. When you read the Holy Bible, read it all, not just the parts that furthers your argument or makes you feel good.

  • brad

    any christian is free to be a Democrat or republican or a christian can not vote and not care about politics at all. inside the the bible Some of GOD’s followers were politicians. king David. King Solomon. this how i do this for my self. I strongly have faith in a GOD. I am a Creationist some of my beliefs are based off of the Bible. i not a true christian in literal since. but i can tittle my believes Christian. I attend church. I believe in a young universe around 6,000 years old not billions. i could be wrong.
    any one can be a creationist without taking every thing in the Bible literally. If i was to treat the Bible as a History book then add up the events in the Bible from the 1st humans until Jesus and his death, that gives us 4,000 thousand then 2,000 years ago 6,000. I do not believe in the Trinity. I do not believe in a global flood and i don’t believe most people are going to hell. I do not believe the bible was written by GOD. but i do believe god has given mankind tools to help us make good History theories on how history got started. the Bible has been around for thousands of years also the information in the text much of it is still use full in modern times. GOD started history and time. the universe and life had a Beginning I do believe in natural laws and micro evolution and i believe in some fossils. some of those fossils are fake and scientist make up lies some times. i like science but not every thing that is said about it. the Liberal media in america overtly promotes Darwinism/ secularism. America could become a better place if the leader ship had better faith in GOD.

    Atheist are so self absorbed it wont hurt them to believe in something higher than them self’s. Atheism is a rude centered believe system. i will have faith in GOD always. you left wing secular pen heads wake up

  • bdrew

    Agree with this article 100%! And yes, they are HUGE part of why I started doubting my faith and finally the final nail in the coffin that drove me out of Christianity forever. I was brought up in the church. My father and grandfather were both pastors so I lived and breathed Christianity for 31 years. Driving someone like me out was no small feat bc of my past and should tell them something about how wrong they truly are today. Dictionary definition of a hypocrite, liar and manipulation-all three will show a picture of a republican or republican policy.

  • semiprogressive

    We need to be careful not to fall into the same hypocrisy trap as the repubs. Recognize good works when you see them. Most stats show conserves. give more time and money to charity the we to the left. Of course a lot of that is to their self serving churches but do we not also give to our causes that are near and dear to our hearts. I work with some conservative folk and for the most part have no problems. Some however…

  • wastedmercy3

    its time for the dem
    s to tell the truth. they are really radical communist! morons!

  • Eric Porter

    Why does the bible refer to Jesus and Lucifer as the morningstar? That would explain the duality of man. Since we are created in his image and all. Not to the mention the bible most know was brought by the same folks who wiped out most of the indians, oh and loved slavery. Good people. Lol. Ya some of you are probably right, they would never manipulate the bible to fit their agenda. Just like the replubicans are not doing the same.

  • Patricia Merchant Wittman

    I try to limit myself to one political post each day. This is the one for today. Thank you Allen again for getting down to the nitty gritty.

  • eCharleen

    What does progressive know about Christianity? No credibility here.

  • Dean

    I’m Shocked!

  • deb

    I’m agnostic myself but this is something I can agree with. Nothing worse than a fake Christian l.

  • Anonymous

    Like it or not, but if a few “gun-worshippers” had voted Clinton instead of Trump this time, things would be different. Gun control is the hill that “hope” died on.

    You can double down on the fail, or shit-can gun control. Else you’re selling a lot of constituencies down the river to gain a few dozen votes, and one billionaire’s blank check.

  • Elsie

    When you wade through all of this misinformation and get to skwills….you might just as well quit reading. He can’t spell, or make sence. He can’t even spell Bible, so how much could he know what it’s about.

  • nandssmith

    The real issue is why Republicans/Evangelical Christians believe God has called upon them to force others to follow the 10 Commandments or other unfavorable behaviors listed in the Bible. Do we have laws against all the 10 Commandments: adultery, lying, envy of one’s neighbor, of not honoring one’s mother or father, of keeping the Sabbath holy? Of course not. Do we have laws against all the unfavorable behaviors listed in the Bible? Of course not. There is a reason for separation of church and state, and it is not the job of our government to force Christian morals on its citizens, particularly when cherry picking which to enforce and which to ignore (as our recent election demonstrated). Our country was founded on religious freedom and separation of church and state, as our Constitution clearly states. Regarding abortion, why are the Republican party and Evangelical Christians not simultaneously fighting equally hard for the government to fund adoption and other programs to ensure that every child (since they want all to be born) is fed, clothed, housed, educated, loved, provided with health care, etc? The fact is the Republican party is the first to suggest cuts to these very programs to care for these precious lives. This is blatant hypocrisy, which Jesus spoke against clearly and often. I believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. My relationship with Christ is a personal one, and I realize at the end of my days I will be judged and held accountable by God. It is not the job of the Republican party or Evangelical Christians to do God’s job for him.