Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Outright, Blatant Assault on Religious Freedom

Remember the old line used by thieves, "It's your money or your life?" Well. Now, in California, ALL schools (including private, Christian, and religious schools!!) must follow a new adage that basically states:

"If you want your child to get state money for his/her schooling, you must completely ignore and leave your heartfelt Biblical beliefs behind and you must condone/accept/embrace/celebrate homosexuality at your school or NO STATE MONEY FOR YOU!"

Remember Seinfeld's "soup nazi?" If Jerry said something wrong at the counter the soup nazi guy would yell, "No soup for you!" That was funny! But this new bill signing by RINO Arnold here in California is poised to have devastating consequences for traditional, Biblical worldview Christians and their families.

We, unfortunately, have been attacked by The Homosexual Agenda Legislative Nazis in Sacramento! And I'm NOT KIDDING about calling them that! For it is exactly what they are! Arnold too! What a turncoat...

Homeschooling the children and grandchildren...here we come!!

My friend Dani....you were correct all along!!

Christine

*******

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

LAW OF THE LAND
Gov. Arnold tosses school moral codes
Bill forces condoning of homosexuality, critics say 'the gates of hell are prevailing'

Excerpts from Gov. Arnold tosses school moral codes.:


California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has tossed out all sexual moral conduct codes at colleges, private and Christian schools, daycare centers and other facilities throughout his state, if the institutions have any students who get state assistance.

The governor yesterday signed a bill that would require all businesses and groups receiving state funding -- even if it's a state grant for a student -- to condone homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality.

There is no exception for faith-based organizations or business owners with sincerely held religious convictions, critics note.


Isn't this a blatant violation of religious freedom of association? I would think that an immediate and stronge challenge to this terrible example of so-called, "tolerance," under the guise of fighting "hate and discrimination" for the sake of "safe schools" will be forthcoming by the Alliance Defense Fund.


"The gates of hell are prevailing against the church," Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, told WorldNetDaily. "It's because Christian colleges and churches have ignored the political process for so long. Now the political process, absent religious values, is coming back to assault the church."

"This isn't even a veiled attempt at subtly advancing the radical homosexual agenda," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute. "SB1441 is an outright, blatant assault on religious freedom in California."


This bill is an outright, offensive attempt to silence any and all religious disagreements with the loony leftists promotion of homosexuality as "normal," "natural," "healthy." Now, it is not only something that must be tolerated (already got that ad nauseum in schools!!!), but something that cannot be dissented against or else that child will lose his/her government financial assistance and aid! Why? Just because he/she does not accept what the loony legislators and arrogant Arnold think should pass as a "non-discrimination issue." It's nothing more than what David Kupelian told us in the first chapter of The Marketing of Evil book!



"Equating sexual preference with the immutable characteristics of age, national origin or race will result in other variable behaviors being added to the list of invariable classes rightfully protected," she said.

Constitutional assurances of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech both are destroyed by the action, CRI said. And Thomasson believes it is "setting up a tremendous church-state conflict in the courts."


It is so obvious that the 6 or so homosexual legislators in Sacramento would rather push their own personal agenda than represent the majority of Californians (63% !!) who voted against "gay" marriage and, if given the opportunity, would most certainly oppose such a bill if they had their chance to vote against it!!

Why do you think that they didn't put this on the ballot??

Because most Californians would vote against it!! So they do an end-run within the legislature with their personal biases trumping what Californians really would want when it comes to the education of their children and grandchildren. With a radical leftist democratic majority in both the state house and senate, these terrible bills fly through without one thought for the people who are against them!

Randy Thomasson tells it like it is:


"Arnold Schwarzenegger has two faces," said Thomasson. "He speaks at churches and says he believes in religious freedom and family values, yet he's stabbing pro-family Californians in the back."

"This bill is yet another attempt to prevent citizens with moral and religious principles from expressing their beliefs and educating their children according to those beliefs," said England. "On behalf of California families, private schools and other private organizations, I express our outrage at this attack on our freedom."

"Today's disastrous action by Schwarzenegger means Christian and other faith-based colleges in California will be forced to promote transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality if they accept students with Cal Grants," concluded Thomasson's organization.

He said the governor "has trampled religious freedom to satisfy hyperactive sexual activists."


"He's not the lesser of two evils, he's doing evil," Thomasson said.



And, you might ask, where is the evidence that thousands opposed the signing of this bill?


CCF earlier had publicized the situation, and generated thousands of telephone calls, e-mails and faxes opposing the plan.


That's where!

But do you think that the legislators even cared about those who were against this bill; a bill that belonged in the trash can rather than on Arnold desk? Oh no...of course not! They are the little Hitlers that want to dictate to parents what their children are taught; and if they don't walk lock-step with the homosexual agenda crud, then their children won't get any state money!

Isn't this a not-so-subtle case of bribery?

Isn't this like a communist style, socialist-agenda-wielded-sword being waved at and against people of faith who don't want their homosexual behavior licentiousness shoved down our throats??

Where are our constitutional rights of dissent against such manipulation of school children through the Kirk and Madsen playbook of forced "desensitization," "jamming," and "conversion?"

It gets worse, though, my friends, for it will lead to:


But it was supported by Democrats in the state legislature and specifically requires "any program or activity that receives any financial assistance from the state" to support the alternative sexual lifestyle choices.

CCF said the change also will affect any program or activity at the local level that gets any state funding from programs including Medi-Cal, State Disability Insurance, CalWORKS, food stamps, Unemployment Insurance, Workers' Compensation, child support services, veterans services, home loan assistance programs and others.


We've got to fight against this, and the other indoctrination bills still sitting on RINO Arnold's desk:



And as bad as the single bill is, the CCF said, several other "sexual indoctrination bills" are heading to the governor. One would prohibit textbooks or school-sponsored activities from "reflecting adversely" on a certain list of sexual choices.

Another would allow the California superintendent of public instruction to arbitrarily withhold state funds from any district that does not adequately promote the State Department of Education's "model policy" promoting transsexuality, bisexuality or homosexuality in its school policies.

Still another would spend state money promoting transsexual, bisexual and homosexual lifestyles.

As WND reported, James Dobson, president of the action affiliate of Focus on the Family ministries, earlier broadcast an urgent call to the millions of radio program listeners to contact Schwarzenegger about the homosexual promotions.

Mona Passignano, the state issues analyst for Focus, told WND the combination of bills would reinforce homosexuality and a limited number of other sexual choices but also prevent people from reflecting on their religious beliefs that may address those choices.

"You cannot preach the Gospel. If you want to preach about Romans 1, you can't. Someone could say, 'That makes me feel bad,'" she said. "You cannot preach what the Bible says.


"If you're a Christian, it's got to be alarming. If you are not a Christian, it's got to be alarming," she said. "Because what comes next?


Related offers:

Get Ann's latest and hottest book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"
"The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom"
"The Gay Agenda: It's Dividing the Family, the Church, and a Nation"

Previous stories:
Dobson: Tell Arnold to halt 'gay' agenda
Bill promoting homosexuality in schools OK'd
Arnold to veto bill nixing 'mom,' 'dad'
Bill barring 'mom,' 'dad' from texts passes
Bill to ban 'mom, dad' from texts advances
'Gays' history in the making
'Mom,' 'dad' to be axed from school textbooks?
Arnold to terminate same-sex marriage
Same-sex marriage bill on Arnold's desk
California Senate OKs same-sex marriage
California Dems endorse same-sex civil unions
Same-sex marriage bill advances in California
Federal Marriage Amendment dead?
How homosexual activists took America by surprise
California high court blocks S.F. 'marriages'
Bush announces support for marriage amendment
Activists respond to Bush amendment stance
Marriage defenders slow same-sex tide
Mayor facing charges for same-sex weddings
Another city backs same-sex marriage
Arnold: Terminate same-sex marriage

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows. To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51732

48 comments:

Jody said...

It's really simple, Christine. If you want to keep preaching hate to school kids, don't take any state money.

But if you take Caesar's coin...

limpy99 said...

The summary I read, even in waht appears to be a heavily slanted article from WorldNet, clearly contradicts the claim that this requires condoning homosexuality. As Jody points out, any institution is free to condemn whatever they want, but if they want financial aid from the state, they're going to have to play by the state's rules.

There are two solutions. Three if you count home schooling. The first would be for each school to start its own fund raising drive to develop its own base for financial aid. My high school did this every year. And still does judging from my mailbox. The second would be to try to change the government through voting for candidates of your own choosing who will support your positions. Of course, this would require that you first persuade a majority of your fellow voters that your position is the better one and that they should therefore back your candidates.

I hear bake sales are reliable. Maybe a "Keep the Gates of Hell Closed; Buy a Cake" theme.

Anna said...

Hi Christine -

I hope this law will not go unchallenged. The answer is not to crawl into a hole, but to use every legal avenue at our disposal to turn the situation around.

Blessings,
Anna

Phronk said...

It's hard to get an accurate idea of what this actually entails from these transparently biased sources, but it seems like it's not forcing anybody to condone (let alone celebrate) anything. It's just saying that a government-funded agency can't enforce arbitrary "moral" conduct rules. I do wish your quotes actually described it before criticizing it, though, because I'm too lazy to look up real news.

What's the alternative to this? Would you prefer if every organization is allowed to dictate its own standard of morality and enforce it?

If a principle of a private school is a Satanist, should she be allowed to expel kids who wear crosses? Or does your condemnation of this law only apply when it's Christian morals being enforced?

From what I can gather here, it seems like a perfectly good idea to me.

Juan Buhler said...

"Equating sexual preference with the immutable characteristics of age, national origin or race will result in other variable behaviors being added to the list of invariable classes rightfully protected," she said.

Like handicap and occupation, which were already included in the original law and the dishonest author of the article conveniently omits.

Christinewjc said...

Juan,

Age, national origin, and race are not behaviors.

Handicap and occupation are not behaviors.

Elevating a behavior (viewed as aberrant by a majority of people) to a "protected class" which is in opposition to, and viewed as abhorrent by many people is a serious mistake. Like one person stated in the article, it opens "protection" for other aberrant sexual proclivities (we all have seen that there are massive amounts of sexual predator teachers going after students these days!)and that is not a good thing.

What if the tables were turned, Juan? What if every public school, daycare, university etc. established that a Christian view against, lets say, abortion, was the view that ALL MUST HOLD in order to get state funding? How would you feel then?

Boo said...

""If you want your child to get state money for his/her schooling, you must completely ignore and leave your heartfelt Biblical beliefs behind and you must condone/accept/embrace/celebrate homosexuality at your school or NO STATE MONEY FOR YOU!""

No, you just can't discriminate. Rest assured Christine, I for one would never want the law to force you to embrace me. It'd just be awkward for both of us.

"We, unfortunately, have been attacked by The Homosexual Agenda Legislative Nazis in Sacramento!"

No Darwin, no Schwarzeneggar!

"Isn't this a blatant violation of religious freedom of association?"

No, because people have a constitutional right not to accept state funds.

"SB1441 is an outright, blatant assault on religious freedom in California."

Yes, a bill which outlaws discrimination on the basis of religion, as the existing law that was just amended to include sexual orientation does, is clearly an assault on religious freedom. Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

""Equating sexual preference with the immutable characteristics of age, national origin or race will result in other variable behaviors being added to the list of invariable classes rightfully protected," she said."

Except of course the law doesn't address "immutable characteristics" so whether or not homosexuality is immutable is beside the point; see the above about the law also outlawing discrimination based on religious affiliation.

"It is so obvious that the 6 or so homosexual legislators in Sacramento would rather push their own personal agenda rather than represent the majority of Californians who voted against "gay" marriage and would also oppose such a bill if they had their chance to vote against it!! Why do you think that they didn't put this on the ballot?? Because most Californians would vote against it!! So they do an end-run within the legislature with their personal biases trumping what Californians really would want when it comes to the education of their children and grandchildren. With a democratic majority in both the state house and senate, these terrible bills fly through with a thought for the people who are against them."

Indeed, it's almost as if those legislators think they were voted into office to make laws or something! Why on earth should the democrats presume to represent the will of the people just because they got most of the votes? It's absurd! Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

"On behalf of California families, private schools and other private organizations, I express our outrage at this attack on our freedom."

It's a horrible constraint on my freedom not to be allowed to constrain other people's freedom!

"They are the little Hitlers that want to dictate to parents what their children are taught; and if they don't walk lock-step with the homosexual agenda crud, then their children won't get any state money!"

Can we set a limit on one hysterical Hitler comparison every, say, 6 months or so? At least until the gays start rounding up the straights for "showers." Oops, I let the cat out of the bag...

""Today's disastrous action by Schwarzenegger means Christian and other faith-based colleges in California will be forced to promote transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality if they accept students with Cal Grants,"

Another would allow the California superintendent of public instruction to arbitrarily withhold state funds from any district that does not adequately promote the State Department of Education's "model policy" promoting transsexuality, bisexuality or homosexuality in its school policies.

Still another would spend state money promoting transsexual, bisexual and homosexual lifestyles.

As WND reported, James Dobson, president of the action affiliate of Focus on the Family ministries, earlier broadcast an urgent call to the millions of radio program listeners to contact Schwarzenegger about the homosexual promotions."

With the tremendous amount of homosexual promotion that has taken place, I am thrilled to anounce that I have finally made General! Woo-hoo!!! At one point I thought I'd have to retire a Major, but all the homosexual promotion has paid off!

Honestly, I'm a little disappointed you didn't find a way to work "activist judges" into this one, Christine.

Boo said...

"Elevating a behavior (viewed as aberrant by a majority of people) to a "protected class" which is in opposition to, and viewed as abhorrent by many people is a serious mistake."

You mean like the law already does for religion?

"Like one person stated in the article, it opens "protection" for other aberrant sexual proclivities (we all have seen that there are massive amounts of sexual predator teachers going after students these days!)and that is not a good thing."

Pedophilia is already illegal, so no, it doesn't open that door. That herring you caught looks awful red, I'd throw it back.

Christinewjc said...

Jody said, "It's really simple, Christine. If you want to keep preaching hate to school kids, don't take any state money."

It's not about "preaching hate" Jody. It's about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association that are guaranteed by our Constitution.

To have a bill pass that takes away state funding because of one, ideological stance that 6 homosexual legislators (and their Democrat cronies) believe is valid, does not match up with anything guaranteed by our Constitution. Our Founding Fathers purposely didn't include behaviors as a "right" for this very reason.

Heck! Even when the Supreme Court ruled in the Boy Scout's organization's favor, homosexual activists and the ACLU are continually suing them, throwing them off public lands that they used for 60 years, and they are still busy torturing them because the decision didn't go their way.

Nice behavior...wouldn't you agree?

It may take a long court fight, but I think that this stupid bill will be overturned, and rightly so. Freedom of association that is in the Constitution will win out in the end. Unfortunately, many children and their parents may have to suffer through the long process. Perhaps many more will homeschool. I know that I would!

Christinewjc said...

Boo: "You mean like the law already does for religion?"

Religion isn't a behavior.

Boo: "Except of course the law doesn't address "immutable characteristics" so whether or not homosexuality is immutable is beside the point"

Ex-gay people wouldn't exist if homosexuality was "immutable."

Boo: "see the above about the law also outlawing discrimination based on religious affiliation."

Don't you see that this bill does exactly that? Christian schools could no longer teach the laws of God from Leviticus and Romans. It discriminates against the beliefs of Bible-based Christian teaching.


Boo: "Honestly, I'm a little disappointed you didn't find a way to work "activist judges" into this one, Christine."

Don't need activist judges when activist legislators do the dirty work for them.

Christinewjc said...

Boo: "Can we set a limit on one hysterical Hitler comparison every, say, 6 months or so?"

Well they did act like little Hitlers! Forcing a belief upon others who do not agree with their agenda with the added humiliation of monetarily outrightly punishing anyone who steps out of line with their ideology is commonplace in those with dictator stances and attitudes.

As they say; if the shoe fits...

Christinewjc said...

Limpy99 said, "As Jody points out, any institution is free to condemn whatever they want, but if they want financial aid from the state, they're going to have to play by the state's rules."

Don't you see that this added "protection for a behavior" will eliminate state school funding for individuals and institutions that adhere to Biblical Christian moral codes which are a 2,000 year foundation of their religious beliefs? The money that they once recieved from the state will now be revoked. Why? Because in order to receive the money, this bill now requires them to abandon:
1. Their freedom of speech on the issue of homosexual behavior.
2. Their freedom of association on the issue of homosexual behavior.
3. Their school's moral code of ethics regarding homosexual behavior.
4. The freedom of parents to choose to send their students to schools that do not push the homosexual agenda.

Yeah right Limpy...that's fair...

Boo said...

"Boo: "You mean like the law already does for religion?"

Religion isn't a behavior."

Yes, it is. You choose to hold certain beliefs, go to church, and do whatever your religion tells you that you ought to do. Those are behaviors. The same law that protects homosexuals protects you.

"Boo: "Except of course the law doesn't address "immutable characteristics" so whether or not homosexuality is immutable is beside the point"

Ex-gay people wouldn't exist if homosexuality was "immutable.""

Anyone's opinion about ex-gay people is beside the point. The law doesn't exist for "immutable" characteristics. It already covers religion. Religion is not an immutable characteristic, therefore whether homosexuality is immutable or not is immaterial. If we get rid of antidiscrimination laws except for what are definitely proven to be immutable characteristics, then it would become legal to discriminate against Christians. Should it be legal to discriminate against Christians, Christine?

"Don't you see that this bill does exactly that? Christian schools could no longer teach the laws of God from Leviticus and Romans. It discriminates against the beliefs of Bible-based Christian teaching."

Of course they can, they just can't use taxpayer's money to do it. I pay taxes. I do not want the tax money that I work hard for being spent to tell children that I am an abomination. If you must tell children that I am an abomination, the least you can do is do it on your own dime.

"Don't need activist judges when activist legislators do the dirty work for them."

Darn legislators going around legislating! Just because it's their job doesn't mean they actually have to do it!

"Well they did act like little Hitlers! Forcing a belief upon others who do not agree with their agenda with the added humiliation of monetarily outrightly punishing anyone who steps out of line with their ideology is commonplace in those with dictator stances and attitudes."

The law does not force any beliefs on anyone, and you know it. Religion is already covered under this law, and I notice no one has been up in arms about being forced to embrace, celebrate, or promote Islam.

Jody said...

It's not about "preaching hate" Jody. It's about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association that are guaranteed by our Constitution.

None of which have been taken from you. You are still allowed to speak, pray and associate as allowed by the Constitution. You just can't have any State money if your speech, praying and association entails discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation (or religion, or gender for that matter.)

... homosexual activists and the ACLU are continually suing them, throwing them off public lands that they used for 60 years, and they are still busy torturing them because the decision didn't go their way.

They are suing to uphold the law that Boy Scouts won. The BSA made a great big deal about how they were a private organization, exempt from State law. The Supreme Court agreed. Now, the BSA is being sued -- and losing, consistantly -- because it was getting special rights that no other private organization was getting: access to State land, State funding, and State services that every other private organization had to pay for.

It may take a long court fight, but I think that this stupid bill will be overturned...

Then you think wrong. It's a settled matter of Constitutional law: Private organizations are allowed to discriminate however they want. They don't get State money though in the process.

The Constitution is still working fine. It's your knowledge of it, much like your knowledge of Evolution, that's flawed.

Juan Buhler said...

What if the tables were turned, Juan? What if every public school, daycare, university etc. established that a Christian view against, lets say, abortion, was the view that ALL MUST HOLD in order to get state funding? How would you feel then?

The analogy police called. They are looking for you, Christine.

This bill doesn't ask you to change your views; only to not discriminate based on them.

limpy99 said...

"Don't you see that this added "protection for a behavior" will eliminate state school funding for individuals and institutions that adhere to Biblical Christian moral codes which are a 2,000 year foundation of their religious beliefs? The money that they once recieved from the state will now be revoked. Why? Because in order to receive the money, this bill now requires them to abandon:
1. Their freedom of speech on the issue of homosexual behavior.
2. Their freedom of association on the issue of homosexual behavior.
3. Their school's moral code of ethics regarding homosexual behavior.
4. The freedom of parents to choose to send their students to schools that do not push the homosexual agenda."

First, I have yet to encounter a school that enforces or pushes a homosexual agenda. If you can show me a school that encourages children that going gay is a great idea, I will admit I am wrong. And showing me a school that doesn't allow one segment of students, or their parents, to condemn another segment's lifestyle doesn't count. In a public school you get all kinds of people, and you have to learn to live with all kinds of people. it's called growing up.

Second, this does not infringe on any Biblical Christian institutes right to free speech. They remain free to condemn homos to hell for all eternity. They just can't do it on my dime. But you're free to give those groups as many dimes as you want. The way free speech works is that the state can't stop you from expressing your belief; there is not and never has been any requirement that the state fund it.

Third, parents can still send their kids wherever they choose. I don't see anything in this law that takes accreditation away from any of the institutions you reference. The parents might have to pay more, but I imagine that's a small price to pay to keep their kids away from a homosexual agenda.

Dani said...

Great Post Christine!

This is reason $1,657,429 why we choose to homeschool our children.

The public schools are fine for the heathens, but NOT for Christian kids.

The homo aganda has been going on for a while now. Here is something for parents to check out => Top 10 Strategies of Implementing Homosexual Agenda in Public Schools

limpy99 said...

I'd just like to point out I responded to Christine's response to me before reading Boo's comment in which she referenced dimes, as I did. I hate you Boo.

But I do like your analogies.

Boo said...

"I'd just like to point out I responded to Christine's response to me before reading Boo's comment in which she referenced dimes, as I did. I hate you Boo.

But I do like your analogies."

I support your Constitutional right to hate me, as long as you're not accepting a government grant to put on an "I hate Boo" event. Then I am afraid I will have to infringe on your perceived right to promote your anti-Boo agenda.

Christinewjc said...

"Boo: "You mean like the law already does for religion?"

Chris: "Religion isn't a behavior."

Boo: "Yes, it is. You choose to hold certain beliefs, go to church, and do whatever your religion tells you that you ought to do. Those are behaviors."

Your answer here speaks volumes about you, Boo. I now perceive your religious persuasion as being more of the ritual, "do this because I have to" kind of faith. That might be fine for you, but to me, faith is a much more spiritual kind of endeavor.

Perhaps you think that those "religious behaviors" that you described are necessary in some way to save your soul? That's your choice to believe that if that is the case. To me, that's a superficial type of faith; and the Bible reveals this many times in Scripture. I know because I've been there, in a superficial type of religion and found it terribly unsatisfying for my soul.

Perhaps you aren't only into "religious behaviors" and just said that because it "fit" with the discussion?

I'm not accusing you of having superficial faith. It's just that your answer caused me to perceive that you might possibly be involved in religion that way.

There is such a huge difference between a living kind of faith and a "religion" that is stagnant, never growing.

I can usually spot and recognize the difference between the two because I've lived in the stagnant one in the past. But in this electronic medium called the internet, I can only gather bits and pieces about a person to be able to tell if I'm correct or not.

One big indication is whether or not a person has been born again through Jesus Christ. Have you, Boo?

The second big indication is whether or not someone reads and studies the Bible. Do you?

You know what? Now that I think of it, religion can be just a behavior that people participate in. It is only when what is in the mind of a person regarding Christ, (who He is, and where He currently resides either inside or outside the person's life) drops down into the heart; that is where true transformation occurs.

The following are some Scripture verses to back up what I have just stated.

1Cr 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Hbr 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Rom 15:6 That ye may with one mind [and] one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.



1Cr 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.


Phl 1:27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;

1 Peter sums it up very well, too:


1Pe 1:1 PETER, an apostle of Jesus Christ,


To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
1Pe 1:2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:


Grace to you and peace be multiplied.

1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Pe 1:4 to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you,
1Pe 1:5 who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
1Pe 1:6 In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials,
1Pe 1:7 that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ,
1Pe 1:8 whom having not seen* you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,
1Pe 1:9 receiving the end of your faith--the salvation of your souls.
1Pe 1:10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you,
1Pe 1:11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.
1Pe 1:12 To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us* they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--things which angels desire to look into.
1Pe 1:13 Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
1Pe 1:14 as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance;
1Pe 1:15 but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct,
1Pe 1:16 because it is written, "Be holy, for I am holy."*
1Pe 1:17 And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear;
1Pe 1:18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers,
1Pe 1:19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.
1Pe 1:20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you
1Pe 1:21 who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
1Pe 1:22 Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit* in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart,
1Pe 1:23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,*
1Pe 1:24 because


"All flesh is as grass,
And all the glory of man* as the flower of the grass.
The grass withers,
And its flower falls away,
1Pe 1:25 But the word of the LORD endures forever."*


Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.

Footnotes:
1:8 M-Text reads known.
1:12 NU-Text and M-Text read you.
1:16 Leviticus 11:44, 45; 19:2; 20:7
1:22 NU-Text omits through the Spirit.
1:23 NU-Text omits forever.
1:24 NU-Text reads all its glory.
1:25 Isaiah 40:6-8

Dani said...

You would think that if being a homosexual, bisexual or transwhatever is so normal, we wouldn't have to teach kids about it. Sheesh!

The schools can't even teach these kids to read or write but they want to teach them how to be perverts. Great!

We can also thank our "Christian" republican president for giving authority to the states to allow homosexual marriage/unions.

Christinewjc said...

Hi Dani,

Good points! Students aren't in the classrooms to be led down the sewer of homosexual propaganda. They are there to learn to read, write, learn math, science, history, social studies, etc. You know...academic courses not social indoctrination!

I thought that President Bush was strongly on the conservative Christian side on this issue. What has changed?

It was Congress that chickened out about the marriage amendment.

But according to ADF (Alliance Defense Fund) over 20 states have already passed state marriage laws that keep the definition between one man and one woman. And, in many cases, they have passed with huge margins! 75% in some states!

I have been monitoring what is going on in Massachusetts. That "gay" marriage "law" was instilled through a loophole by a radical leftist judge who sides with gay activists. She apparently decided to make herself "queen bee" and rule via judicial fiat.

Last I heard, the people have petitioned and gathered twice the needed amount of signatures to get this issue on the ballot. Finally, it will be the people (as it should be in a democratic-republic!) who will vote and decide whether or not they want to be a "gay" marriage state. Even in liberal Massachusetts, I think that "gay" marriage will lose and the law will be changed back to the original definition. I hope and pray that their little social engineering/indoctrination "experiment" will be over!

Boo said...

You do love to construct the strawmen, don't you Christine?

I wasn't making any point about my faith. I was talking about how the law in question treats religion. It's a shame you were so eager to judge me that you chose to twist my words out of context and take the debate in a completely different direction that has nothing to do with the original post.

"Your answer here speaks volumes about you, Boo."

Your eagerness to twist others' words and your reckless disregard for honesty speak volumes about you, Christine. Do you ever stop to think about how many people you turn away from Christ with your behavior here? If I were an atheist reading this blog for an idea of what Christians are all about, I'd probably decide I wanted no part of Christianity. You have presented a witness that is arrogant, self-righteous, unconcerned with truth, and terrified at the idea of actually having to live in a country where the law doesn't enforce your religious beliefs. Christian voices should be in the forefront demanding equality for all whether we agree with them or not. You should have read the article about the dispute between the Slavic Christians and the gay groups and said, "Oh how awful that people are assaulting others in the name of Christ!" If you really want to reach gay people with the Gospel, you should be willing to plant yourself between the gay groups and the next Slavic protestor who tries to spit on one of them and say to the Slav "Jesus said that as you do it to the least of His brethren, you do it to Him, so if you've got to spit on someone, spit on me." The early church was known to provoke the reaction "See how they love each other!" from unbelievers. I look at fundamentalists and I don't see love, I only see fear.

"One big indication is whether or not a person has been born again through Jesus Christ. Have you, Boo?"

Maybe this is the part that really terrifies you, Christine. I accepted Jesus into my heart when I was seven. I am alive in Christ, Christine, and He didn't tell me to try and change my sexual orientation, sorry.

And to Christine's atheist readers: there's a version of Christianity out there much better than what she's offering, I hope someday you'll encounter it.

Christinewjc said...

Boo said, "I wasn't making any point about my faith. I was talking about how the law in question treats religion."

But how the law in question treats religion is the point that I was addressing. You agree with it because it matches up with your version of Christianity. Many (in fact, most) Christians would disagree.

Pointing out that your version of Christianity is different from mine is just that...pointing out the difference. Why would it make you so angry? Unless, of course, you are not sure about your eternal position regarding faith in Jesus Christ and the resultant spiritual relationship. The reassurance that I have does not come from man or man's laws. It comes from the Word of God. My "version" is derived from the Bible. Where does yours come from? Do you even know?

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Luk 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Where do we discover "every word of God?" In the Bible!

I noticed that you didn't answer the second question. Do you read and study the Bible?

What I posted does have a lot to do with what you said. You made a judgment about religion and what it should mean to people and how the law should regard it. Why can't I do the same? The reason is (apparently) that you don't agree with my version of the same religion. Therefore, you conclude that I am wrong and you are right.

Once one is born again in Christ, the education does not stop there. Sanctification takes a lifetime. Jesus told us that we are sanctified through knowing God's Word. He said, speaking of the Father, "Your Word is truth." Where do you get your "truth" Boo?

Your opinion that participating in homosexual behavior (if you, in fact are doing this) is OK with God is just that...your opinion. You are making the same mistake that Deb is making. What the two of you profess is leading others down the road to a liberal heresy and apostasy kind of Christianity that skips over the repentance portion of the gospel and claims that come judgment day, Christ won't care. That's not what the Bible says.

Repentance doesn't mean confessing and then willfully doing the same sin over and over again. It means turning away from former sin.

Jesus said of his believers, "If you love me, keep my commandments." The first commandment is to love the Lord your God and have no other "gods" before Him. Other "gods" can include any sin, including sexual sin. "Worshiping the created" rather than the Creator is a form of idolatry. Homosexual behavior with disregard towards God's laws in Scripture is a form of idolatry.

Aren't you a bit concerned about being wrong on this?? Why is it that secular humanists agree with your opinion about homosexual behavior while God's opinion of it in His Word calls it an abominination and sin?

I haven't always had the time to answer many of the inconsistencies and errors that you have projected here. But I will address one (that was mentioned by you in the Darwin's Deadly Legacy post)in my next blogpost, just to show you the difference it can make to know what the Bible says verses what man says about an issue.

Dani said...

Sorry to inform you, but Bush is hardly a "Christian".

*Read this essay that my husband did before the election* => Why those who know Christ should not vote for Bush.

Jesus said - "You will know them by their fruit" - and Bush is rotton to the core. Not only does he support homosexual marriage, but he also supports abortion and he believes in a universal god. If anyone is a RINO and a wolf in sheeps clothing - it's our president - sadly to say.

Christinewjc said...

I still say thank God Kerry didn't win!! We'd be in deep doo-doo if he had!

I am praying for the Lord's guidance to rise up a Republican leader who understands what's at stake in this war against radical Islamo-facists.

One thing I can say for Bush. He's right on about the war on terrorism, unlike most of the Democrats who want to cut and run from Iraq.

Bush's speech at the veteran's meeting this morning really demonstrated the difference between the anti-war liberals skewed view of what is going on and the reality of why we need to fight in Iraq. Just the fact that Bin Hidin' and Zawahiri calls Iraq the "battlefield of this war" is enough to realize how foolish, blind, and uninformed the liberals are on this issue!

Christinewjc said...

Wow! I just read an email notification that Charlie at AnotherThink had just posted a new essay called Tearing Down The Walls that shows the current results for America's slide down that slippery slope of depravity for embracing homosexuality. He goes into the fact that "normalizing pedophilia" is not far behind. It's an excellent article! Go read it!!

Boo said...

"But how the law in question treats religion is the point that I was addressing. You agree with it because it matches up with your version of Christianity. Many (in fact, most) Christians would disagree."

Once again you've twisted quite a bit to get us to this point, so let's review the steps that brought us here. You said the California nondiscrimination law should not apply to homosexuality because you believe sexual orientation is not innate. I pointed out that the law already applies to religion, which is definitely not innate.

You then said that homosexuality is a behavior and religion is not.

I then said that religion is a behavior in terms of how the law applies to it. Maybe I didn't make this part clear enough, but it seemed like common sense to me. Holding certain beliefs and/or acting on them are behaviors that the law covers.

You then said it was indicative of a false version of Christianity on my part to reduce religion to only behavior.

I never said religion was only about behavior, I said the law protects religious behavior (excepting that which is illegal or infringes on the rights of others, obviously) from discrimination. The law doesn't care whose "version" of Christianity anyone practices, it covers all of us, and Muslims and Jews and Scientologists etc. etc. etc. The law only now says that if your version of Christianity compels you to condemn gay people, you can't use the state's money to do it. If my version of Christianity told me to go conk my neighbor over the head and take his wallet, I'd still be arrested for theft and assault, and I wouldn't get off by appealing to religious freedom.

Salvation is a matter of letting Jesus into one's heart. Do you really want the law to start trying to judge who's got Jesus in their heart, and if so, how would the law do this? Which of us is right about God's opinion of homosexuality is not a matter for the laws of the United States or the states and municipalities therein to address.

I notice you do the whole twist-somebody's-words-to-take-the-thread-into-a-whole-new-tangent thing a lot when you're losing a debate. I notice you've done that in your latest post, but I'll address that one there.

Christinewjc said...

Boo said: "I never said religion was only about behavior, I said the law protects religious behavior (excepting that which is illegal or infringes on the rights of others, obviously) from discrimination."

This is where you get into trouble. Much of religious belief does discriminate against things, behaviors, and laws that are contrary to that belief! Not all discrimination is deemed inappropriate, Boo. This is one of them. The law that Arnold signed takes the right of state funding, (that has been formerly enjoyed for the education of their children) away from people who hold these deeply held beliefs. That's not right. It is a blatant, constitutional infringement and punishment placed upon us because of our particular views that differ from yours. This, in turn, affects one's (and the institutions of learning who have had such freedom of thought for hundreds of years) freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. In order to "comply with the demands" of the new law, one must abandon their beliefs regarding homosexual behavior or pay the consequences (literally!) through denial of state financial help. The Thought Police have taken over our CA Legistature! As a fellow Christian believer, I can't believe that you don't see the hypocrisy of you position...

The Founding Fathers meant for this nation to have the basis of Judeo-Christian values, morals and ethics, for without them they knew that we would have chaos.

You need to go and read Charlie LeHardy's excellent article over at AnotherThink. He states the case far better than I have here.

Judeo-Christian values (in their proper context) allow for differing beliefs. But what you (and gay activists) are attempting to do is create an equal footing of moral relativism with the law. It doesn't work on several fronts, but most of all, it is the polar opposite of the Judeo-Christian values that our country was founded upon.

Again, go read Charlie's article. It makes a lot of sense and I think that it shows why what you are advocating for is detrimental to our society as a whole here in the U.S.

Boo said...

"This is where you get into trouble. Much of religious belief does discriminate against things, behaviors, and laws that are contrary to that belief! Not all discrimination is deemed inappropriate, Boo. This is one of them. The law that Arnold signed takes the right of state funding, (that has been formerly enjoyed for the education of their children) away from people who hold these deeply held beliefs."

Since when did religious institutions enjoy a right to state funding? If they do, how far should it go? Should the state be giving a stipend to the Church of Satan too? Taking government money is the biggest mistake churches in Europe ever made, as evidenced by their near-emptiness.

"The Founding Fathers meant for this nation to have the basis of Judeo-Christian values, morals and ethics, for without them they knew that we would have chaos."

The Founding Fathers also meant for this nation to have separation of church and state, for without that they knew that we would have tyranny (and what they didn't know is we'd probably have empty churches whose leaders sit back and collect welfare).

The state exists to regulate interpersonal morality, not personal morality. If you have sex with a nonconsenting adult, it's the state's business. If you have sex with a consenting adult, it's not the state's business. A church that wants the state to regulate private morality is a church that is abdicating its responsibilities. If your religious beliefs compel you to preach against homosexuality, use your money, not the state's. Or do I have a "right" to a government grant to fly around the country preaching to people on why my beliefs about Christianity are better than yours?

Jody said...

The law that Arnold signed takes the right of state funding, (that has been formerly enjoyed for the education of their children) away from people who hold these deeply held beliefs.

Christine, there is no "right to state funding."

The Thought Police have taken over our CA Legistature!

No. The Legislature decided the standards for where money was going to be spent. The governor agreed with their decision. None of that impinges on your freedoms at all.

You still have the right to say, do, feel even think as you want. You have the the right to teach others as you want. You have the right to convert others to your cause as you want.

You just don't get any State money.

Phronk said...

If a principle of a private school is a Satanist, should she be allowed to expel kids who wear crosses? Or does your condemnation of this law only apply when it's Christian morals being enforced?

Christine, I'm still wondering how you'd respond to my comment reproduced above. Does this assault on religious freedom only apply to Christianity? And if so, why does your religion happen to be special among the hundreds of religions practiced in the United States? Should the state be defending Christianity alone and actively discouraging all other religions?

Just wondering.

Boo said: And to Christine's atheist readers: there's a version of Christianity out there much better than what she's offering, I hope someday you'll encounter it.

An excellent point. If anything, Christine is doing damage to the reputation of Christianity with the dishonesty which pervades her defense of her version of it. We need to remind ourselves that she has very little to do with her more sane religious colleagues.

No offense to Christine, as I'm sure you don't mean to be dishonest and crazy.

Christinewjc said...

Look at the results of a WorldNetDaily Poll that describes what readers think about people who agree with the new CA law banning moral codes:

What do you think of California's new law banning school moral codes?

This just proves that California is indeed the land of fruits and nuts 42.19% (2165)


I wouldn't send my kids to any government school in California 23.19% (1190)


Children's minds and hearts 'will be molested by the curriculum' 18.96% (973)


It's the end of religious freedom in California 12.63% (648)


Other 0.92% (47)


Fantastic decision by forward-thinking people 0.70% (36)


California is like a science experiment, they can test it and see how it goes 0.64% (33)


Since you can't legislate morality, I think it's fine 0.45% (23)


It's no big deal 0.19% (10)


A step in the right direction 0.12% (6)



TOTAL VOTES: 5131

*******

And Phronk calls me the crazy one!

Wanna know who is genuinely crazy Phronk? It's the liberal lunatics in your country that would do such a despicable thing as this!

Christinewjc said...

The author of this article makes a good point at the end of it:

"College students and professors should also be tough enough to tolerate in their midst campus groups that hold quaint and offensive views. If freedom of association means anything, a group of Christian students should be able to reject gays or to relegate women to subordinate roles. And other students, of course, should be free to shun the Christians. Here’s a good lesson for students to learn: In a free society, if some opinions are so hateful that they ought to be penalized, they should be penalized through social, not legal, sanctions."

Boo said...

"Look at the results of a WorldNetDaily Poll that describes what readers think about people who agree with the new CA law banning moral codes:

What do you think of California's new law banning school moral codes?"

And then we can take a look at the results of a Communist Party of America poll of their members asking:

What do you think of greedy capitalist exploiters stealing the labor of the workers?

Nothing like having a biased group of people answer a biased question, is there?

And this another example of how fundamentalists are hurting Christianity. If nonbelievers see that "moral codes" is newspeak for prejudice against homosexuals, they're going to be less likely to listen to what Christians have to say on morality.

Phronk said...

And Phronk calls me the crazy one!

Um, yeah, like Boo said, that's an obviously biased poll that has nothing to do with reality. Did you even think of that before posting it, or does the quality of information really not even matter to you?

Wanna know who is genuinely crazy Phronk? It's the liberal lunatics in your country that would do such a despicable thing as this!

Well first of all, I don't think anybody in my country (Canada) had anything to do with it. Second, it's a fictional movie. Calm down.

The author of this article makes a good point at the end of it:

"College students and professors should also be tough enough to tolerate in their midst campus groups that hold quaint and offensive views. If freedom of association means anything, a group of Christian students should be able to reject gays or to relegate women to subordinate roles. And other students, of course, should be free to shun the Christians. Here’s a good lesson for students to learn: In a free society, if some opinions are so hateful that they ought to be penalized, they should be penalized through social, not legal, sanctions."


OK, fair enough. So instead of avoiding my questions for the third time, how about you answer these:

Should the government fund the local KKK chapter and allow it to run as a university club?

Should a Satanist professor be allowed to ban all Christian symbols from her classroom?

Now see, I do agree that diverse kinds of people should be found in any organization, which is exactly what this law seems to be defending. But the government should not be involved in discrimination based on any specific religion (or based on most other things, really).

Your objection to this law seems to depend on specificially defending Christians' rights to the exclusion of all other religions and beliefs. This is what I'd like you to clarify by addressing the above issues.

Christinewjc said...

Boo,

This is prejudice against Christian and other religious believers. Just as the woman said in the article, 'punish us for our beliefs socially, but it is wrong to punish us through legal measures.'

Taking state money and aid away from children and their families who don't agree with your particular homosexual ideology is not fair. It means withholding something that was formally enjoyed by all who qualified for the state aid because just because of a belief that stems directly from their religion and faith.

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it right. It is "thought punishment" by the "politically incorrect thought police" crowd.

Go ahead and call Bible-believing evangelical Christians names. Call me a bigot. I don't care. Just realize that it is YOU who is now being a bigot towards those that you don't agree with.

Moral codes are guided by God and we know them according to His Word, the Bible. You can ignore, deny, twist, exclude, rant and rave, and hate the truth that the Bible reveals, but you will never eliminate it entirely. God says so.

Jesus, himself, had a lot to say about the Word of God and those who keep His Word:

Luk 8:21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.

Luk 11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed [are] they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

What you believe about homosexual behavior, this bad law, and your world of lust will one day fall to dust and blow away. It will pass away and the Word of God shared (by those particular Christian believers of which you personally hate) and followed by us "cannot be broken and will abide forever."

Jhn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

1Jo 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

2Cr 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

Act 19:20 So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.

1Th 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [it] not [as] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Hbr 4:12 For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

The Word of God overcomes the world, the eternal effects of it's wickedness, and the wicked one.

1Jo 2:14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.

Rev 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

Rev 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rev 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

Rev 19:13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Juan Buhler said...

Call me a bigot.

Bigot!

Just realize that it is YOU who is now being a bigot towards those that you don't agree with.

Uh, I don't think so.

bigot
n.
Definition: intolerant, prejudiced person
Antonyms: humanitarian, liberal, tolerator

I love the end of it's history as a word, as per the American Heritage Dictionary:

"[...]Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense “a superstitious hypocrite.”

Christinewjc said...

Thank you Juan!

Bible
Is
God's
Only
Truth

:-)

te he

You fell for it!

Got Eeeemmmm!

Boo said...

"Taking state money and aid away from children and their families who don't agree with your particular homosexual ideology is not fair. It means withholding something that was formally enjoyed by all who qualified for the state aid because just because of a belief that stems directly from their religion and faith."

You're right, that would be tremendously unfair. How fortunate then that the law does not do this. Anyone has the right to subscribe to any ideology they choose. They simply can't spend the state's money at an institution that practices discrimination, whatever the justification. They can still believe whatever they want to believe. They can still get money from the state to send their kids to school. They just can't use the money at any school that practice discrimination.

Honestly, a religious institution that can't survive without state funding is a religious institution that does not deserve to survive.

Christinewjc said...

Phronk asked, "Should the government fund the local KKK chapter and allow it to run as a university club?"

Yes! As in the words of that famous philosopher, Forrest Gump who stated, "Stupid is as stupid does!"

Phronk asked, "Should a Satanist professor be allowed to ban all Christian symbols from her classroom?"

Yes! And then he/she should put up pink triangles, rainbow flags and unicorns!! Oh wait...sorry...wrong organization...

Phronk said, "Your objection to this law seems to depend on specificially defending Christians' rights to the exclusion of all other religions and beliefs. This is what I'd like you to clarify by addressing the above issues."

According to the philosophy of the following religions of the world, which ones do you think would genuinely care?
(I'll place my opinion in parentheses.)

Religions of the World

[Please note, since this is a Christian blog, I reserve the right to change the "s" word into the "c" word.]

OK, let's begin:

Taoism: Crap happens
(Would they care? Probably not.)

Hare Krishna: Crap happens rama lama ding dong
(Would they care? Not a chance!)

Hinduism: This crap happened before.
(Would they care? Perhaps!)

Islam: If crap happens, it is will of allah.
(Would they care? No! It's the will of allah!)

Zen: What is the sound of crap happening?
(Would they care? No! Examine the sound of the crap!) eewww!

Buddhism: When crap happens, is it really crap?
(Would they care? They're not even sure that it is crap so I'm confused...)

Confucianism: Confucius say, "Crap happens."
(Would they care? No! It's expected for crap to happen!)

Protestantism: Crap won't happen if I work harder.
(Would they care? Of course! Keep fightin' the good fight!) ;-)

Catholicism: If crap happens, I deserve it.
(Would they care? You betcha!)

Jehovah's Witness: Knock knock, "Crap happens."
(Would they care? No! Only 44,000 are going to heaven anyway...no room for you!)

Unitarian: What is this crap?
(Would they care? No! They can't even recognize crap when they see it!)

Mormon: Crap happens again and again and again.
(Would they care? Probably! Gotta break that cycle of crap!)

Judaism: Oy vay! Why does this crap always happen to me?
(Would they care? Yes! If they are Orthodox, that is...)

Pentacostalism: Praise the crap!
(Would they care? Of course! Give thanks to God in spite of the crap!)

Atheism: There is no crap!
(Would they care? Certainly not! They are in total denial!!)

New Age: Crap happens and it happen to smell good.
(Would they care? Errr...don't even want to go there....) double eewww!

Rastafarianism: Let's smoke this crap.
(Would they care? There minds are gone and couldn't make that decision anyway!!)

heh heh...

P.S. The above was posted for humorous purposes. It is my hope that it will be regarded as such and that no one reading here at this blog will be offended. This concludes my politically correct addendum.

All joking aside (well...not really!)but seriously...

The three major world religions all follow the tenet that homosexual behavior is sin and forbidden by God. So, at least these three would care about this CA law banning moral codes in order to deprive religious people their right to state money.

Juan Buhler said...

Joking or not Christine, you show once more how immature and childish you and your beliefs are.

The question was not whether other religions would care about this law, but whether you'd be OK with the state funding other religions or groups.

Instead of answering, you say "nya nya nya, yadda yadda, I'm right."

Do you really expect any of your readers to be convinced of anything this way?

I'm thinking now--maybe you are an activist atheist, trying to alienate people from religion, and undermine fundamentalists' arguments from within. If so, I salute you. Keep fighting the good fight!

Phronk said...

Well the "crap" summary of the major religions is pretty funny stuff, so I appreciate seeing that again. :)

But like Juan said, I didn't ask which relgions would care if the law were revoked. This is what I mean by you being 'dishonest' - you change the subject when a tough issue comes up, rather than dealing with.

I'm genuinely interested in your thought process when it comes to this issue, but when you repeatedly avoid any real inquiry into it, it's frustrating.

You are basically arguing that it is discrimination to ask Christians NOT to discriminate. I want to know if you only hold this belief for Christians, and if not, how you can deal with allowing religions (such as Satanism) and other beliefs (such as the KKK) to discriminate with the government's support.

And what if there is a religion that thinks it's wrong to not discriminate against people who discrimnate against homosexuals? Then not having the law is an assault on THEIR religious freedom!

We have to stop at some point. So how about we just stop at the first level - discrimination is not supported - and people who have a problem with a lack of discrimination will just have to suck it up and deal with it.

Christinewjc said...

Phronk,

There is a big difference between discrimination for the sake of alienating one group or another, and the forcing of a "mind conversion" against deeply held religious beliefs that are guided by God in His Word.

Satanism and the KKK are not guided by God's Word. Satan is the enemy of God, and the KKK is a cult. Therefore, your question brought to mind the joke that I posted. I wanted to demonstrate that some religions wouldn't care about this bill and therefore, it wouldn't affect whether or not their believers broke with any moral codes in order to get state money. Looks like that joke went over like a lead balloon...

Anyway, the bill was meant to target only certain religious groups. Those religious groups (no matter what religion, BTW) that have fallen for Satan's deception that homosexual behavior is "O.K. with God" will have no problem with that new law and wouldn't be protesting it's passing; they would more likely be celebrating with the pagans about it! They ignore what God has said in the Bible about the sin of homosexuality.

Based on what I know about the three major religions of the world, students from families of all three would be negatively affected by it. Moral sensibilities are a big part of a person's faith. To take a belief and force someone to comply in order to "get something" is a form of blackmail, IMO.

Not to change the subject for too long, but I have been reading some blogs that are discussing the fact that the two Fox newsmen "converted" to Islam because they thought it might help get them out of that situation. Was it genuine? We don't know yet. Were they Christians (or Jews) in the first place? I don't know about that yet. But one blogger made an astute comparison between the reaction to such pressure by Jill Carroll, (the Christian Science Monitor captive) who refused to convert during her entire kidnapping despite the fears that she could be killed, and the journalists who claim to have converted in the hope that they would not be killed. In such a dire situtation, I admit that I don't know what I would actually have done. I would want to think that my faith was strong enough to not succomb to forced conversion. Then again, I could lie that I have converted but deep down in my heart know that I never, ever would. If lying would get me back to my husband and children, I'd do it.

Perhaps this bill is a trivial dilemma compared to what those people faced, but it is similar. In order for an individual to get state money for education, they would have to "convert" to the homosexual agenda against their will, or "lie" about it! The same would go for the institution of learning (especially the Christian ones that follow the Bible).

I was thinking about Arnold's decision this morning. I was wondering if he signed the bill because he wanted to appease the gay activist lobby. I have heard that he is vetoing AB 1437 and may veto two other "gay agenda" bills. Then, I thought about the possibility that maybe he did this for state financial reasons? CA's budget is still deeply in the red due to former Gov. Davis' incompetence. Hmmm...I wonder if that was the real, underlying reason that Arnold signed it? Maybe it was for both reasons.

Boo said...

"There is a big difference between discrimination for the sake of alienating one group or another, and the forcing of a "mind conversion" against deeply held religious beliefs that are guided by God in His Word."

There is a big difference between what the law actually says and the forcing of a "mind conversion" too. Or perhaps you could point me to the exact passage in the bill that pertains to thought and belief?

"Satanism and the KKK are not guided by God's Word. Satan is the enemy of God, and the KKK is a cult. Therefore, your question brought to mind the joke that I posted. I wanted to demonstrate that some religions wouldn't care about this bill and therefore, it wouldn't affect whether or not their believers broke with any moral codes in order to get state money. Looks like that joke went over like a lead balloon..."

So... the law is supposed to recognize that Christianity is the one true religion? Let's just toss that pesky First Amendment.

"Anyway, the bill was meant to target only certain religious groups. Those religious groups (no matter what religion, BTW) that have fallen for Satan's deception that homosexual behavior is "O.K. with God" will have no problem with that new law and wouldn't be protesting it's passing; they would more likely be celebrating with the pagans about it! They ignore what God has said in the Bible about the sin of homosexuality."

Bills outlawing theft are only meant to target certain religious groups. Those religious groups (no matter what religion, btw) that have fallen for Satan's deception that we are not commanded to steal have no problem with laws against theft and don't protest their passing; they would be more likely to be celebrating with the pagans about it! They ignore the commandments of Kali to strangle travelers and take their belongings.

"To take a belief and force someone to comply in order to "get something" is a form of blackmail, IMO."

So why wasn't everyone protesting before the most recent amendment adding sexual orientation? The law as it originally existed outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, thereby discriminating against racists! Racists have to put aside their deeply held beliefs to get state money! Christians who felt compelled to discriminate against other religions had to put aside their deeply held beliefs because of the existing prohibition against religious discrimination! Oh wait, we're only supposed to be concerned with the groups Christine wants to discriminate against.

"Perhaps this bill is a trivial dilemma compared to what those people faced, but it is similar. In order for an individual to get state money for education, they would have to "convert" to the homosexual agenda against their will, or "lie" about it! The same would go for the institution of learning (especially the Christian ones that follow the Bible)."

No, actually, it is not similar at all. No one has to change their beliefs in order to get state money, they just can't spend it to discriminate. Religious institutions do not have the "right" to state money to being with, and requiring someone to abide by a provision to get money is quite different from threatening someone with a negative consequence if they do not do what you want.

"I was thinking about Arnold's decision this morning. I was wondering if he signed the bill because he wanted to appease the gay activist lobby. I have heard that he is vetoing AB 1437 and may veto two other "gay agenda" bills. Then, I thought about the possibility that maybe he did this for state financial reasons? CA's budget is still deeply in the red due to former Gov. Davis' incompetence. Hmmm...I wonder if that was the real, underlying reason that Arnold signed it? Maybe it was for both reasons."

Or he just thought it was the right thing to do. But that would mean it's possible for people of good will to examine their consciences and come to the sincere decision that it's wrong to discriminate, which is obviously nuts. Better to assume the worst about people so you'll never be disappointed.

Phronk said...

Boo has already (sarcastically :) said everything I could possibly say in response to that. I'd like to see how you respond.

The main thing is, as far as I can tell, the bill isn't forcing anybody to do anything. It isn't forcing anybody to change their beliefs. It's just preventing people from doing something that is absolutely wrong - discriminating based on certain characteristics.

And you still seem to be saying that the government should support Christine's version of Christianity while ignoring all other religions. Can you just directly answer: Is this what you're saying? I don't want to create a straw man here, but your talk of the God's Word and all that seems to imply it.

Christinewjc said...

Phronk said, "And you still seem to be saying that the government should support Christine's version of Christianity while ignoring all other religions. Can you just directly answer: Is this what you're saying? I don't want to create a straw man here, but your talk of the God's Word and all that seems to imply it."

That's not what I'm saying Phronk. What this bill does is stifle the religious views of those who agree with what God says about homosexuality in the Bible in order to receive money (which they had no problem giving in the past when individuals and institutions held those views for hundreds of years). Can't you at least admit the discrimination against deeply held religious beliefs now exists because of this bill? If you can't (or won't), then you have blinders on!

You are asking the wrong question. It's not about "the government should support Christine's version of Christianity while ignoring all other religions." That is a made up fallacy created by you in this thread. It probably stems from your belief in "the separation of church and state" which is not in the Constitution, BTW. What is in the Constitution is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,..."


Notice the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

That is what this bill does. It prohibits the free exercise of religious institutions to believe the Bible's admonitions against an aberrant sexual behavior, by forcing them to choose between their beliefs and state funding. If an individual or institution continues to believe (as they should!), and freely speaks out against homosexual behavior as they have over the last two hundred years or so in this nation, then they are going to be penalized through the deprivation of funds.

Know what that's called? Blackmail!

This bill attempts to squash Christian (and many other religions that agree that homosexual behavior is sin) freedom of speech, freedom of association, and religious freedom, in general. What's more, is the fact that individuals and institutions will be punished financially from now on because they don't believe in being desensitized, jammed, and converted to the "politically correct mantra" of the homosexual agenda. You know...just like Kirk and Madsen planned in their "After the Ball" book. Their book showed them taking glee in the fact that their brainwashing was based on lies, too! "Lie patrol Boo" certainly missed those facts about lying! Oh wait...I forgot...gay people never lie! They're just discriminated against...

Yeah right.

I can't make it any more clear than that.

Boo said...

"That is what this bill does. It prohibits the free exercise of religious institutions to believe the Bible's admonitions against an aberrant sexual behavior, by forcing them to choose between their beliefs and state funding."

Which they shouldn't be getting anyway as religious institutions. Religious freedom has never included the right to break the law. So here's a question: if the problem isn't just that the law now extends to your relgious anti-gay beliefs, does that mean it's also wrong for the law as it previously existed to deny Klansmen state funding to teach their children racist beliefs?

"You know...just like Kirk and Madsen planned in their "After the Ball" book. Their book showed them taking glee in the fact that their brainwashing was based on lies, too! "Lie patrol Boo" certainly missed those facts about lying! Oh wait...I forgot...gay people never lie! They're just discriminated against..."

Please show me one example where these two guys nobody outside of the radical right seems to have ever heard of lied. David Kupelian couldn't find any, can you?