Update: Those who wish to help the Kleins may still do so here.
So I explained in a previous post how the homo-jihadis had successfully spiked my guns for a week or thereabouts. In response to my musings on this topic — which was of some interest to me, I will admit — one Christian observer said that he thought it was my tartness that was the source of all the trouble. As he said on Twitter . . .
“If he spoke w/ compassion(Jesus-like)& represented opponents honestly & not in caricature he MIGHT get a hearing nstead of hatred.”
Now I do acknowledge that astringent adjectives sometimes do drift into my prose, and I acknowledge further that assorted cis-sies on the other side of this frank exchange of ideas don’t like it when they do. My response to this very true observation is to not care very much because that is not the source of our troubles at all.
If I were more like the Lord Jesus, more “Jesus-like,” worse things would be happening to me than having my stupid blog blown off the web. People like Jesus get crucified. Jesus didn’t teach and preach in such a way as to “get a hearing,” unless you count that hearing in the middle of the night before the Sanhedrin.
So I will just take a moment to note that what my critic identified as “Jesus-like” comes off to me looking more like Elsie Dinsmore with a beard than anything else. What is “Jesus-like” in his assessment? Compassionate, honest, and no caricatures. We both agree that Jesus was honest, and I believe that I have an obligation to be honest. Pretty good so far. But let’s talk about what compassion actually means and let’s talk about one of the great caricaturists of history, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Here is a sampling of the Lord’s compassion — “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness” (Matt. 23:27).
And His exaggerations, His caricatures! “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel” (Matt. 23:24). “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” (Matt. 7:3).
Look. This battle has nothing whatever to do with my winsome tartness. Everyone who opposes the sexual revolution, however nice they set out to be, is reckoned as part of the enemy that must be taken out. Anyone who says no to our unfolding lust-fest is the adversary. Niceness is neither here nor there.
Evangelical florists, photographers, and bakers are the sweetest people in the world. They are so sweet that diabetics can’t be friends with them. Everybody else can be friends with them, but the rut-now-or-die revolutionaries refuse to have anything to do with them. They are targeting them particularly because they are such nice people, working in the glorifying professions. Whoever heard of belligerent florists? Have you ever seen something like this on one of their signs out by the highway? “Potting soil. Daffodils. Molon Labe.”
Sweet Cakes Bakery in Oregon was forced to close its doors, and Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of said bakery, were fined $135,000 — to be given to Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer. The Cryers — and boy, it seems like Dickens is overdoing it again with the names — claimed that they had felt “mentally raped” after they had been refused their cake. Must have been some cake. I will come back to that issue momentarily, but for the moment you can file it under “first world problems.” Then to add insult to injury, the GoFundMe donations page on behalf of the Kleins was taken down on Friday night. When “no cake for you” is rape, and shutting down your business and fining you 135K is the rule of law, it is time to start looking over your shoulder for the Red Queen.
So I have three things to say. The first is simply a practical, tactical observation. We need a Christian organization/web site dedicated solely to processing donations for Christian businesses when these things happen — and they are going to be happening more and more. We have good people doing good work on the legal side (see here), but we also need an organization that sees to it that whenever some poor florist gets attacked by the çob cisters, it will be the equivalent of winning the lottery. We will say to every homo-mob that whenever they run one of our people out of business, we will make a point of making that person a millionaire.
The second has to do with the contending Christian responses to our responsibility to love the lost, including those ensnared in homosexual sins, and our responsibilities to love our enemies, including those who want to see us lose every last one of freedoms. As I see Christians responding to these challenges, I see Christians who are full of grace, those who are full of cowardice, and those who are full of untaught confusion.
The Christians who are full of grace know exactly the nature of the iniquitous power play that is going down, but they also know that but for the grace of God they would be exactly where our adversaries are right now. So when they speak with tenderness, it is with tenderness for the lost, and not tenderness for their own reputations with the cool kids. I would put Rosaria Butterfield in this full-of-grace category. In our personal dealings with homosexuals, we must be like this — we must be Jesus-like. But never forget that being Jesus-like with the woman caught in adultery and being Jesus-like with the men who all had rocks in their hands is experienced by those two kinds of people in very different ways. “And beginning with the eldest, they departed one by one. And Shamuel said to Jonathan the elder as they departed, ‘That hurt my feelings . . .'”
Then there are Christians who are acutely sensitive to any charges the world might level at them, however absurd. The last thing in the world they would ever want to be called is a racist, and so they get steered where they “ought to be” by threatening to call them racists. They tremble at the thought of being called homophobic, so the world draws itself up to full height and calls them homophobic. These Christians are full of cowardice. The fear flows over the lip of their emotional cup, and they are standing in the slop. They have ceded complete authority to the world to define righteousness and unrighteousness for them. This is how it can come to pass that after Jesus picks a fight with the respected religious leaders of the day in John 8, and the response of the contempo-Christian is to call such behavior un-Christ-like. Fine. Folly is identified by her children, and all of them are pretty ugly and really stupid.
Then there are the Christians who are true-hearted Christians, but they are untaught — betrayed as they have been by their pastors and leaders. Instinctively they know what they must do, and so they do it faithfully, whatever it might cost them. I am thinking of all our evangelical brothers and sisters in the wedding professions who have more Kuyperian wisdom in one of their boutonnières than can be found in a railway car full of Reformed seminary professors. They know what they must do, but they don’t yet know what is going on all around them. I am seeking, with everything I possess, to explain the nature of the battle to them. They need a map laid out before them, with an x on it that says “you are here.”
But last, we still need to inquire into how it is that the Bowman-Cryers are still in possession of their drivers’ licenses. Anyone who is so emotionally frail that they feel mentally raped by someone’s refusal to bake a cake for them is someone who is too fragile to be allowed out in the sunshine unescorted.
It turns out Helen Reddy was Helen Unready. We need to get ourselves back to the seventies for an edited remake — “I am woman hear me whine.” Notice how feminists used to talk . . .
“If I had to, I can do anything.”
“I am strong, I’m invincible.”
Heh. Well, I can handle anything except not having a cake baked for me. Then I fall apart and sue people.
In addition to “mental rape”, the Bowman-Cryers claim the following items of suffering to support the $135,000 fine: “distrust of men,” “distrust of former friends,” “discomfort,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “loss of pride,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock”, “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”
So, like the “sticks and stones” that can break bones, the words “no cake for you” can cause smoking addiction, migraines, loss of appetite and weight gain.
The list of items can be found: http://christiannews.net/2015/04/26/gofundme-shuts-down-fundraiser-for-christian-bakers-claims-money-was-for-illegal-purpose/
Jess: Do you have a link to the entire dogpile of emotional symptoms claimed by the unhappy couple? I hear there were more than 80 different emotional triggers pulled.
I got the ones mentioned from:
http://christiannews.net/2015/04/26/gofundme-shuts-down-fundraiser-for-christian-bakers-claims-money-was-for-illegal-purpose/
It appears that the ALJ took oral testimony to determine the amount of the penalty so perhaps these items were taken into the record as oral testimony not in written declaration form. At any rate, I was unable to find much in the way of filed documents in the case in a short Google search. Documents may not be publicly available since it is an administrative law proceeding within the OR Bureau of Labor and Industries. I did find the original complaint which was filed with the OR AG, FWIW. https://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/SweetCakesDOJComplaint%282%29_0.pdf
From the court document: https://www.scribd.com/doc/262966001/List-of-Complaints-Alleged-Against-Aaron-and-Melissa-Klein
jonswerens, here you go, they have the whole text of the decision.
http://chicksontheright.com/blog/item/28523-christian-bakery-owners-say-lesbian-couple-is-trying-to-obliterate-their-family-for-refusing-to-make-their-wedding-cake
You can download the PDF at the bottom of the article. http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/24/state-says-bakers-should-pay-135000-for-refusing-to-bake-cake-for-same-sex-wedding/
Wait…I can sue for weight gain from emotional damage?
Sweet…
Hold on – they didn’t eat the cake – so what’s this “weight gain” they are talking about? More like “weight loss”!
Charles Murray has a book coming out on May 12 – By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission – that talks about organizing structures and systems for challenging the Social Justice Warriors. You can see a preview on Amazon.
A good first step would be Christians not instantly turning their fire on anyone to the right of themselves.
That would indeed be a good step, were it a valid problem.
“I would put Rosaria Butterfield in this full-of-grace category.” Amen, she is full of grace and wisdom. I have told others to read her book and listen to her talks because I hear a lot of Jesus in her speech. I wish we had more like her.
Her conversion story (here) is very nice.
Does this meet your criteria for Christian fundraising, Doug? http://www.samaritanspurse.org/article/christian-couple-faces-135000-fine/
I love reading you. It’s something I look forward to every day I come on the interwebs.
Thanks a lot.
P.S. Please keep it up.
As I’ve said before, I don’t think it’s necessary to compel bakers and florists to be part of gay weddings, even though I support gay marriage. But even if I did, I do not understand how anyone finds $135,000 worth of damages in a refusal to bake a cake. To the extent the couple had damages, I’d think the cost of getting another cake somewhere else would cover it. Maybe a couple grand for attorney’s fees. But 135k? Obviously I’m in the wrong racket.
I do not understand how anyone finds $135,000 worth of damages in a refusal to bake a cake. You are thinking way too small here EtR; the penalty for being a Christian is death. Our martyrs found death in refusing to give a pinch of incense during the Roman empire and our martyrs in Syria find death at the knife of the Mohammedan today. Death and martyrdom for Christians is coming to America; you will watch us die at the hand of your people. Now ask yourself, “why death?” Well, we did kill God once by nailing Him to a… Read more »
All right, now it’s making me post as Krychek rather than Eric the Red again. Timothy, I travel in circles with atheists and others who despise Christians, Christianity, the Bible, and all that it stands for. I don’t believe I’ve ever met one who wanted Christians dead. They want to sharply curtail the influence you still have on the culture and the legal system, and to not be exempt from laws that apply to everyone else, but dead? No. Respectfully, you’re being a drama queen. Radical Muslims do want you dead, and you and I are on the same side… Read more »
“Timothy, I travel in circles with atheists and others who despise Christians, Christianity, the Bible, and all that it stands for. I don’t believe I’ve ever met one who wanted Christians dead.” This is not true. Anyone who advocates that anti-discrimination laws be applied to Christians who don’t want to bake cakes for gay weddings is perfectly OK using the threat of violence, including death, to force Christians into conformity. Think about it: A Christian baker refuses to bake a cake, so the government forces him to pay a fine. The baker refuses, so the police come to kidnap them,… Read more »
Suppose I don’t believe in driver licensing, so I refuse to get a driver’s license. I’m eventually caught driving without a license and fined. I refuse to pay the fine, so the police come to my house to kidnap me. I resist, so they shoot me. Obviously the government wants people who disobey traffic laws dead, right? No, in reality I would be dead because I’m an ass, pure and simple. Any law is enforced by force if necessary; otherwise obedience to any law would rely on voluntary compliance, and no legal system can depend on voluntary compliance. Most of… Read more »
Yes.
Do you understand yet that there is no compromise? That it is God’s way or the highway? That we will die before we will betray our Lord? That YOU will have to kill us to get to your Utopia?
There is a huge Rock that you have to move, Sisyphus. Better tyrants than you and yours have broken themselves trying to move it. They failed, you will fail.
Timothy, if you’re bound and determined to be a martyr, then that’s the path you’ve chosen. Fare thee well.
Be sure to wash your hands.
Just so I understand: If someone travels in a car without having a particular government-issued piece of paper, they should be kidnapped? That’s a punishment commensurate with the crime? Even if they were driving in a completely safe manner? If kidnapping is OK to enforce laws against certain non-violent behavior, we’d better make sure we have good reasons for making those laws. There’s a lot at stake. You could possibly argue that drivers’ licenses are needed in order to maintain safety on the roads (I would argue that they are not), but what possible justification do you have for forcing… Read more »
It’s commensurate with upholding the integrity of the legal system. We can’t have 300 million Americans each deciding for himself or herself which laws to obey. And don’t forget, the driver could have stopped escalation at any time he or she chose: By getting a license, by simply not driving, by paying the fine. That said, in actual practice I seriously doubt anybody is going to get killed over a traffic fine. The state will simply seize a bank account or wages or other property, or turn the matter over to a collection agency. The government doesn’t want dead citizens… Read more »
So Eric, are you saying that we should never break any law, no matter how unjust or capricious? If you that’s not what you’re saying, in other words, if you’re saying that there are times when we should break laws, then you acknowledge that our own philosophies about what is considered just and unjust law should trump actual law when there’s a conflict. I happen to believe that any law which does not protect innocent people against aggression, fraud, (edit) or gross negligence is at best useless and at worst immoral. That’s why, for example, I’m against laws that prohibit… Read more »
EtR You wrote: I don’t believe I’ve ever met one who wanted Christians dead. Do I need to point out your logical fallacy for you? I know you may find this hard to believe, Eric, but your “nobody I know” experience is not determinative of reality. You and your friends are fish caught in a tide; you have not intent of going where you are going, but you will get there. We Christians point to our history and your history; unlike you, we see spiritual forces playing out that swamp the abilities of man to even begin thinking of controlling.… Read more »
Timothy, other than radical Muslims, please name anyone who is on record as wanting Christians dead.
Look at your own comment reply to Ben below this mini-thread. Answer: you do.
Timothy, if you can somehow twist my words to mean that I want Christians dead, then you’re not even trying to honestly engage my comment.
But you’re rigging the equation so that only people who walk around with the idea “I want Christians dead” in their heads could be a threat. In reality, persecution of any group has rarely worked that way, with the occasional genocidal outlier. What Timothy and Ben are pointing out is that the threat doesn’t only come from those who walk around wanting Christians dead, but from those who are willing to countenance dead Christians as a reasonable price for enforcement of their goals. The Roman Emperors didn’t have an eager desire to pile up the Christian bodies, but if killing… Read more »
Jane, any group that doesn’t want to obey any particular law is going to feel persecuted, and don’t forget that when Christians ran things, gay people went to prison. But the underlying issue is this: You cannot have a situation in which everyone decides for himself or herself which laws to obey; that’s anarchy. And my ultimate answer to Timothy is: I don’t want you dead; I just want you to stop pretending you’re special.
And when you have a situation where people are forced to obey laws that exist simply for the trivial convenience of others or in order to enforce a certain mindset, that’s tyranny. And the ultimate answer to Cryer and Bowman is, we don’t want you dead, we don’t even want to deprive you of cake, we just want you to hire someone who wants to work for you. Either a law is important enough that death is an appropriate ultimate price for those who disobey it and resist its enforcement, or it shouldn’t exist.
^This.
Jane, I agree with you that the legislature over-reached when it required bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings. Legislatures occasionally over-reach, it happens. When it happens, you are certainly free to lobby for change, but until change comes, we can’t have a situation in which everyone decides which laws to obey. Sorry, that’s one of the facts of life of living in a democratic society. The other thing is that I, as an atheist, get no consideration for my conscience whatsoever. However immoral, wrong-headed or stupid I may consider a law to be, I can’t claim a religious exemption.… Read more »
I’m not aware anyone advocated a system where everyone gets to decide which laws to obey. However, if a law is constructed such that open disobedience is the only ethically tenable option (and I’m sure you can think of examples that would apply to yourself) then openly challenging the law is the only way to go, unless you’re willing to just watch everyone who has a legitimate objection and happens to be caught, being marched off into the cells. It is possible to take a course of action substantially similar to your #3 without being characterized by the obnoxious language… Read more »
Yes, there are laws that I would refuse to obey on ethical grounds (and have refused to obey on ethical grounds), and I would do so quietly and discreetly. There is no reason to go looking for trouble. However, if circumstances made it impossible to be discreet, then I would engage in civil disobedience and take whatever consequences came. Sometimes that choice can’t be avoided. But I’ll bet the baker, the florist and the photographer could have found a way to avoid violating their conscience while at the same time not stirring up the hornet’s nest that they did. Maybe… Read more »
Eric, You say, “But I’ll bet the baker, the florist and the photographer could have found a way to avoid violating their conscience while at the same time not stirring up the hornet’s nest that they did. Maybe they were overbooked that day, or didn’t have the staff to cover that event, or weren’t available for any of a hundred other reasons. Why go looking for trouble if you don’t have to?” Do you mean to imply that it was the Baker’s fault because their reason for not baking was grounded in conviction rather than pretense, as if, by simply… Read more »
Moor, I’m a cold, hard utilitarian, meaning I recognize that Behavior X results in Consequence Y. If you live in a state that does not allow bakers to discriminate against lesbian couples wanting a cake for their wedding, and you tell them that you’re not going to back them a cake for their lesbian wedding, the results are entirely predictable. You can say as much as you like that the law is wrong, but right or wrong, the consequences are completely predictable. And by the way, there is ample biblical support for my position. The Egyptian midwives told Pharaoh that… Read more »
So that’s a “yes” to telling certain rape victims that they shouldn’t have worn a skirt so short or had so many drinks they blacked out. Glad we’re on the same team in that regard. As for laws, if your point is something akin to the idea that Christians simply need to count the cost of our disobedience and be prepared for the logical outcomes associated with breaking the law, then we are in agreement here also. Christians need to know that obedience to God’s law will now increasingly put them at odds with the law of the land. Of… Read more »
Moor, I did not respond to your rape analogy because it was too stupid to justify further comment. Please tell me you really are smart enough that I don’t have to elaborate
Eric, my stupidity is probably a matter of some debate, perhaps most especially among my friends. As to the rape analogy, there is only the slightest connection, though it seems to have an imperturbable amount of strength in your worldview.
In your mind, as best I can tell, if choice X is known to lead to consequence Y, then the person choosing X deserves what they receive. Correct?
OK, now it’s back to making me post as Krychek_2. Moor, I apologize for the stupidity comment; I try to be better than that. The answer to your question, however, is no. A woman who isn’t careful around drunk frat boys is at worst stupid, and rape is a punishment out of all proportion for stupidity. It’s the same principle that allows me to disapprove of the Muslim custom of cutting off the hand of a thief: I disapprove of theft, but losing a limb for it is too harsh for what was done. The thief may deserve some punishment,… Read more »
No worries on the stupidity comment, I’ve been around long enough not to take that kind of thing personally, and plus, I know you to generally be a man who avoids serious name-calling. That said, I do believe we might just be back to the same place all such conversations end up. You contend that so long as the consequences are just, the person knowingly choosing X when it will result in Y is getting what they deserve. The operative question, of course, is how one defines what is “just”, and this is our point of departure. At certain times… Read more »
Gah, the blog ate my homework…I wrote out a reply that got lost, and I don’t want to have to do it all again. Suffice it to say that I said something along the lines of: no worries about the stupid comment, it’s water under the bridge among friends. Also, I think we depart at the necessary juncture of defining what is “just”. There was more, and it was superbly articulate and devastatingly persuasive, you’ll just have to take my word for it that you’d have become a Christian if it had survived…(so God must have another mechanism in mind… Read more »
The discreet option is not the only biblically commended one. Daniel was quite indiscreet about publicly praying when the king had ordered a moratorium on prayer to all gods besides himself. While it could be argued that in one case or another, the discreet option is to be preferred, other than Eric’s preference, there doesn’t seem any reason to think that it is always the only correct or preferable one. So this is all about a beef with Timothy — fair enough, but addressing the issue on its own terms apart from your judgment about Timothy’s reasonableness might lead to… Read more »
No it’s not all about Timothy. I just want to be clear as to the central thrust of my disagreement with him if he joins the discussion again.
Hi EtR.
I think the disagreement is one of primary loyalty. You have repeatedly stated things along the line of “that’s how a democracy works” or “you are whining because you don’t get special (legislative) treatment”. Ergo, your assumption is that our highest loyalty is to the state.
Am I correct?
No, loyalty doesn’t really play into my analysis. I’m a utilitarian, which means my primary concern is what must be done to allow people to live together in community. Stop and think through what would happen to our ability to live together if everyone were allowed to say that their religion trumps civil law. Your religion says you can’t be a baker for a gay wedding, which is relatively low-stakes, but then somebody else comes along and says that his religion requires him to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings. Sorry, but everybody’s religion can’t be accommodated at the… Read more »
Bingo. I would endorse every word you’ve said here, Mr. The Red (minus the being an atheist), with one amendment. We can do a bit better than the what some have called “French secularist” approach to religious liberty that you have laid out here. We can follow the, well, American approach, which is to lay out a specific right to religious expression (which is not just belief but also action) in the constitution, and require certain kinds of exemptions from laws as a matter of public policy. (And if the supreme court issues a horrible opinion that takes away much… Read more »
Hi Eric Stop and think through what would happen to our ability to live together if everyone were allowed to say that their religion trumps civil law. Who said anything about continuing to live together? In Rome Christians told the pagan, secular state that their religion trumped civil law when the civil law instructed the Christians to honor other gods. We Christians are doing the same thing here. As Christians we are commanded to obey and honor the civil authorities. However, those civil authorities are “under God” and when they place themselves in place of Him (as you are arguing)… Read more »
Timothy, here’s the practical problem (and for me, it always comes back to the practicalities): It is possible for one religion or another to simply seize power and rule at the point of a gun, but short of that, American society is too diverse and has too many different religions. The advantage of secular government is that we don’t have religious civil wars specifically because it is understood that no one religion will be allowed the reins of power. (Well, I’m not sure radical Muslims understand that, but eventually they’ll come around too.) Under our system, we have an occasional… Read more »
Eric: but the disadvantage of secular government is that we get secular civil wars instead. People fight whether they’re believers or not. The warfare might look different, but it’s there: and then it’s secular people ruling at the point of a gun. I know you think it’s better because you’re convinced that religious people are deluded, but from our perspective, it’s not great. It really does come down, in the here and now, to who has the truth. Whoever is right should be the one to rule: we think Christ is the summit of righteousness, and that he is king… Read more »
Why is Eric (standing in for supporters of secular rule generally) not taken to simply mean what he says? He’s already laid it out pretty clearly that his support for civil govt uncoupled from any particular established religion is not about some metaphysical truth that non-religious people possess. It’s about preventing a very real danger that also motivated the framers –wars of religion and coming up with common principles to base rule on that enable peaceful coexistence even when we don’t agree. It’s not about picking the right “worldview” and letting them rule; it’s about finding rules of governance that… Read more »
Hi Xon. One of our founders (or was it Tocqueville ?) wrote that our form of government is only suited to a devout and religious people; He was correct. Those common principles where among a Christian people living in a Christian civilisation (i.e. Christendom existed and still exists) and the arguments were not over the existence of God, but on limiting the harm one sect could inflict on another in the new land. With this civil space among a Christian people, it worked wonderfully; it is the America I love. It is also the America the secularists hate. Now, having… Read more »
With apologies to Dostoevsky, with God all things are possible; the Bible tells us so. I realize I’m putting a different interpretation on that verse than what the authors intended, but if you want to see the full depth of human depravity, have a look at what has been done in the name of God. But you know what? Timothy can point to Stalin and Pol Pot as counterexamples, and I will then point out that atheistic Japan and atheistic Scandinavia don’t seem to be engaged in an orgy of bloodletting. So maybe religion has little to do with it.… Read more »
Hit a nerve, huh? good. Although you put a nice intellectual gloss on it, the corruption of sin goes all the way down and the fruits and wages of it are on full display. In his movie, “The Passion of The Christ” Mel Gibson played a brief role as a Roman soldier who nailed Jesus’ hand to the cross. Mel Gibson did this as a confession of his own sin; we have all killed Christ. The enmity runs that deep. It is my personal experience with my own enmity for God that I am confident of the blood lust that… Read more »
Hi back at you, Tim! I’ve lurked so long on here after being a pretty frequent commenter several years ago. Allow me to do a kinda long thing here. Our current political discourse is completely and utterly broken, and people are generally incapable of actually engaging with views they disagree with in a fair or honest way. I’m one of the “liberals” (I guess, if I have to choose a label) Doug says must be feeling pretty red-faced these days — I actually think the point of liberalism is to have an open society full of a free exchange of… Read more »
Hi Xon, We share the same outlook on what the proper role of government is. Yes, EtR shares a lot of it. Your comment is well reasoned and reasonable. I wish we lived in that country. Unfortunately, our opinion is moot. This nation(‘s leadership) is being (has been) given over to sin and with that comes tyranny and other evils as both sides separate and dig in. The problem is not a political problem but a spiritual problem and I am looking at the lay of the land in that sense and arguing from that position. I am sorry that… Read more »
Hi again, Xon. This is too good to not share. Hugo Award nominated author John C. Wright has a post up at his website where it is brought to my attention that I am echoing the same argument that Hilair Belloc made 85 years ago (!). From the link, look at how familiar this argument is: Whether we call it “The Modern Attack” or “anti-Christ” it is all one; there is a clear issue now joined between the retention of Catholic morals, tradition, and authority on the one side, and the active effort to destroy them on the other. The… Read more »
I wrote: You are thinking way too small here EtR; the penalty for being a Christian is death. EtR wrote: 3. Do a Timothy by grabbing a bullhorn and annoucing that I’m not obeying the law so I can get the martyrdom I crave. Thank you for conceding my point. No bullhorn will be needed, just a calm, composed statement of my faith will do the trick. Btw, Mathew 5:15 is the scriptural basis for my forthrightness about my faith. The spiritual basis is the risen Christ who dwells in my heart. I have zero craving for martyrdom or imprisonment… Read more »
“The other thing is that I, as an atheist, get no consideration for my conscience whatsoever.” I think that under a bible-based system of civil law, you would: “But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.” ~ Romans 14:23 “Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.” ~ James 4:17 Dale Noyd was a USAF pilot, and a humanist who opposed the Vietnam War on moral grounds. He was court martialed for… Read more »
Sorry Eric, that’s not anarchy. Anarchy means “no rulers,” not “no rules.”
Eric, your wrote: you cannot have a situation in which everyone decides for himself or herself which laws to obey . heh. China has a one child policy. I, answering to a higher authority decide not to obey it. Connecticut has a magazine limit law. I decide to flout it recognizing a higher Authority. Obama has a pen and a phone and recognizes himself as the final authority. I don’t want you dead; I just want you to stop pretending you’re special. I don’t do pretense; Its not about me; I am dust. The special One is God and He… Read more »
Oi. Vey. I feel like at some point in the relatively recent past, some Thor-worshipper had whatever was the contemporary equivalent of a blog and spent all of their time dispensing hand-wringing defenses of Thor-worship in the face of 99% of everyone else realizing that sometimes it just rains. I’m sure that fellow reveled in the attention of the handful of fellow Followers of Odin who ranted about how awesome Thor was and refused to buy umbrellas. Thankfully, his idiotic rantings, like yours, did not prevent Thor-worship from being overtaken by enlightened modernity. Other than “because it says so in… Read more »
Couldn’t agree more. Our speech should be seasoned with salt, but we shouldn’t forget that salt, when placed on slugs, makes it quite uncomfortable for them.
BTW, I wonder if this whole blog-hacking thing was a movement against a bunch of different blogs… Mine went down around the same time yours did, and I suddenly have 19k likes out of nowhere.
Doug, yet another brilliant screed against the tyranny of the few. Never understood people who make a straw man argument against something or someone, dragging it or them onto an arena that came from way beyond the left field fence parking lot, usually purely for sport (or angst), then endlessly quibble and whine over the rules when things don’t go their way. The only word that comes to mind is “whaaaaaah”, as in “crybaby”. I swear, some adults these days never got past the third grade emotionally. Then again maybe that’s an insult to third graders. To them I say:… Read more »
I thank our Lord for raising you up for such a time as this, Douglas. Keep laying out the map. And keep your Serrated Edge sharp.
Samaritan’s Purse/Franklin Graham has a link to accept donations for the bakers.
http://www.samaritanspurse.org/article/christian-couple-faces-135000-fine
Your idea of making the liberals’ victims millionaires reminds me of Charle’s Murray’s idea of insurance against government regulation: link.
By the way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/27/printing-business-has-first-amendment-and-rfra-right-to-refuse-to-print-gay-pride-festival-t-shirts/
Think of this. Jesus healed the sick, raised people from the dead, and fed thousands, and there were still people who wanted Him dead.
heh.
If Belloc’s theology is sound (he was a contemporary of Chesterton) then he looks like my type of man. Check out the physiognomy on his Wiki potrait! it just begs for meme-generator treatment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Picture_of_Hilaire_Belloc.jpg
Look at the mug and imagine meme’s like:
“I will not bake you a cake”
“What have you repented of today”
“Who told you to put a rock-band in church?”
“This! is what a Christian looks like!
I am sure you can think of others.
cheers.
t
To the Administrator…
I have posted a few comments with links and they have not posted. Should I refrain from doing so? (the link was to the wiki page for Hillaire Belloc, btw)
thx
t
Hold on – they didn’t eat the cake – so what’s this “weight gain” they are talking about? More like “weight loss”.