Justice Kennedy’s Bread Crumb Trail to Tyranny

By John Zmirak Published on June 7, 2018

Readers who follow me know this. I oppose anyone who tries to set up an intolerant state religion. So I don’t want the West admitting or harboring Muslims who wish to do that. I criticize misguided Catholics who look for loopholes in Vatican II to let them promote such a state. If I knew of any Protestants interested in such a project, I’d loudly warn against them.

Secular zealots prove much more thin-skinned than inquisitors.

It’s profoundly repulsive to normal folk, the prospect of the grubby-handed government reaching down into that most private of places: the human conscience. Our nation was founded, in part, as a refuge from that.

America was from the start a de facto Christian nation with no (national) established church. The basis for legislation would be the common good and the natural law. That’s as perceived by the people and guarded by the Constitution. Still, believers felt free to cite scripture in arguing for laws and social change. How many abolitionists quoted the Bible in their arguments against slavery? The Civil Rights movement claimed it in the fight for racial equality. Right up through 1960 or so, you could still say the U.S. was a tolerant Christian nation, which guarded the rights of the person.

A Secular Sharia

But what if the system we have now, as hijacked by activist courts and encouraged by the culture, is installing its own religion? A secular cult with its own mysteries and rituals? Its own brand of witch hunt?

The Supreme Court ruling in the Masterpiece Cake case reveals that we might well already have such a regime. And it’s just barely restraining itself from tightening the screws. It’s figuring out how subtle or blatant it needs to be when it punishes Christians for living out their faith. Indeed, the majority vote on that decision didn’t defend the Christian baker’s right to act according to his conscience. Instead, it simply said that the commissioners who denied him that right used biased language against religion. In comparing a Christian’s belief in traditional marriage to the causes of the Holocaust, they proved a tad too heavy-handed.

Legal scholar Hadley Arkes called this out in his dark analysis of that recent decision. He wrote:

For years it was understood that the law need not be at all “neutral” between religion and irreligion, that there were compelling reasons, for the public good, to encourage the religious life. But now the claim is reduced simply to an obligation not to be indecorously nasty while the law refuses to respect religious convictions.

So no, religious liberty doesn’t protect you from having to act on the State’s value judgments. If the government says that same sex marriage is right, then you will have to celebrate it. To mouth the words of agreement. Or else you will be punished. But we won’t openly compare you to the Nazis. At least, not yet.

The death toll of secular humanism in just the 20th century exceeds many, many times over the death toll of the worst persecutions by Christians. It dwarfs the pyramid of skulls that Muslim invaders heaped up in India. Secularism rode through the 20th century like a new Ghengis Khan. It emptied cities.

Murderous Free-Thinkers

Speaking of Nazis, is it bad taste to point out that they were secular humanists? That their evil formed a link in a long chain of atrocities by worldly theocracies?

France was once intolerantly Catholic. Before the Revolution, though, King Louis XVI gladly removed the laws that had penalized Jews and Protestants. France’s clergy (the First Estate) even voted in favor of representative government — giving up their own power to influence laws. But the secular ideologues who seized control weren’t satisfied. Instead, they wished to enforce the private cult that had beguiled France’s intellectuals. It was a rigid, inflexible Rationalism which would build heaven on earth. The Revolutionary government demanded control over the churches. It stole their land, closed their buildings, and finally started massacring clergy. This culminated in a war of genocide focused on the region called the Vendee. There, soldiers of the new, secular theocracy conducted mass drowning of pious peasants. The death toll? Perhaps as high as 300,000 people. Leave aside the dead from the wars of “liberation” that Napoleon waged across Europe.

Revolutionaries were even more ruthless in Bolshevik Russia, where millions of Orthodox Christians died at the hands of the “militantly atheist” regime. The Spanish Republic killed thousands of priests and other believers, burnt churches and defiled the corpses of nuns. The socialist government of Mexico in the 1920s tried to herd all Catholics into a new “national” church. It forced priests to marry, and replaced bread and wine at Mass with tortillas and tequila. Dissenters got shot by the thousands, and only a peasant revolt (by the “Cristeros”) forced a halt in the persecution.

Adolf Hitler’s regime closed all religious schools and organizations. In its quest to impose a single, secular utopia on all its residences, it bullied, co-opted, or terrorized the churches. So many priests died at Dachau that it got the nickname “The Priests’ Camp.” And of course it murdered millions of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies and handicapped people whose existence offended its vision of earthly perfection.

Comparable horrors repeated themselves in post-war Eastern Europe. In Mao Zedong’s Communist China. In Cuba and Vietnam.

The death toll of secular humanism in just the 20th century exceeds many, many times over the death toll of the worst persecutions by Christians. It dwarfs the pyramid of skulls that Muslim invaders heaped up in India. Secularism rode through the 20th century like a new Ghengis Khan. It emptied cities. If you count unborn children as human beings, our own pursuit of sexual liberation has claimed more than 54 million lives. That happened right under our noses.

Why Unbelievers Kill

Regimes beguiled by this-worldly myths of “Progress,” “Nation, “Race” or “Socialism” are quite prone to murder. In fact, they feel much less constrained by respect for life or freedom than any church ever has been. Secular zealots prove much more thin-skinned than inquisitors. They’re aware on some level how groundless their creeds really are. So they’re far more outraged by resistance. That goads them to “prove” otherworldly creeds false by breaking believers’ spirits. Since they must make their heaven in this world, they demand their rewards here and now.

And one of the great rewards of power is punishing your enemies. Forcing them to bend to your will and acknowledge your dominance. Making them live by your moral code instead of their own, or punishing them for it — with poverty, prison, or worse.

American secularists aren’t immune to this temptation. Quite the contrary. They despise our worldview as a primitive superstition. They consider those who cling to such religions “deplorables.” And to prove it, they want to break us. For that, defending the “dignity” of homosexuals offers an excellent pretext.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

The Dignity of Naked Apes

These neopagans borrow from our creed, of course. The concept of “human dignity,” for instance. In cold fact, they believe we are all naked apes. Darwin “proved” to them that our race and our lives are a vast cosmic accident. (Though they still feel mighty important.) To fill that vacuum of meaning, they’ve inflated the person’s claim to the “pursuit of happiness” without reference to morality.

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the post-Christians decreed that a naked ape’s “dignity” demanded the legal acceptance of same-sex marriage. Four justices who voted in the negative warned that this threatened religious liberty. And now we see that they were right. The only thing that saved this case from wrecking a Christian’s livelihood was the tactlessness of his persecutors. They won’t make the same mistake next time.

We have only two ways, in the long run, to protect Christian freedom. Either one will be hard. Each would exact a steep political price, and have some unwanted side effects. We must convince the culture once more that homosexual activity is morally inferior to what happens in normal marriage. Or else we must convince it to accept total freedom of contract. To allow anyone to discriminate for any reason or none at all. No one ever sued a gorilla for preferring members of his troop over another.

Either we sell America on Christianity once again, or we demand it accept the real implications of rejecting it: Nothing matters, no one has dignity, and people may do as they please.

Either one of these solutions would be better than what we face now: A deranged cult of human dignity grounded on absolutely nothing, a pornographic Puritanism.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Patmos

    Great points. Beyond this, we should probably also consider what happens to civilizations that embrace indulgence and perversion.

    Hint: It doesn’t end well for them.

    With carnality in the lead, there is no standard to live by. With no standard to live by, responsibility wanes, and structures begin to crumble. We are already seeing this with the destruction of the family and the effect it has on kids, led in large part by the so called counter culture “revolution” of the 1960s, which in truth turned out to essentially be self destruction brought on by useful idiocy.

    Kind of strange that we’re even talking about the dignity of gay people, who on their own have already sacrificed their dignity through celebration of perversion and abandoning of conscience. God is not mocked, you reap what you sow.

    • Tim Pan

      We have not been able to stop the spread of this abomination. So I ask you what shall we reap?

      • Patmos

        When held captive Jesus said to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this earth, for if it was my people would be fighting for my release.”

        As for reaping, we are going to have to give an account for every idle word we have spoken.

    • GLT

      “With no standard to live by, responsibility wanes, and structures begin to crumble.”

      If all standards of conduct were removed it would not take long, two or three generations, before we would be reduced to a pagan existence barely different from the most primitive tribes known today.

      • swordfish

        So-called primitive tribes actually tend to be generally decent, cooperative and well behaved – if they weren’t they wouldn’t have survived.

  • Kim58

    Given that the vast majority of sexual activity within heterosexual marriages (or relationships) is of a deliberatley sterilzed form how can we make the case that such sexual activity is superior to the naturally sterile sexual activity of homosexuals? I have been stumped on this point and thus don’t have any motivation to engage in any battle for “traditional” marriage. Why bother when it seems to me the first battle needs to be convincing heterosexual people that engaging in deliberately sterilized sex is a bad thing. But try to throw that idea out at the next get together…talk about ostracization ….from fellow Christians no less!

    • Zmirak

      The issues are separable. Focus on the lack of complementarity in same-sex relationships, the almost non-existence of gay male monogamy. Again, you’re not seeking legal penalties for gays, but legal recognition of the difference.

    • Flat Baroque

      No such thing as “gαу Christians.”

      • Rob Abney

        Please explain.

    • Andrew Mason

      The issue of deliberately sterile relations – by which I presume you mean contraceptives, is as I understand it a specifically Catholic issue. And in at least some cases it’s hard to see arguments against it. Would you contend that those who are genetically damaged, or who have contracted a lethal STD be forced to remain celibate? That’s not what Scripture teaches after all.

    • Ken Abbott

      From the standpoint of Scripture, the marriage of man and woman–both created complimentarily in the image of God–is intended to model or demonstrate the relationship between God and his people (many biblical references, but see especially Ephesians 5:31-32). A same-sex relationship is lopsided and distorts what marriage is meant to display.

      • John Connor

        Marriage is a civil contract. No religion necessary. Marriage is about bringing two consenting adults together who love each other.

        • Andy6M

          That is one definition of marriage, and it is relatively recent within the history of marriage.

        • Ken Abbott

          By my response to Kim58’s post I intended to provide some context from Scripture as to Christian thinking on the meaning of marriage. Your reply to me appears to want to contradict that, essentially calling the veracity of the word of God into question: “Has God said…?” Of course, by doing so you have cast yourself into the role of the serpent. Just saying.

          You are probably correct in saying that many in contemporary society see (from an impoverished point of view) marriage as merely a contract, a legal arrangement by which each entering party seeks to assure the protection of his/her interests, especially personal happiness and self-fulfillment. Certainly our civil government has recast it in such cold, legally clinical terms. And it is easy to see why marriage has become so degraded and easy divorce so attractive–when I cease to get anything out of it, when it no longer meets my personal goals, I seek to end the contract. But biblical (and hence God-instituted and God-ordained) marriage is not a contract; it is a covenant. And more than that, it is a conjugal covenant in which the entering parties sacrificially pledge and commitment themselves to the welfare and best interests *of the other* and to the children that ordinarily follow. Even more than this, it is a covenant in which God himself participates (“What God has joined together, let no one separate”) just as he participates in covenant marriage with his people–the nation of Israel first, the church as the Bride of Christ ultimately. And God takes covenants seriously, even to the point of pledging his own death should he abrogate the terms of the covenant (Genesis 15). Our problem (among many others) is that we are a frivolous and selfish people who are loath to keep even those little promises we make should they get in the way of our convenience.

          • John Connor

            Married 20 years. I agree.

    • Patmos

      My goodness is function really that lost on you?

      • GLT

        Apparently.

    • john

      Thank you for being the least hypocritical person I have read comments from on this issue. It’s easy to pick on minorities. If you really believe a certain standard should apply, apply it to everyone and not just those you find most distasteful based on your own belief system or easiest to attack. When I hear that Mr. Phelps has refused to bake a cake for a divorcee seeking to remarry, then I will believe, too, that he is not a hypocrite. Kudos.

      • Rob Abney

        For Mr. Phelps to deny a cake to a divorcee he will have to make several assumptions about the person’s previous marital state, was it a Christisn marriage, was it annulled, is the previous spouse still living, and such. There is no such assumption needed to know that two homosexuals do not constitute a Christian marriage.

        • Zmirak

          Good point.

      • George Glass

        You are very correct. Mr Phelps is devout enough to refuse gay marriage cakes. He’s certainly devout enough to spend literally 3 seconds to ask heterosexual couples if either is a divorcee. Willful ignorance isn’t an excuse God would accept in this case. The reason Phelps won’t stop participating in ceremonial adultery is that approximately 35% of all marriage ceremonies in America contain at-least one divorcee. That would seriously cut into his income. It’s the same thing happening to all of the Cafeteria Christians who have refused services to gay marrying. They all have this mistaken belief that they are standing up for their religion when all along, they’ve been spitting on it. There’s a Commandment against adultery and Luke 16:18 couldn’t be any-more clear, yet these bakers and florists and county clerks signing off on marriage licenses go against their own religious beliefs to participate in ceremonial adultery as if it wasn’t an equal sin to gay marriage.

    • Rob Abney

      You make a good point, the acceptance of contraception has helped make it possible for homosexuality to be celebrated. But in general, acceptance of any sinful behavior usually leads to more of the same behavior. These days homosexuality is a “public” sin while contraception can often be a “private” sin. I do encourage you to talk about those private sins when your friends start condemning the public sins, of course you should start with those who are close to you like family and close friends. We are all called to do that.

  • ncsugrant

    Well said Mr. Zmirak. The mainstream media has alternated coverage of the recent decision. It is either a huge victory for constitutionalists or a narrow one.
    It seems to me that this was not really a victory at all.
    Besides, there is nothing to deter government agencies from trampling our rights after this case. They “lost”, so what? It cost the leftist progressives nothing at all, while we marshal precious resources to defend Mr. Phillips and others from their abuses.

  • Nick Stuart

    The Masterpiece Cake decision is a narrow victory for one person. It doesn’t seem like it would apply to anyone else. For that matter, it probably won’t apply to Jack Phillips if he goes back into the wedding cake business and refuses to bake a custom cake for a same sex “marriage.” He’ll be hauled in front of the same Civil Rights Commission who this time will be very circumspect and polite about imposing a ruinous fine and other sanctions. What’s Phillips going to do, go all the way back to the Supreme Court?

    “Civil Rights Commissions” are free to discriminate against Christians at any time for any reason as long as they’re polite. Lower courts are likely to uphold their decisions.

    Given that, it will be a rare individual who opens him or herself up to crushing penalties and popular obloquy knowing they’ll have to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court for justice (which will depend on the composition of the court). Nobody has that kind of time and money. I wouldn’t take the chance that some religious liberties defending legal defense organization might take my case. I’d stop offering the service period (quit baking wedding cakes, quit taking wedding photos, etc.). Or find another business. I expect many Christians who have a conscientious scruple about serving same-sex “marriage” will take this course of action.

    Because of the time and expense required to litigate a case all the way to the Supreme Court, this decision tells Christians “shut up and bake the cake” (figuratively speaking) almost as effectively as if that were the actual ruling.

    • Howard Rosenbaum

      An intriguing take on the “narrow” decision rendered by a somewhat seemingly disingenuous SCOTUS ….
      Hope your wrong …..

    • roberdine

      I wish the phrase would be “decorate the cake” instead of “bake the cake”, since that is what this is really about. The cake as a cake is indifferent; what it may be used to promote by the decorations on it is something else entirely. Can artists be forced to use their skills to advocate what they find abhorrent?

    • Ray

      This is why I believe Jack Phillips should sue for damages.

  • Bonshika Jackson

    I’m pretty well read on the events surrounding the Cristero Wars, but this little bit here sounds like #FakeNews: “The socialist government of Mexico in the 1920s tried to herd all Catholics into a new “national” church. It forced priests to marry, and replaced bread and wine at Mass with tortillas and tequila.”

    Anyone have a source for this?

    • Zmirak

      Read Wikipedia on “Mexican Catholic Apostolic Church,” though I need to find my old reference on the tequila idea, which was quickly scuttled.

      • Bonshika Jackson

        The Wikipedia article says nothing about Catholics being forced to join this obscure sect, let alone of Calles forcing priests to marry and join it. According to the article, Calles only supported the sect for three months.

        I think you might have confused the Mexican situation with the French. The Jacobins first “allowed,” and then compelled, “constitutional” clergy to marry, and many did so.

        • Zmirak

          Priests were shot for refusing to marry. Churches were closed if they didn’t toe government line, and often even when they did. There are more detailed accounts out there. The sect was one of many different “solutions” tried by the persecutors. Or why do you think Miguel Pro was executed? For having a bad haircut?

          • Bonshika Jackson

            I don’t dispute that the Calles government persecuted priests. But it simply isn’t true that, in *Mexico*, “priests were shot for refusing to marry.” (That did more or less happen in Jacobin France, to be sure.)

          • Zmirak

            No, in Jacobin France priests were persecuted for refusing to renounce papal authority. I don’t think clerical marriage was an issue there.

  • tz1

    The Bad Catholics guide to Natural Law and un-natural acts.

    If I knew of any Protestants interested in such a project, I’d loudly warn against them.
    Dispensationalism, the Scofield Bible, and the idea that we need an Israeli Jewish theocracy before Jesus will return after the 7 year Tribulation, but real Christians will be “raputred” before they suffer too much.

    It’s profoundly repulsive to normal folk, the prospect of the grubby-handed government reaching down into that most private of places: the human conscience. 
    The IRS does it and it is constittional. See Bob Jones U that in 1983 (!) had a legitimate (since chaged) belief races should not intermarry – i.e. miscegany – but SCOTUS said the IRS was driven by “public policy”, not the constitution. So they couldn’t get 501c3 status if they didn’t allow interracial handholding, so 35 years later 501c3 should be denied to those who don’t recognize Gay Marriage.

    Tear down all the laws to get to the devil of racism, then when the devil turns on you for heterosexuality there is no where to stand (ref: Man for all seasons)

    When they came for Bob Jones U, I didn’t speak up because I thought anti-miscegany was icky!

    Where were you? Either Liberty and all the principles you honored in the breach since 1983 should have been central and pre-eminent, or popularity and pragmatim (the World, and in this case flesh and devil in the background) are more important.

    Also I can’t let this pass, we are HAIRLESS APES, not NAKED APES even if you take the idiots pronouncements. Unless you are a nudist or are participating in a LGBTQ pride parade.

  • Howard Rosenbaum

    “No one ever sued a gorilla ..”
    Great line in the context of your argument. To think though that all it took was a cake ( or more correctly the absence of one ) to trigger what may become the next holocaust ..!
    Though I do grasp the seriousness of what seems to be our cultures “love affair” w/the so called dignity of the homosexual lifestyle & those who are taken captive by it. Is it only a matter of time before pedophiles are given the same consideration ? What about … ? ( fill in your favorite sexual aberration liberal pundits )
    Yet the old order of Obama era sexual politics while still w/us is on a death watch. We can hope ( w/cause ) that eventually it will be little more than a footnote in the history books.
    Interesting how a once renowned hedonist is kind of responsible in part for getting the “ball’ of Judeo – Christian ethics rolling . Rolling right up to ( hopefully ) to the SCOTUS …

  • Up_Words

    An excellent article with much “food for thought,” and one of the reasons I visit this web site so often—not only for the articles, but for the comments, as well. tz1—some interesting thoughts (although I disagree with the part about a Jewish theocracy. Perhaps you misunderstand the “pre-trib” position(?)– which I also disagree with)—yes, it appears to be true: we brokered a deal with the secularists to restructure our culture for us, in areas where the Church should have taken more of a lead (Civil Rights, Welfare, elder care, etc. etc. Has “loving our neighbor” been reduced to social action & entitlement programs?)

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but what I think I hear Mr. Zmirak saying, is this: It’s going to get much nastier before it gets better. The latest SCOTUS decision only sharpens the secularist’s knives for future “carving expeditions.” You propose, sir, what some Christians might loosely describe as a revival (or, social revolution): forget the gorillas. That’s for another planet . .
    . —but what if a righteous revolution does not arrive? What then?

    I propose that wise Christians go back to the Drawing Board (the Bible) to re-examine Scoffield’s teachings/errors.

  • Mr. Zmirak said:

    “We have only two ways, in the long run, to protect Christian freedom. Either one will be hard. Each would exact a steep political price, and have some unwanted side effects. We must convince the culture once more that homosexual activity is morally inferior to what happens in normal marriage. Or else we must convince it to accept total freedom of contract.”

    Or the third alternative, which is secession. Split the country up and lets be done with it. It is time for the Czech and Slovak solution.

    • James

      We had that idea over 150 years ago, but y’all insisted on keeping the Union together.

  • john

    Interesting that the author is silent about his views on a Catholic “theocracy,” as many European nations once were and some remain very much influenced by the church (Poland and even Italy, to name a couple). But the notion that people who believe one way or another about gay people, divorced and remarried people, or other issues they disagree with and, therefore, have a right to discriminate is frightening. I would no more want a gay florist to have the right to refuse making flower arrangements for Christian weddings than I would a Christian florist have the right to refuse to make them for a gay couple. We have a right to believe and discriminate all we want in our homes and churches — but not in the public sphere.

    • Richard A

      Theocracies are few and far between, and medieval Europe did not qualify as one. Christianity was influential in public life, as every cohesive society has a grounding religion. That does not make them theocracies.

    • Darren

      John,
      Discrimination. A word that is being thrown out lately. Does anyone really know what it means?
      I take discrimination as being against natural law. Tell me, what is the function of men and women? By nature, man was made for woman and woman was made for man. Why do people with same-sex attraction discriminate against this? They go against human nature.
      By Justice Kennedy’s own words, “We are allowed to define the universe as we want”. I think these words are foolish but that’s what he said.
      And we all discriminate in the public square. Why do you do the things you do? Do you like tennis and hate golf? Or vice versa? Like basketball and hate football?
      What if two men just decided to start “doing it” in the public sphere? Would you discriminate their choice? Or would you stand up and tell them what they are doing is wrong?
      So, philosophically speaking, the words you claim are a fallacy.

    • Ray

      Shouldn’t any decorator have the right to refuse any work for any reason of conscience, and still be able to treat everyone with respect, regardless of race, creed, or whatever else? I believe that should be our goal. I believe Jack Phillips did this, from what I could tell.

    • Zmirak

      No I wasn’t silent. I condemned intolerant Catholic governments, and linked to a piece I published just last week to that effect.

  • Morrie Chamberlain

    Great article. I find myself repeating sentences to my wife and then going to the top to see the author and then saying ” of course, it’s Zmirak.

    The French Revolution really never ended. It just morphed into different forms in different countries. Instead of using the guillitine, proponents today dox, or force programs off the air, or prevent prayer in school, or teach our children about immoral sex acts at a very young age. And on and on.

  • Ray

    So was anything at all put on Jack Phillips by the court? If so, this is how things might start to digress. Their tactic seems to be to throw all the evil mud at you, all of it, knowing that the great majority of it will not stick, but when a little bit of it remains, they figure they have gained ground.

  • ForceMajuere

    Just Maybe…….
    Just maybe we’re looking at the Masterpiece Cakes decision all wrong…..maybe the Supreme Court is getting a little bit of a conscience. (True) Laws have their basis in morality, and that morality in Western Civilization is based on the Bible. Blackstone’s Law, which I’m sure all the Justices are familiar with, was based on the interpretation of the Bible. The Author is very correct when discussing Secular Humanism, and the Framers of the Constitution sought to avoid the excesses of French Secularism, as well as imposed State Religion. They could have sent the Writ of Certiorari back to Colorado without comment , but there’s a new boss in town, and that boss is demanding explanation why ordinary proprietors are denied their religious freedoms, based on the previous regime’s zeal to grant “Protected Class” status to a selective minority of individuals who openly flaunt their opposition to Biblical Truth. That boss got elected by a majority of citizens who said, “Wait a minute, this aint right”, and voted out the previous regime’s rainbow favoritism, along with it’s making “gender neutrality” the Law of the Land. Kennedy’s Majority Opinion clearly shows he’s trying to hang on to the Obergefell decision, but he’s recognized the religious intolerance of the Left will undermine it. He hasn’t explained what “Religious Neutrality” means yet, but I’m sure the other Justices will. What is interesting is Thomas, rather than Gorsuch, is becoming the new “Scalia”. Let’s hope Thomas’s view prevails.

  • swordfish

    “How many abolitionists quoted the Bible in their arguments against slavery?”

    How many slave owners quoted the far more numerous and specific Bible verses which condone slavery?

    “Speaking of Nazis, is it bad taste to point out that they were secular humanists?”

    Is it bad taste to point out that Hitler was a Catholic?

    “The death toll of secular humanism in just the 20th century exceeds many, many times over the death toll of the worst persecutions by Christians.”

    What a croc! Hitler was a Catholic as already noted. Most soldiers fighting for Nazi Germany were Christians. The soviets were communists, not ‘secular humanists’.

    “Either we sell America on Christianity once again, or we demand it accept the real implications of rejecting it: Nothing matters, no one has dignity, and people may do as they please.”

    This is rubbish. I wish Christians would stop telling us that nothing matters if we don’t believe in God, or that we have no moral values, as this is simply a lie. Like most atheists, I have moral values. There, your thesis is disproved.

    • ForceMajuere

      I would therefore ask you, what standard is your morality based on?

      • Boris

        The value of human life itself. That’s every body’s standard, even yours.

    • Chris C.

      @”Is it bad taste to point out that Hitler was a Catholic?”-
      It’s always bad taste to omit facts such as Hitler having never practiced the Catholic faith as an adult, and his hatred for the Catholic Church and Pius XII.

      @”The soviets were communists, not ‘secular humanists’.”-
      What are communists if not secular humanists? One needn’t be a communist to be a secular humanist, but one cannot be a communist without being a secular humanist. Rejecting religious faith, except for cynically using it for one’s political purposes, is inherent in embracing the materialistic belief system of communism.

      Most atheists have moral values. What informs those values? How does atheism inform them? How must one do to become a “bad atheist”? Maybe they accept that it is wrong to kill, cheat, or steal. Do they do so on account of, or in spite of their atheism? If a Christian murders, lies, cheat, or steals it is evident to all that he has failed to observe his belief system. If an atheist does the same thing how has he violated his atheistic beliefs? Short answer: he hasn’t. Because atheism is a belief in nothing.

      Nietzsche explained it all quite well. Abandon faith in God and ultimately all that’s left is “Will to Power”. The rule of Superman.

      • swordfish

        “It’s always bad taste to omit facts such as Hitler having never practiced the Catholic faith as an adult”

        That was my point: The article doesn’t mention relevant facts.

        “Most atheists have moral values. What informs those values?”

        Empathy. Living in a society. Personal experience. Common sense. Laws. Innate behaviour.

        “If an atheist does the same thing how has he violated his atheistic beliefs? Short answer: he hasn’t. Because atheism is a belief in nothing.”

        Yes and no. Atheism isn’t a moral system, it’s a lack of belief. A lack of belief in a specific thing isn’t a belief in nothing – I don’t believe in fairies, does that mean I believe in nothing? No.

        • Chris C.

          @”That was my point”-
          Actually from the context of your post, no it wasn’t.
          @”The article doesn’t mention relevant facts.”-
          Neither did you , hence your post was in “bad taste” to answer your own question.

          @”..’.What informs those values?’ [A] Empathy. Living in a society.Personal experience. Common sense. Laws. Innate behaviour……”
          Since as you said in your last paragraph atheist is “a lack of belief”, we can agree that those values have nothing whatsoever to do with being an atheist. Thus the point from your original post: “Like most atheists, I have moral values” while it reveals something about you and others as individuals, reveals nothing about you as atheists in particular. Atheism is simply irrelevant to your moral values whatever they may be.

          @”I don’t believe in fairies, does that mean I believe in nothing? No.”-
          Fair point except whatever you might believe in wouldn’t be informed by your “a-fairieism”. Likewise as stated, an atheist might subjectively believe in, isn’t informed by his/her atheism, but by other factors.

          • swordfish

            [That was my point] “Actually from the context of your post, no it wasn’t.”

            Actually, yes it was.

          • Chris C.

            Your point was that Hitler was “a Catholic”. My point is that in making your point you failed to provide proper context, such as that he hadn’t been a practicing Catholic in his adult life, had no affinity for the Catholic faith, hated the Church and the Pope….
            If it was your point I don’t think you made it very well.

          • swordfish

            The article states that the Nazis were secular humanists – do you not think that leaves out just a bit of context?

          • Chris C.

            Arguably it does, however the author did go into some detail to substantiate the point, referencing the French Revolution, Bolshevik Russia, Mao, etc. They were all creatures of the radical enlightenment, which was indeed secular and humanistic to the core, whatever other differences with each other they may have had.

          • Boris

            Not true.

          • Chris C.

            Oh. Well that settles that.

          • Boris

            “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.” –Adolf Hitler,

          • Chris C.

            Written when he was trying to con Christians into following him and trying to make them think he was one of them which he wasn’t. As soon as he secured power he commenced attempting to dismantle German Christianity while trying to replace it with a perverted version which affirmed the Germanic people, the state, and the Nazi party as “gods” to be worshipped or else. The only ones he fooled were folks like yourself who want to buy into a lie about the Christian faith.

          • Boris

            “The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.” –Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (This quote is very interesting for it disperses the idea that Hitler raged war due to being an Aryan supremacist. He states quite clearly that he has a problem with Jews for their belief not race. That is why many German Jews died in WW2 regardless of their Aryan nationality.)
            The only people lying about the Christian superstition, let’s call it what it is, are Christians. Always have always will.

          • Chris C.

            Yes. His “religious idea” was not the worship of God almighty, Father Son and Holy Spirit. It was Germanic/Aryan superiority. Unless you think you’ve discovered new information that no competent historian has ever come across before. His hatred of Jews was racial. His hatred of Poland and the Slavic people was racial. He had no compunction about slaughtering millions of Polish Catholics including numerous bishops and priests many of whom ended up in Dachau. Some “christian”.

          • Boris

            Let’s see who should we believe? Hitler’s own words or yours? I am not saying that Christianity or Christians are to blame for Hitler’s actions. He did what he did on his own but he also believed what he was doing was in accordance with Christian doctrines and dogmas. Hitler loved and worshiped Jesus and I’m sure he repented of his sins so if heaven is real Hitler is surely going to be there if he isn’t already. After all Hitler roasted those who disagreed with him just like Jesus making your Christian brother Adolf Hitler the most Christ-like man who ever lived. You know if you just pick up a science book or two you can relieve yourself of these insane superstitions and then you won’t have to make excuses for Brother Adolf anymore. Life is better as an atheist. However you do have to do your own thinking. First thing to do is look up the list of 20 logical fallacies and gain some critical thinking skills. Because right now the lack of those skills is why you believe what you do.

          • Chris C.

            It seems that those who knew him best somehow missed the insights that you claim to have.

            ************
            “We demand freedom for all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or conflict with the customs and moral sentiments of the Germanic race”-From an early Nazi party platform
            *************
            “Once I have settled my other problem,” [Hitler] occasionally declared, “I’ll have my reckoning with the church. I’ll have it reeling on the ropes.” But Bormann did not want this reckoning postponed … he would take out a document from his pocket and begin reading passages from a defiant sermon or pastoral letter. Frequently Hitler would become so worked up … and vowed to punish the offending clergyman eventually … That he could not immediately retaliate raised him to a white heat …

            — Extract from Inside the Third Reich, the memoir of Albert Speer

            Hitler, wrote Speer, viewed Christianity as the wrong religion for the “Germanic temperament”: Speer wrote that Hitler would say: “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”[58] Speer also wrote of observing in Hitler “quite a few examples”, and that he held a negative view toward Himmler and Rosenberg’s mystical notions.-
            ***************
            Commentary on the work Table Talk, which recorded numerous personal conversations of Hitler during the war years-

            -“Speer noted in his memoirs that Bormann relished recording any harsh pronouncements made by Hitler against the church: “there was hardly anything he wrote down more eagerly than deprecating comments on the church”. Within the transcripts, Hitler speaks of Christianity as “absurdity” and “humbug” founded on “lies” with which he could “never come personally to terms.”-

            -“The remarks from Table Talk accepted as genuine include such quotes as “Christianity is the prototype of Bolshevism: the mobillization by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society.” Alan Bullock’s seminal biography Hitler: A Study in Tyranny quotes Hitler as saying, “Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure”; found also in Table Talk, and repeats other views appearing in Table Talk such as: the teachings of Christianity are a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and survival of the fittest.”-

            -“Table Talk has the dictator often voicing stridently negative views of Christianity, such as: “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.”-

            “Transcripts contained in Table Talk have Hitler expressing faith that science would wear away religion. On 14 October 1941, in an entry concerning the fate of Christianity, Hitler says: “Science cannot lie, for it’s always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It’s Christianity that’s the liar. It’s in perpetual conflict with itself.” Religion will crumble before scientific advances, says Hitler: “The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that’s left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.”

            Hitler wanted his movement aloof from religion, fearing a pact with the churches would collapse: “I’m convinced that any pact with the Church can offer only a provisional benefit, for sooner or later the scientific spirit will disclose the harmful character of such a compromise. Thus the State will have based its existence on a foundation that one day will collapse. An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature and bows before the unknowable. An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal) as soon as he perceives that the State, in sheer opportunism, is making use of false ideas in the matter of religion, whilst in other fields it bases everything on pure science. That’s why I’ve always kept the Party aloof from religious questions.”

            According to Table Talk, Hitler believed that Jesus’ true Christian teachings had been corrupted by the apostle St Paul, who had transformed them into a kind of Jewish Bolshevism, which Hitler believed preached “the equality of all men amongst themselves, and their obedience to an only god. This is what caused the death of the Roman Empire.”
            **********
            From the diaries of Joseph Goebbels-
            ***************************
            In an 8 April 1941 entry, Goebbels wrote “He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity.”[82]

            In 1937, Goebbels noted Hitler’s approval of anti-Christian propaganda and the show trials of clergy. Hitler’s impatience with the churches, wrote Kershaw, “prompted frequent outbursts of hostility. In early 1937 he was declaring that ‘Christianity was ripe for destruction’, and that the Churches must yield to the “primacy of the state”, railing against any compromise with “the most horrible institution imaginable”.[17] In his entry for 29 April 1941, Goebbels noted long discussions about the Vatican and Christianity, and wrote: “The Fuhrer is a fierce opponent of all that humbug”.[18]

            In 1939, Goebbels wrote that the Fuhrer knew that he would “have to get around to a conflict between church and state” but that in the meantime “The best way to deal with the churches is to claim to be a ‘positive Christian’.”[81]

            In another entry, Goebbels wrote that Hitler was “deeply religious but entirely anti-Christian”.[83][84] Goebbels wrote on 29 December 1939:[85]

            The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. This can be seen in the similarity of their religious rites. Both (Judaism and Christianity) have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end they will be destroyed. The Führer is a convinced vegetarian on principle.

            Goebbels notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.”[86] Hitler, wrote Goebbels, saw the pre-Christian Augustan Age as the high point of history, and could not relate to the Gothic mind nor to “brooding mysticism”.

            — Goebbels Diaries, 29 December 1939
            **********************

            Try to get beyond your biases and admit the obvious….HItler was no Christian, his lying words to the contrary notwithstanding. Those who knew him best would agree.

          • Boris

            Table Talk is a bunch of Christian forgeries invented to try to distance Christianity from the Nazis. There’s no evidence that Hitler ever said any of those things. There is only one source for any of them while we have multiple sources for Hitler’s actual statements. Yeah go ahead and tell me Christians don’t forge and fabricate stuff. Your whole religion is based on the faked and forged New Testament. POOF

          • Chris C.

            Oh my gosh…..I don’t suppose you can prove the claim that TT is a “Christian forgery”. Of course there were other sources quoted. Was the Speer memoir a forgery as well? How about the Goebbels diary?

            Anyway I can see why your Disqus account is marked “private”. If this exchange is representative of your thinking who in their right mind would want to knowingly engage you? I won’t make the same mistake twice. Happy trails.

          • Boris

            Well we know that the source material for Matthew and Luke was Mark and the writer’s own vivid imaginations. Had you actually read any of New Testament you would know the Church already existed when it was written. So while we don’t know the names of who wrote any of it we still know who wrote it. The Church did and in such a way as to make it look like God came to Earth to start their particular religion and church. No, nothing suspicious about that. Remember these hoaxers, I mean churchmen were competing with other cults and religions who also had their own religious texts as well for converts, their money, their political support and their young male children. You look at all the fraudsters today on TBN Benny Hinn, Jesse DuPlantis, Creflo Dollar, Mike Murdock and we should believe that when people were even more gullible than they are today there were not religious fraudsters everywhere ready to play them for fools. The same way your cult leaders play you for a fool.

          • Chris C.

            We’ve moved on from “christian forgeries” to this? You decided not to address my last post, but I’m supposed to read this and respond???? I’ve given you the attention you crave, and it’s been fun ( sort of) but time to move on!

          • Boris

            As another believer runs from Boris with his tail firmly tucked between his legs. I got you out of here. Mission accomplished. Coward.

          • Chris C.

            Yeah congrats Boris! You’re sure one of a kind. Hiding behind your anonymity must be the secret. That and not actually engaging in a dialogue or responding when challenged. Works every time!

          • Boris

            I turned the privacy setting off. I just never bothered with it before. I guess off is the default. Read whatever you want. Who gives a rip? I responded to you and then ran you for your intellectual dishonesty because it just muddies up the waters.

          • Chris C.

            Good for you! Respond to my post wherein I asked you to prove that Table Talk was a “christian forgery” and why the accounts of Speer and Goebbels shouldn’t be believed. Then I’ll decide if it’s worth my time. I suspect you’re something of a troll who has no interest in a meaningful dialogue. But I’ll look at your vast body of work first.

            CORRECTION- I won’t be looking at your vast body of work. Your privacy settings are unchanged. Anonymity lives!

          • Boris

            Try it again. I forgot to hit save when I changed it. Ding Dong.
            Then: “Hitler Table Talks, real but mostly a hoax.”

          • Chris C.

            Still not showing but never mind. So what’s the proof that TT is a “christian forgery” or a “hoax”? Did Speers and Goebbels make things up as well?

          • Boris

            Even in the United States before the war Adolf Hitler was fairly popular, especially among evangelicals and Catholics. As people began to realize he was a very bad man naturally support for him in other countries began to wain. Table Talk is an attempt to blur this little part of the past. There are all kinds of problems with the text and these are well documented. You can look them up yourself. You belong to a religion that has the Discovery Institute representing it. There isn’t a more dishonest, unscrupulous and evil organization on this planet this side of the Catholic Church. Don’t try to pretend anyone can believe anything Christians say. Ever. We can’t and you know it.

          • Chris C.

            I’m still not seeing any proof that TT was a “christian forgery” or a “hoax”. Just a matter of “problems with the text” which likely is a matter of quibbling about a translation, not proof of forgery or hoax.
            If that’s the best you have, then you have nothing but unfounded assertions.

          • Boris

            You would not have to even deal with this problem if it were not for your various cult leaders falsely claiming that Hitler was a pagan or an atheist, take your pick. The only reason these counter apologists pointed out on the Internet and in books that Hitler was a Christian is because of the lies Christians told about him in the first place. This argument that people kill because they are unbelievers is very old and extremely dishonest and you know it.

          • Chris C.

            I’m not engaging with someone who makes accusations that they can’t substantiate. It’s a waste of time. Give it up. Bye.

          • Boris

            Says the man who can’t substantiate any of the beliefs his life is based on.

          • Zmirak

            He was ATTACKING the Christian Social movement in that passage, as being “unscientific” for concerning itself with trivialities like religion, instead of what mattered–race. Learn to read in CONTEXT.

          • NickRepublic

            Actually, it wasn’t. You challenge him to make your points for you. Why would he? You haven’t even proven yours.

          • swordfish

            Challenge who? What are you talking about?

  • Boris

    It’s profoundly repulsive to normal folk, the prospect of the grubby-handed government reaching down into that most private of places: the human womb.

    • Ameribear

      It is absolutely profoundly repulsive that you have forced this genocide on the most vulnerable and helpless class of humans. The fact that you’ve done it based on speciuos arguments and non exisitant rights makes it even worse.

      • Boris

        I haven’t done a thing. The Supreme Court did it and so your complaint is with them, not me. Grow up.

        • NickRepublic

          What a waste of human life you are.

          • Boris

            6’1” 195, benching 250 for reps, squatting a bit more. You should be careful with that name calling because I can pretty much do what I want to anybody I want. Squeal Boy. Louder. I said louder Boy.

          • Boris

            Somebody whose entire life is built on belief in fairy tales and magic telling someone else to grow up. Oh the irony. Your lack of selfawareness is astounding.

        • Ameribear

          You are advocating genocide perpetrated on a class of people you admit are human beings. Your cognitive dissonance is visible from space.

          • Boris

            I cannot imagine what someone is going through that would make them even consider having an abortion. Can you? It must be traumatic and heart wrenching and a very difficult choice to make. I can’t judge a person like that having never walked a few miles in their shoes. And neither can you. You’ve been played for a fool by right wing politicians for decades who take your vote knowing you’re a narrow-minded one issue voter. They never deliver do they? Do you know what the definition of insane is? Getting fooled by the same trick over and over and over… You’ve played for a fool by your religious cult leaders who tell you Jesus will cry if we don’t fight against abortion. And of course send you Americub, straight to the flames of hell for not doing enough to save those babies. We’ve come full circle back to the real reason you pretend to be concerned for the unborn. You’re just trying to save your own skin – from being burned off by the God you claim loves you.

          • Ameribear

            Are you ever going to be capable of addressing anything anyone says to you without wandering off on some unrelated tangent? I think it’s safe to say you aren’t fooling anyone and that you’re intentionally doing this to mask your inability to support anything you’ve said.

          • Boris

            I have answered everything you’ve said point by point. You don’t understand the complexity of the issue, you can only see one side of it. You actually expect me to agree with your claims about the legitimacy of the unborn while you refuse to even at least acknowledge that women are legitimate human beings and have rights. No can do. As far as this discussion goes the unborn are irrelevant and have no rights at all unless you acknowledge that women have rights as well. You won’t do it because as soon as you do it’s CHECKMATE you lose and you know it.
            Now pay attention this is very important. You are the one attempting to defend the indefensible which attempting to restrict other people’s rights. That is a slippery slope that we cannot afford to go down. We already have the authoritarian left trying to restrict free speech and the right wingnuts trying to restrict freedom of the press. If the government ever starts restricting or criminalizing previously held rights you can bet one of the first rights to go will be your right to own a gun followed closely by your right to practice your religion. So you might want to reconsider your position on rights in this nation. They’re on a very slippery slope already, with all this anti-gun, anti-religion sentiment among our younger voters, many of whom do not understand how important our rights really are. Much like you.

          • Ameribear

            I have answered everything you’ve said point by point. You don’t understand the complexity of the issue, you can only see one side of it.

            You have done no such thing. You have only regurgitated talking points with nothing to support them and you have repeatedly evaded answering the questions that expose the worthlessness of your claims along with incessantly wandering off on irrelevant tangents.

            You actually expect me to agree with your claims about the legitimacy of the unborn while you refuse to even at least acknowledge that women are legitimate human beings and have rights.

            I do acknowledge that women are legitimate humans with rights, I do not ,however, buy your crap about a woman’s right to her body
            trumps an unborn child’s right to life.

            No can do. As far as this discussion goes the unborn are irrelevant and have no rights at all unless you acknowledge that women have rights as well. You won’t do it because as soon as you do it’s CHECKMATE you lose and you know it.

            They both have rights Natasha. You’ve conceded the unborn
            are human from the start and now you say they’re irrelevant. You cannot have it both ways. What’s it going to be?

            Now pay attention this is very important. You are the one attempting to defend the indefensible which attempting to
            restrict other people’s rights. That is a slippery slope that we cannot afford to go down.

            It’s time for you to pay attention Bullwinkle. You are the one defending the intentional ending of innocent human life. Your hypocrisy could be tracked with a Geiger counter and you’re too dense to realize it. You have zero grounds to accuse anyone else of denying rights.

          • Boris

            I did not have anything to do with the Supreme Court’s decision. It’s the Supreme Court and the law of the land you have a problem with but you just are not mature enough to admit it.

            You are correct in that you are not nor will you ever deny a woman’s right to govern what happens with her own body. You would like to but the reason you are so angry is because you can’t. You like to shoot off your big mouth. Suppose somebody takes offense and takes control of your body for a while, Little man. Somebody like me who can bench press 225 pounds for reps perhaps. Would that person have the right to your body or not?

          • Ameribear

            I did not have anything to do with the Supreme Court’s decision. It’s the Supreme Court and the law of the land you have a problem with but you just are not mature enough to admit it.

            Was the Supreme Court right when it made the Dred-Scott
            decision? You believe that If it’s legal it’s right so was slavery right when it was legal? When are you going to answer these questions?

            You are correct in that you are not nor will you ever deny a woman’s right to govern what happens with her own body.

            As usual you keep ignoring the biological fact that newly conceived
            humans are genetically distinct from both parents which shreds you’re worthless talking point. Are you ever going to admit this?

            Would that person have the right to your body or not?

            I’ve given you many reasons why your bodily rights argument is
            beyond worthless. It’s pure fiction and your inability to address even one of the points that refutes it is proof. When are you going to address them instead of puking up your Supreme Court cop out?

      • Boris

        Americub: You’re not paying attention or more probably intentionally trying to divert attention away from all the flaws in your logic. The born and unborn are BOTH legitimate classes of human beings and you have conceded as much. You have no basis for denying the rights of either one. You lost the moment you acknowledged the unborn are just as human as the born.

        I copied your entire argument from the other thread which is censoring stuff so every one can clearly see the difference in our stances. Women, pregnant or otherwise are BOTH legitimate classes of human beings and you have NOT EVER conceded as much. You have no basis for denying the rights of either one. You lost the moment you refused to acknowledge women are just as human as the unborn, or probably a little more so. Touche. It’s very easy to turn your arguments on their heads and use them against you. Fallacy Man.
        cub: Guarantee is NOT the same thing as grant.
        Okay they are granted by the Constitution. Happy now?.
        Yogibear: How does ending the life of an unborn child BENEFIT the life of the mother? Another pre-programmed discredited talking point you spit out.
        A great example of a pre-programmed discredited talking point is the made-up term “partial birth abortion” not a medical term, a myth created by right wing politicians to fool ignorant and gullible voters. Like you.
        Conditions that might lead to ending a pregnancy to save a woman’s life include severe infections, heart failure and severe cases of preeclampsia, a condition in which a woman develops very high blood pressure and is at risk for stroke

        Cubby: Your problem is abortion is indefensible
        The law of the land disagrees. And you’ve been commanded by whoever forged that part of the New Testament to obey the law.
        Boo Boo: so you have to invent some boogie man to prevent anyone from really scrutinizing your reasoning.
        Anybody can scrutinize the Court’s ruling and the reasoning behind it. It’s not my reasoning, it’s the Constitution’s reasoning. Good luck changing that.
        Cuboomer: Show me the evidence for all these clinic bombers you speak of. … of you deluded crap. If you can’t then you’ve once again proven how pathetically delusional you are. Put up or shut up
        Anybody can just Google “Violence against abortion providers” and all your heroes are listed right there, Little Man. Or do you think it’s wrong to bomb abortion clinics and murder abortion providers?

  • HHP

    Instead if state building, how about getting back to the mission of the Church? See CCC 1040-1046, Daniel 2:44, see CCC 56-58, why we are even in this mess…

  • carl eisenberg

    You and your ilk have done more damage to organized religion among our young people than any atheist (or atheistic government) could ever hope to achieve. Enshrining millennia old prejudices is your choice. Leave the rest of us out of it.
    Go away and don’t come back.

  • Irene Neuner

    To me the right to say, “No, I won’t take your wedding photographs,” to a gay couple is the same as my right to say “No, I will not go with you,” to a man who makes a sexual advance to me. This metoo# movement is in direct conflict with a baker, florist, and or photographer having the freedom and support to say no.

    Pathetic, weak, hypocritical, immoral, lost, self-absorbed, confused, power hungry tyrants (people) have problems with the word “NO.”

  • Kuni Leml

    How many abolitionists quoted the Bible in their arguments against slavery you disingenuously ask?

    Probably less than the following:

    • How many slavers used the Bible to justify their evil?
    • How many Conservatives used the Bible to justify their opposition to mixed-race marriages?
    • How many vile evil homophobes use the Bible to defend their evil?

Inspiration
Beyond Resurrection
Dudley Hall
More from The Stream
Connect with Us