How does one pronounce the name of our lovely little town? We have grown accustomed to telling people that there is “no cow in Moscow.” It is moss koh, not mos cowww. But there may be additional significance beyond the absence of that special bovine je ne sais quoi in our name. Or, if not significance, maybe a small play on words that will enable me to make a larger point. That is what I am all about, is it not? The larger point? The meta?
We have labored for years to refrain from purchasing any of the manufactured hurt feelings that are for sale everywhere. We have also sought to avoid going along with the urgent demands for mandatory outrage, or the urgent requests for groveling apologies that are always so effective in steering the readily compliant. But we are not cowed. We don’t want that kind of cow in our name either.
I bring all this up because we have a movie coming out this week. The Free Speech Apocalypse releases in select indie theaters around the country on Thursday (see the banner ads up top), and the movie will then be available across all platforms the day after that. And to keep us on point, there is a stretch in the movie, about ten minutes I think, which I think will prevent you from thinking about public apologies in quite the same way ever again.
Carl Trueman once said, wonderfully, that a man without enemies is a man without honor. And this kind of aphorism is not refuted or nullified if you search the world over and find some happy little valley where once lived a man who was beloved by everyone in his village. I am happy to grant the oddball exception, but we don’t live in that happy little valley. We live in a time when the orcs have been bred for daylight. Not only so, but the counsels of Gríma Wormtongue are accepted as the received wisdom for much of the Reformed evangelical chattering classes. He is a popular conference speaker with a special two-kingdom emphasis.
Think about where we are. Think about how rapidly it all happened. Meditate on what has actually been said over the years to the steady drumbeat of secularist propaganda, both before and after.
“You’re crazy. That’s not happening. That could never happen. You’re paranoid. Your idea of persecution is three paper cuts. Christians are not threatened. That’s crazy. You are as free as anyone . . . CLICK . . . sensitivity training. The fine is 135K. Your website is blocked. Shut up, hater.”
I am told that I have an over-active imagination. I am trying to make hay out of the fact that some people disagree with me. What am I, nuts? Right. I am the one who needed a police escort of about twenty cops, in order to do what? I intended to give a lecture in a classroom on the grounds of a tax-supported university.
The mob was threatening violence because I was the one guilty of what they deemed violence, in proof of which they had painted artificial bruises on themselves to show how hurtful I was going to be. They were as proud of the symbolic violence they had endured at my metaphorical hands as a Pharisee with a fat, new $20 phylactery.
Not only do the secularist shock troops do this to us, cowed Christians make sure to help them. Why are you being so combative? You are going to get us all in trouble. When the three thousand men of Judah remonstrated with Samson about getting them behind the eight ball with the Philistines, it wasn’t going to be the last time that happened (Judg. 15:11). Too many Christians specialize in this, and I could tell you quite a few stories.
Christians who actively resist the secularist jihad are identified as the source of the trouble. Why do you always defend yourself? Heh. This is like arguing that Poles are excessively nervous about Germans on the western border, and are more than a little imbalanced about Russians to the east. It seems to the armchair critic that a more even-handed approach would be to balance the concerns, and to accept a little responsibility yourself. To simply identify a Russian threat with the eastern border is simplistic and off-putting. Why can’t you do nuance?
You always position your defensive forces where the invasion is happening. What’s wrong with you?
> that are always so effective in steering the readily compliant
Steering? Did I catch the pun? What do I win?
Since there is “No Cow in Moscow” It appears you don’t need the Bull anymore ;-)
I think we should milk this discussion for all it’s worth.
Get on the horn and spread the word, people. There’s no cowing happening with this pasture – I mean, pastor.
And getting with the spirit of things, I refuse to apologize for these puns. ;)
Hay, Carson! I have a beef with your last sentence and would like to ox you if you cud please reconsider it. I think it would behoof you to apologize for those udderly ridiculous puns — immediately! no stalling! They run far afield of decent commenting behavior, and if you persist in making them, you should be barned.
Literally cackling in my office…
No, that’s what chickens do. You should be mooing, or at least boviating.
I make no attempt to out-pun the mistress of puns. :)
Hay listen, while you both clearly have legendairy skill at puns, the steaks are too high to be posting such bull. This isn’t a game, this is veal life! You may think I am just being a brahma queen, and that my quips are too tripe, but I haven’t herd anything of substance out of either of moo, so I am just trying to steer the conversation in a better direction.
You should be put out to pasture, otherwise you’d keep going til the cows come home. You primed me for a response, it wasn’t my choice, I would’ve selected otherwise.
MAN, URE really piling it on.
Really surprised you didn’t label this post “steers and queers”
I see it did not take long for folks to ruminate on this post.
That did it! I was exerting manly control, all the way here. And now I have beer in my nose!
I can’t decide whether I agree with this post 1%, 2% or whole.
appreciated.
I only skimmed it.
Not to mention that Valerie was the cream of the crop.
You guys butter each other up. I’ll whip both of you.
Eh, half and half. But I’ll say it’s the cream of the blog, just to butter up the author.
Augh, you guys beat me. No whey.
–
Doug, I love the paradox of the community that won’t be cowed but still paints itself as a perpetual victim of the secularist menace. It is a fascinating contradiction. As far as the vehement response to your appearance at IU, perhaps the anger that some feel against you is due to the fact that the anti-homosexual (and some would say anti-black as well) message you preach is actually harmful to people. The FBI Hate Crimes Statistics for 2013 indicates that law enforcement agencies reported 1,402 gender-based hate crime offenses during the year. Of those 1,402 cases, 60.6 percent were against… Read more »
There we go. A declarative statement of your position.
Spike,
In your view, is there any possible manner in which a religious person, whether they are Christian or Jewish or some other religion, could register a negative evaluation regarding homosexuality, while not being a promoter of hate? Or in your view, would that be a contradiction of terms?
Sounds like you were un-mooooooved by spike’s “mooooooving” speech!?
You’re really raising the steaks here…
Yes. I think that one can be against homosexuality and not be a promoter of hate. But it is a very fine line to walk. Homosexuals are victims of hate crimes, they commit suicides because they are bullied and excluded, and when they are viewed as degenerate or somehow less than human, when they are portrayed as something to fear, then there is a real danger in perpetuating a situation that is unsafe and unhealthy. Doug’s language in this post and on other posts is not the language of love. When the notion that trying to understand others is slammed… Read more »
Let me guess. You draw the line. You are the arbiter of who crosses it and doesn’t. The line moves according to your feelings. I must apologize otherwise “bad things” will happen and “everybody” will hate me. You will sic the ‘authorities’ on me and I better be careful otherwise….. yea, I have seen this rodeo before. Try a different sales pitch Spike, this one ain’t workin out for ya. BTW, do you not see the irony in you making D. Wilson’s point for him? You are the kind of man who would shut down Wilson’s blog out of ‘tolerance’… Read more »
Timothy, I’m not mandating that anyone apologizes for anything, and I’m not sure what you’re even talking about with the “line moving” and “my feelings”. If you’re implying that my beliefs are guided by my feelings and not a careful study of scripture and evidence available to us from the natural world, then you’re wrong. I’m not going to sic the authorities on anyone, and I wouldn’t shut Wilson’s blog down. I am a proponent of free speech and am happy to have Doug speak his mind. I also happen to think that Doug is wrong and his worldview is… Read more »
To pick a small recent example… USA courts decreeing that sodomy must be celebrated as marriage.
You don’t have to celebrate it. The courts are just saying it’s legal. Hell, there are plenty of heterosexual marriages that aren’t worth celebrating. You don’t have to celebrate those and you don’t have to celebrate gay marriages either. Just curious: are you against sodomy across the board? Sodomy refers to anal sex (man on man or man on woman). Many Christians are fine with male on female anal sex. But that’s still sodomy. Many state laws used to include mutual masturbation as sodomy. Laws change. There are plenty of examples of legal statutes that have been overturned. Just because… Read more »
Pittard wrote: Sodomy refers to anal sex (man on man or man on woman). Pittard seems to be getting his information from somewhere besides Scripture, and yet he wants to pretend to correct us as if he is an authority? It’s like watching a poodle try to give a lecture on how to dance. For all of his appeals to the word Scripture, I’m not seeing that Pittard actually has any commitment to it. It’s almost like he is completely unaware of passages that specifically address the sinfulness of homosexual acts (men with men, women with women). It’s like he… Read more »
A lot of defensiveness here, katecho. As to my commitment to Scripture, I’m not unaware of what the Bible says about homosexuality. Let’s take the example you point out from Genesis, involving Lot’s guests. The people of Sodom definitely want to rape these quests and have anal sex with them. No question. But this passage is enlightening. Lot seeks to solve the problem by offering the virgins of the house up to the men instead. There is no condemnation offered on Lot for this suggestion and it seems to be a legitimate solution to the problem. So is the Genesis… Read more »
Pittard thinks I’m on the defensive? He probably thinks I’m playing the victim card too. Anyway, Pittard declares: The sin of Sodom is not that the men want to rape other men. It is that they are a raving bunch of lust-filled citizens. Originally, Pittard wanted to tell us that Sodomy just means anal sex, but now he wants to declare to us that the sin of Sodom was that they were just generally lust-filled. What happened to the anal sex bit? Where did that disappear to? Does Pittard suppose there was a reason that these “lust-filled citizens” didn’t accept… Read more »
Let’s see. Where should I start? First of all, you are right that the men of Sodom wanted anal sex with Lot’s guests. If I implied that they didn’t, my mistake. They definitely wanted gay sex. No doubt. But that’s not the primary sign of their depravity. The issue is that they want to gang rape Lot’s guests. You may say that “homosexuality WAS the judgment” that God leveled on them. However, the text does not say this, and it is at least more likely that the judgement was actually the destruction of the city. Gang rape, gay or not,… Read more »
Right. The Gospel. That he came to pay the price for our sin, including homosexuality.
“But a careful study of Scripture and a knowledge of the situation in life of Paul and the other writers yields different results.”
Right, because centuries of Biblical scholars to the present day, the vast majority of whom interpret the Bible as condemning homosexual acts, don’t study Scripture as “carefully” and aren’t as “knowledgeable of the situation in Paul’s life” as you (and supposedly Matthew Henry, who would be turning over in his grave now if he were still there).
Pittard flogs the usual excuses to promote homosexuality, as if we haven’t seen them all before. Note his attitude toward Leviticus. He wrote: That Christians do not hold to most of these laws anymore does not necessarily mean that none of them apply anymore, but it certainly raises questions about why we would cite anything from Leviticus as defense of your views on what is acceptable and not acceptable. Pittard seems to have no awareness of a distinction between moral and covenant ritual law, and simply suggests that Christians are indiscriminately disobeying old covenant laws on their whim. So he… Read more »
Leviticus does not differentiate between covenant ritual law and moral law, and there are different theological perspectives on the covenants and how they work in light of the coming of Christ. But let’s go with your distinction and say that Christ gets rid of ritual law but keeps the moral law. We certainly see Jesus ratify some of the moral laws of the OT. He mentions 9 of the 10 commandments while also upping the ante on not just the commandments, but other beliefs not included in Mosaic Law. But he doesn’t say anything about homosexuality. It’s true that he… Read more »
You ask whether the laws against homosexuality were ceremonial, or a part of natural moral law. I would think Leviticus 20 clarifies that quite explicitly: “You shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my rules and do them, that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them.” (Leviticus 20:22-23 ESV) In the context of Leviticus 20, the laws against homosexuality, incest and bestiality have… Read more »
Paul spends the rest of the NT trying to wrap his mind around the Gospel and explain how God works in the world and in his people. St. Paul underwent sanctification as all Christian’s must. It is God who leads and we, trusting Him, and experiencing the exact same growth that St. Paul went through. Scripture is a map. You can see where you where, where you are and where you are going by comparing your experiences to the exact same experiences other people lived through millennia. It is clear that you think that Scripture is merely a logical system… Read more »
Pittard is now conceding that his is an argument from silence. However my position is not from silence, but is based on consistent and explicit condemnation of homosexual behavior in both old and new testament, with its appeals, not to current cultural accommodation, but to created order, in which it was cutting contrary to prevailing culture. Further, Pittard writes: I do not, however, hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. I could pretend to be surprised, but I’m not. It was pretty obvious, in spite of his tut tutting about it, that Pittard is not committed to the truth of Scripture.… Read more »
It is only an extremely limiting view that asserts that rejecting the inerrancy of Scripture somehow makes it impossible to use it as a tool for instruction. But if that is the only way to have a discussion about the Bible–that both parties believe in its inerrancy–then there is no room for discussion at all. What you fail to acknowledge is that Scripture, inerrant or not, needs to be studied and interpreted in order for it to be understood. The very act of study and interpretation naturally allows for errors in our understanding of it. Which means I can be… Read more »
As a postmodernist, how will Pittard respond when his “living words” have succumbed to the mercy of my interpretation? Let’s see. I’m delighted to know that Pittard has finally given up his attack on the authority of Scripture. I’m happy to read that he has abandoned his defense of homosexuality and now confesses that it is a grave sin. It takes a humble man to admit that he was wrong, but an even bigger man to recant his entire deconstructionist fallacy. Will Pittard grant my above interpretation of his confession? As a postmodern deconstructionist, he must. His ability to argue… Read more »
You are, of course, free to interpret anything in your own way. However, that does not mean you are correct. My lack of acceptance of the inerrancy of Scripture does not mean that language no longer means anything at all. Scripture can be studied and interpreted, just as the Constitution can. We can amend the Constitution when it needs to be amended. That does not make the language in the Constitution un-interpretable or subject to any bizarre interpretation. When we read that Jesus says “I am the Bread of Life” that does not mean he is actually talking about cheese.… Read more »
Pittard wrote: You are, of course, free to interpret anything in your own way. However, that does not mean you are correct. Correct? What happened to “living document”? Pittard wrote elsewhere today: When they said that all men are created equal, for example, did they mean Blacks? Probably not. But we interpret it that way now. The constitution is a “living document” just as the Bible is–it “lives” because it is constantly being interpreted by living people. Wasn’t Pittard just arguing that we are free to interpret ourselves, regardless of, and even directly contradictory to, the authors’ intent? He even… Read more »
There is no contradiction in what I’ve said. The “living” nature of the Constitution, as well as the Bible is that they are both documents that need to be interpreted and applied to current contexts. The idea of equality for everyone is in the Constitution, even if the writers may not have intended to mean “all men” the way we apply that phrase now. That does not mean that one is free to read any interpretation into the Constitution or say that “all men” actually means fish in the sea. I’ll say it again: the fact that there may be… Read more »
Pittard wrote: But a careful study of Scripture and a knowledge of the situation in life of Paul and the other writers yields different results. Only a careful twisting of Scripture could conjure up such a result. Pittard certainly hasn’t shown any insightful knowledge of the situation. Pittard continued: And let’s add to that the fact that Jesus doesn’t say one word about homosexuality. He refers to “sexual immorality” and that certainly may cover gay sex, but it doesn’t do so specifically. It is curious that a sin that is such a central sticking point for certain factions of the… Read more »
“Pittard wonders why homosexuality has become a ‘sticking point’, as if it takes an advanced theological degree to figure it out. Pittard doesn’t seem to be able to grasp that widespread cultural embrace of homosexuality is the present agenda, whereas the culture is not yet being asked to affirm bestiality, or pedophilia, or even adultery.” The slippery slope argument is a good scare tactic, but it is a logical fallacy. Cultural ideas often change, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. Culturally, attitudes about homosexuality have changed considerably over time. However, there is no indication that our society is ready now,… Read more »
The slippery slope argument is a good scare tactic, but it is a logical fallacy. Noting historical precedent is not a logical fallacy. To conclude that you are on the same path as the fallen heathen pagans of old is as plain as day. It takes a man blinded by his own lusts and sins to not see the road he is on. I guarantee you that pedophilia and bestiality will remain cultural taboos in the US. And I’ll guarantee you this as well: if there is any indication to the contrary, I’ll be on your side in the moral… Read more »
Pittard commits the “jumping the gun” fallacy by accusing me of a slippery slope fallacy. The slippery slope fallacy is an argument that some negative result must inevitably follow if we merely grant the current contested point. Note that I did not say that any of those other sexual sins will inevitably follow if we affirm homosexuality. Nor did I suggest that homosexuality is at the top of the slope, and all of those others are at the scary bottom of the slope. All of them, including homosexuality, are at the scary bottom of the slope in terms of cultural… Read more »
Highlight the emotional, then proceed to the argument.
I like the combo.
thx.
Jude says Sodom and Gomorrah were punished for pursuing “unnatural desire.” (v. 7) (Similarly, Paul calls homosexuality “against nature” in Romans 1:26-27.) This is consonant with what God says elsewhere, that he judged the Canaanites for violating the standards of sexual purity mentioned in Leviticus 20 — including incest, homosexuality, and bestiality. Turns out the folks who made the film For the Bible Tells Me So are not the best exegetes in the world.
Iohannes.
Two men can’t get married or have sex any more than a triangle can have four corners. It’s not what those words mean.
I recommend reading the past year or so of posts on this blog before commenting further.
“You don’t have to celebrate it. ”
True; you could just pay $350,000 instead.
For someone who bandies the word Scripture so much, I don’t recall Pittard actually offering us any sort of sustained argument from actual content of Scripture. He’s said several things that suggest he isn’t very familiar with it. As for evidence of worldviews in collision, Matt Massingill provided several, but Pittard quickly dismissed those out of hand. In addition to ashv’s example, there is another recent case of coach Joe Kennedy, harassed by the school administration for privately praying after a game in a way that resulted in students voluntarily joining him. Pittard may be incapable of noticing the worldview… Read more »
Joe Kennedy is a public employee praying in a very public setting while still responsible for students on the field, in the locker room, etc. A coach’s job responsibilities are not over until the last player is out of the locker room after a game. This is a clear issue of the separation of church and state. Joe Kennedy is free to pray all he wants when he gets home or privately in his office or whatever. I dismissed Matt’s and Ashv’s examples because they were, like this one, not examples of a culture war. As for Joe Kennedy, I’m… Read more »
Pittard wrote: This is a clear issue of the separation of church and state. I actually think Kennedy will win his case against the school. The founding fathers certainly never envisioned that a private prayer by a local government official would run afoul of a federal restriction. The founding fathers did all their business with opening and closing prayers, for God’s sake. Did they think they were violating separation of church and state spheres? Hardly. Once again we find Pittard’s loyalties are on the side of secular intolerance for religious speech. Curious. But he seems to be unfamiliar with the… Read more »
The facts of the case are that Joe prayed after the games, on the field. True, he did not invite students to pray with him, but that doesn’t matter. And the fact he’d been doing it for 5 years before anyone said anything does not make it “right”. Whether he invites students to pray with him or not, the fact that a large group of students joined him, on the field, while he was still acting as coach (his duties are not over right after the clock runs out) creates a situation where he appears to be leading a prayer… Read more »
Pittard originally wrote: This is a clear issue of the separation of church and state. but ends his latest reply with: Maybe he will win in court. Who knows. Perhaps the law is not so clearly on his side as he thinks it is. However, it is increasingly clear that the laws are being changed in a direction that betrays the intentions and actual practices of the founding fathers themselves. They prayed often, while on the clock. Their idea of separation of Church and State was an acknowledgement that each institution inhabits separate jurisdictions, or spheres of authority. A similar… Read more »
“Perhaps the biggest lie of all is that people have some right to be free of any casual public encounter with religious expression.” What the founding fathers meant, of course, it not always the point. When they said that all men are created equal, for example, did they mean Blacks? Probably not. But we interpret it that way now. The constitution is a “living document” just as the Bible is–it “lives” because it is constantly being interpreted by living people. But to your point that I quoted above: there is a bewildering lack of understanding by you and others on… Read more »
Pittard wrote: What the founding fathers meant, of course, it not always the point. When they said that all men are created equal, for example, did they mean Blacks? Probably not. But we interpret it that way now. The constitution is a “living document” just as the Bible is–it “lives” because it is constantly being interpreted by living people. This is false. We are not authorized to just “reinterpret” the Constitution, or the founders, as we see fit. An apparent victim of postmodernity, Pittard admits that he is of the view that agreements, laws, and covenants (whether Scripture or Constitution)… Read more »
“Likewise, if we are going to betray the founders’ clear intention by imposing federal restrictions on states and individuals in their free exercise of religion, then the secularists need to get busy and propose a constitutional amendment to that effect.” We don’t need an amendment to correct what is already in the Constitution. “Separation” between Church and State is not mentioned by name in the Constitution, but the idea is there. Just like we didn’t need an amendment to establish that ALL men (and women) are created equal. The idea was already there. We needed an amendment to guarantee specific… Read more »
Pittard wrote: Why is this so hard to understand? The Establishment Clause PROTECTS the religious beliefs of everyone. You may see it as curtailing your beliefs, and it may very well feel that way, because for a long time Christianity has been widely practiced and accepted by many people. This is false. The Establishment Clause does not protect religious belief, that is a given. Rather it protects the “free exercise thereof”. That is what the school is attempting to suppress for Kennedy. They aren’t violating or curtailing his freedom of belief (yet), they are violating his freedom of peaceful exercise… Read more »
It’s not false. You may disagree with the interpretation and application of the “exercise thereof” part of the clause, but that doesn’t make the majority interpretation and application of that phrase “false”. You just disagree with it. But therein lies the issue. It is an issue of interpretation. The “free exercise” part of the clause has long been seen as barring Congress from favoring one religion over another. And that understanding of the phrase is what guides most State law as well. Teachers leading prayer or preaching publicly in their classrooms would be seen as favoring one religion over another.… Read more »
This is a clear issue of the separation of church and state.
This is a clear choice between God or State. Guess who I choose?
Just got around to reading this. Timothy, no one is telling Joe he can’t choose God. No one is telling you that you can’t choose God. That is the point. Joe has religious freedom just as much as you have. Joe just can’t pray in a public setting when he is in the role of a public employee. If he wants to continue doing so, then he needs to be willing to take the consequences. That’s the nature of civil disobedience. More power to him. But when he goes home, he can pray all he wants. He can go to… Read more »
Spike.
I don’t care. Take your state and shove it where the sun don’t shine. We will pray when and where we want to. Don’t like it? Kill us.
You seem to completely misunderstand the issue and my responses. No one is going to kill you for praying where you want to (except maybe a Jihadist). Timothy, you can pray whenever and wherever you want to. There are no laws against you from praying whenever and wherever you want to. Unless, however, you are a public, State employee–in which case, there is the Establishment Clause, and you should be happy that the same law that stops Joe from praying publicly while performing his school coaching job also prevents a Muslim teacher in a public school from trying to convert… Read more »
Spike you cannot grasp the fact that your nation is dead on its feet.
The ordering is Christ->Civil Magistrate->citizen. The Civil Magistrate must serve God or he is no magistrate at all.
Your people have rejected Christ and are now arguing that I must honor the laws of an illegitimate government. I do not care what your laws say. We are not the same people.
Capiche?
Who are my people? And what makes the government illegitimate?
“My claim is that Doug’s assertion that there is a secular jihad invasion going on, and that Christians are under attack is false.” I’m going to reluctantly, ever-so-slightly agree with your counter-assertion here, but for a *vastly* different reason than one I’d guess you’d give. It’s true that sometimes certain Christians in the US are prone to exaggerate the degree to which they are facing “persecution” in this country. The reason we should guard against this tendency, however, is not because persecution of Christians isn’t real, but precisely the opposite. Christians outside the US, especially the Middle East, large swaths… Read more »
I agree with jesuguru’s comments here. We don’t want our language to detract from actual brutality suffered by Christians in other places. We do not suffer in this country like they do. We still enjoy great liberties. However, the same worldview confrontation is just as intense here as elsewhere. The same deep heart hatred exists in the new secular atheism as in the most calloused of Islamic jihadists. Christ is ever the Rock of offense. Perhaps even more so in the attempt to push Him out of the public square. The differences is that progressives and secularists are not able… Read more »
The differences is that progressives and secularists are not able to
openly act on this hatred because they have an image to maintain for the
sake of the ongoing PR campaign. They are still being generally restrained by their own touted principles of tolerance and pluralism
That, and the fact we are armed to our teeth and will shoot to kill should the time come. Bring it, Herod.
I’m not going to argue with your assertion that there is very real persecution of Christians in the world. I actually feel a great deal of passion for those that are killed, tortured, or otherwise persecuted for their faith. However, I don’t see world wide attacks on Christians and the “SJW” attacks on Christians that Doug and others on this site refer to as at all the same things. There is terrible religious, sectarian violence in many parts of the world, and Christians (along with other religious groups) have been victims of horrendous attacks. In the US, there is no… Read more »
Thanks, again I largely agree… though I also agree with Katecho below that the reason for the difference in degree of persecution is not that some forces here wouldn’t love to suppress voices and ideologies at all costs, but rather that here, mercifully, there are cultural and constitutional constraints and protections. And I’d agree with Doug and others here that though the form of persecution obviously varies, the forces behind the opposition are ultimately spiritual, and will seek to silence by any means possible whether by physical violence elsewhere, or ridiculing, shouting down, and stifling dissent in public classrooms, courtrooms,… Read more »
Mathew 2 , Herod butchering the male babies of Bethlehem always sounded ‘out of the realm’ of modern possibility. Now, it reads like the headlines.
Easy access to government-sanctioned abortion on demand is perhaps the only way in which we not only measure up to the ancient pagans in barbarity and depravity, we perhaps outdo them.
Spike, Thanks for answering my question. One of the frustrating things I observe in all of this, in the culture in our country, is that it seems that a person like me who has a religious objection to homosexuality is defined as being hateful solely because I have a religious objection to homosexuality, and I find that kind of scenario very difficult in terms of reasoning to people. I was trying to see where you stood on this. I agree that people who are homosexual have been mistreated at times, and bullied, and at times it seems that areas of… Read more »
“…it seems that a person like me who has a religious objection to homosexuality is defined as being hateful solely because I have a religious objection to homosexuality…” Any definition you can think of, someone somewhere holds it. There are those who hold up signs about how God hates f-gs. We can’t say that those people don’t exist. We can ask that they not be thought representative of Christians, but then we have to give some alternative to point to; and if people want to continue to think that, they will. You just can’t control other people. You can state… Read more »
David — insightful — yet may I push back a smidge?
Is your objection to homosexuality “merely” religious?
And what does a “religious objection” really mean?
If religion were the all-encompassing super category, under which you’d file, say, social & moral & business dealings, then you can see how homosexuality apologists would get nervous about religious objections, unless those objections remain sequestered into commitment ghettos.
If in the name of religion, with its objections, you take Doug Wilson’s courses of action (as I think we should), then having a religious objection invites attack, no?
David, thanks for your sincere response that didn’t come in the form of an outright attack. I guess I would ask for some evidence to support that homosexuals are specifically targeting wedding cake makers to force their hands. Is this really widespread? Your point about the Leviticus 18 cake demonstrates that you have respect for other people’s beliefs. But what if you did go to that shop to order a cake? They should make you one, shouldn’t they? As to Doug being called to stir the pot, this may indeed be his calling. However, what it appears like to me… Read more »
Pittard apparently can’t even bring himself to honestly acknowledge the rest of Wilson’s ministry outside of the realm of direct worldview confrontation. This very blog is full of such Scripture-packed evidence. So Pittard will have to excuse us for not accepting him as any sort of authority or model on the subject of responsibility.
Spike, One thought – I myself would draw a distinction, as I bet you would, between the necessities (food, shelter, medical treatment) and something like a message on a cake. For example, if I thought the Bible commanded me to not feed, in any form, a homosexual, I had better do it. However, I do not believe the Bible requires me to do this, and I can see a value in not doing that (i.e. I sell hamburgers, and a gay couple wants dinner). I see a wedding cake as being symbolic of something, in addition to being food. It… Read more »
I certainly don’t condone businesses being attacked for their views. Even if I don’t agree with those views. And I understand that it might create a conflict if you viewed your baking a wedding cake or frosting a message on that cake as endorsing something you were morally opposed to. If you need to take a stand, then take a stand. However, you’ll have to accept the consequences. After all, isn’t discrimination a product of belief? Nazis closed their doors to Jews because they believed they were inferior. Some Americans closed their doors because they believed that they were inferior.… Read more »
“They should not be told “no” any more than you or I should be told “no”
if we went into a Jewish bakery and asked for an Easter cake with an
empty tomb.”
Why should we expect a business to change their product line based on any request we might make? Why is it wrong for a business to engage in certain kinds of business, and not others?
Allow me to answer the question “They should make you one, shouldn’t they?” from the position of business law. Customer walks in and “orders” a cake. We call it “order” not because there is an implicit master/slave or king/servant relationship granted to the customer by virtue of crossing the threshold…no, it’s shorthand for “completes a sales order.” But this “order” is contingient on a few things, chief among them being the concept of “offer” and “acceptance.” And, of course, “consideration.” You see, first the baker must make the customer an offer–say–I’ll make you a cake, decorated to your liking, for… Read more »
The issue is not with the concept of offer and acceptance. The issue is with WHY an offer is not accepted. If I make and frost cakes and someone comes and says he needs thirty for a party, I can refuse the offer for any number of reasons. But it shouldn’t be because the customer is black or gay or Christian or a felon or whatever. If a person comes to me and asks me to make a 100 pound cake, I can accept the offer or not. If I refuse, the customer can counter offer. But my refusal can… Read more »
Why are they not acceptable reasons? By what standard are they not acceptable?
love the paradox of the community that won’t be cowed but still paints itself as a perpetual victim of the secularist menace.
I am no victim. You want a fight? bring it.
Tim,
The barn door’s open,
the “it” is “brung”,
and should be milked,
for bovine puns.
Proverbs 26:4-6
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you yourself will be just like him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.
;-)
“You want a fight? I double-dairy ya.”
Best comment I’ve seen on here all day. Well played.
What’s your beef? Don’t have a cow, man. Milking this for all it’s worth.
Glad to hear it. Doug certainly enjoys the position of being a victim, however. The “we’re under attack” seems to be as important to his worldview as it does to the progressives he is ridiculing.
It is Dougs belief that God is in the process of bringing everyone into submission to Jesus. Therefore Doug endevers to co-operate with God subduing the nations, and doesn’t expect people to submit to God without resitence.
“Therefore Doug endevers to co-operate with God subduing the nations”
Therein lies the problem. Joining hands with God to subdue the nations is not Doug’s job, and if you believe it is, then you are sorely mistaken. Doug is a man and men can be wrong about things. It is foolish to put them on such a pedestal.
“Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few; Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest.”
… and “go ye therefore and make disciples of all the nations. Teaching them to do all things whatsoever I have commanded.
great minds…
Not the same as “subduing nations”. But a great verse all the same.
More patronizing dismissals from Pittard, however, the passage shows that God joins hands with laborers to bring about His purposes on the earth. This is a principle that Pittard doesn’t seem to want to grant in Wilson’s case. I notice that Pittard hasn’t yet addressed the several passages I mentioned previously. But here’s another one, specifically on the subject of subduing nations: He subdues peoples under us And nations under our feet. He chooses our inheritance for us, The glory of Jacob whom He loves.– Psalm 47:3 This is a reference to the defeat of the Canaanites, which inheritance God… Read more »
Again, this is an OT reference to the people of Israel who actually were a political entity. The Church of Christ is not such an entity. Subduing the nations meant something to David that it can not mean to us today, simply because our king is Christ, and the kingdom is the Kingdom of Heaven. Subduing nations is no longer on the list of things to do. Making disciples of all nations is on the list, and that is indeed a battle–just one waged in a different manner.
Semantics… discipling means subduing in the disciples – and teaching them to self-subdue – anything contrary to the Gospel they’re being discipled in. That includes not only the core beliefs in justification (saved by Grace through faith in Christ alone), but in all of the correlated aspects of sanctification, including sexual morality, purity in speech and action, holiness, truthfulness, overall conformity to the eternal plan and purpose of God individually and corporately.
Semantics, yes. But the meaning of words is important. Christ never once instructs us to subdue anything. The word is not in the Greek in any example of his teachings to the disciples. So we can’t simply say that discipling means “subduing in the disciples”. I’m not even sure that phrase makes sense. Anyway, I haven’t seen anything in your post to convince me that Christ calls us to subdue the nations. We can’t make the text say something it doesn’t.
“”subduing in the disciples”. I’m not even sure that phrase makes sense” Alright, let me try to help you along a little further, though it may be a futile exercise to some degree if you’re not a Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christian. Colossians 3:5 “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” –Subdue could be a very mild synonym for “put to death” (Greek “Nekrōsate”, KJV “mortify”). In Ephesians 4, Paul says that they were taught/exhorted (by him and others) to do this very thing. In 1Corinthians 4-5, Paul warns… Read more »
Pittard wrote: Again, this is an OT reference to the people of Israel who actually were a political entity. The Church of Christ is not such an entity. Subduing the nations meant something to David that it can not mean to us today, simply because our king is Christ, and the kingdom is the Kingdom of Heaven. Subduing nations is no longer on the list of things to do. Making disciples of all nations is on the list, and that is indeed a battle–just one waged in a different manner. Pittard just gave away his entire point here. If making… Read more »
Not contrary to subduing nations and complementary to God doing such.
I wonder what possible authority Pittard thinks that he has to lecture us on what our job is. Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you… Matthew 28:18-20 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but… Read more »
You can use the 2nd person “you” to refer to me as well, though “Pittard” does have a nice ring to it. It can be said with a great deal of disdain, like one spitting. That’s what I like about it. Anyway, to your points about subduing. The Matthew passage is about making disciples, and I don’t see disciple-making as related to subduing. Subduing it about conquering, crushing, vanquishing, etc. Lots of synonyms, none of which fit with making disciples, unless you are using the crusades as your model. 2nd Corinthians is about spiritual warfare. And subduing might be appropriate… Read more »
It’s hilarious to watch Pittard get hung up on the word “subduing”, while completely forgetting the original issue, which was our call to engage the world in spite of confrontation. Talk about missing the forest for the trees. Pittard writes: 2nd Corinthians is about spiritual warfare. And subduing might be appropriate in this context, I’ll give that to you. But this does not imply an Isaiah-like hand in God’s hand subduing the nations. The people of Israel were a political, national institution, and so the OT often pits them against the nations. But the NT and the New Covenant changes… Read more »
Pittard seems to place a great deal of stock in his charge that Wilson is playing a victim card. The only problem is that this isn’t the case. It’s possible to point out an attack from the enemy; to laugh (see Psalm 2); and to push back; while still not playing any sympathy cards at all.
In other words Pittard’s attempts to steer the narrative are manure.
Good pun at the end there. Playing the victim card doesn’t mean you can’t fight back. You can still fight back even if you are the victim of an attack. My point is that Doug gets a lot of mileage out of the supposed secular jihad attack on all that is good and holy. When Doug mocks the IU protesters and says that they were “as proud of the symbolic violence they had endured by my metaphorical hands” he is calling the kettle black. It may be true that the rabid left as symbolized by the IU protesters takes a… Read more »
Pittard is insistent, but he still seems to be deeply confused about the difference between being attacked, and using the confrontation in an attempt to demand sympathy from the opposition. No one disputes that worldviews are in collision. Wilson is in this fight himself. He’s not shocked or dismayed that the opposition is using everything they can against what he stands for. It’s nothing personal. The stakes are quite high. But apparently Pittard hasn’t yet learned that conservative Christians (especially straight white male ones) don’t get any sympathy in the current progressive guilt culture. In other words, it’s fruitless for… Read more »
“Basically, what Pittard is trying to do is accuse Wilson of using a guilt tactic, for which Pittard thinks Wilson should feel deeply guilty. Pittard is trying to guilt trip Wilson through a trumped up charge of guilt tripping.” Not what I’m trying to do, actually. My point in my initial post is that Wilson purposely stirs the pot and revels in the attacks that ensue. I’m not saying he is trying to use a guilt tactic. I don’t think he cares about that at all. To put it more simply: Doug Wilson thrives on the fear that white male… Read more »
Pittard wrote: Not what I’m trying to do, actually. My point in my initial post is that Wilson purposely stirs the pot and revels in the attacks that ensue. I’m not saying he is trying to use a guilt tactic. Pittard has repeatedly accused Wilson of stirring up outrage so that he can play the role of victim. And yet, suddenly, Pittard wants to pretend that he doesn’t understand the psychology of playing the victim card. The victim card only works if someone is believed to be in the wrong. I.e. guilty. Pittard also wrote: When I used the word… Read more »
“the message you share is one that promotes hate”
According to … you? And we should listen to you because … ?
Because it’s worth listening to people that have different opinions than you do. Because I provided some evidence that at least somewhat supports my thinking. Evidence is important, you know. But it’s certainly good to question why you should listen to anyone. Doug Wilson included. Does he provide evidence to back up his opinions? No. Instead, he throws out the typical “progressives are evil” line without a hint of evidence of a real jihad. I’m sorry, but a group of raving mad college students at IU does not prove that the entire nation is on a jihad against free speech.… Read more »
“Intentionally saying things that he knows will rile up the ‘enemy’ and then saying ‘well, look how riled up the enemy is’ is pretty childish.”
No, that isn’t childish. It only demonstrates how childish the enemy is.
And you act as though we on this side of the fence have shown an unwillingness to listen. Heh, no no, it isn’t us who are unwilling to listen.
What are you willing to listen to?
It’s time for Christians to learn to hate again.
Romans 12:
9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10 Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves.
Again? We never had to love evil, especially our own.
First planks, then specks. ; – )
Sure. But many of us seem to have gotten out of the habit.
You’re absolutely right.
We’re told to hate evil behavior. We can never hate people.
Well, God and His Word are the things that are right, I am just trying to reflect their example. Also, l don’t like to over dignify ignorance and promote it to “hate”. Bovine banter should be taken as such! ????
Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity!
Exactly!
Now if only we could re-state that in bovine puns!
I got nuthin’. ; – )
Meaning what, exactly?
That Christians are to act like the enemies of God are their own enemies. That people opposed to “hate” are also opposed to the gospel. That “culture war” and shooting war are components of the same thing.
But then what do we do with “Love your enemies”?
Good question. Off the cuff my first response is that it is our duty to especially seek to love people who have offended against us personally; pride gets in the way of a lot. We so easily treat people who have stepped on our toes like people who are in rebellion against God, when we’d do much better to reverse that. Second, Pastor Wilson’s distinction between refugees from the world and apostles of the world is important. We should welcome the former and provide encouragement to leave their sin behind; the latter we should give no comfort, encouragement, or concession… Read more »
That hate you feel? It’s coming from inside you.
Good response. But how do you reconcile the claim that there is a secularist jihad when there is so little real threat to protestant Christians? I suppose you can always say “it’s coming”. Doug’s example is that a bunch of zealous IU students got really aggressive with him. That’s not a particularly scary jihad.
SJW’s always lie.
It’s true that no one has offered to cut my head off. It’s also true that a bunch of whipped up undergraduates are not in themselves much of a concern. But jihad is still a very good metaphor because the kids are the tip of the iceberg and they fully intend and actually are using the full force of law to silence opposition.
Wake up. There are cases in Maine, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington of event property owners, florists, bakers, photographers, etc. who are being subjected to fines and civil contempt for running their businesses as they choose. Sensitivity training at Gov’t agencies, private corporations, universities, and other organizations is sprawling everywhere. A culture of rhetorically, administratively enforced penalties and restrictions for microaggressions is everywhere. The fact that it could be worse (and it could be – it certainly is worse elsewhere), does not nullify what is happening here. And, at the very least, even if you aren’t prone to acknowledge that… Read more »
I suspect that by answering Pittard’s challenge, Matt will now be accused of “playing the victim card”.
If you are referring to cases where people are criticized or fined for refusing services to people based on discriminatory practices, then your examples do not help your cause. Refusing services to African Americans because they are black is against the law, just as it is to refuse services to people from the LGBT community. That is not even close to being a secularist jihad. You can spin it that way if you want, but it simply is not true that the government is coming for Christians. What is being persecuted is discriminatory practices by business owners. I’ll agree with… Read more »
Nobody was refused service because they were “from the LGBT community.” This is such a tired canard.
So the police were there just for their grins?
Spike, I feel like you hate Doug for being a white Christian. Now I need to find out where I can log in a complaint against you for your hate speech. The words you say matter. Why are you promoting hatred of Christians and whites?
Good one. What part of my post would you consider hate speech? How about actually responding to what I said. The only idea that I’m promoting is that Doug is peddling bullshit about how badly Christians are under attack. That’s not hatred, it’s simply calling someone’s bluff.
I’m just using your standard of disagreement means hate, calling a “lifestyle” wrong is the equivalent to hating. You disagree with Doug and you think he is wrong. So again I ask you why are you so full of hate? Or why is your bluff so full of bullshit?
I never said that disagreeing with someone is equal to hate. My point is that there is a reason why the students at IU were upset with Doug and it is that they feel that his teachings do not help to support groups of people that are real victims in this country. My point is also that Doug relishes the position of being under attack by these secular jihadists, and so his mocking of the IU students for being proud of their victimhood is hypocritical. Doug gets a ton of mileage out of the fact that people attack him. He’s… Read more »
Pittard is going to pull a muscle trying so hard to bend the narrative. I doubt the students at IU even knew who Wilson was the month before he showed up to lecture there. Their hatred is not directed at Wilson in any personal way, but against everything Wilson stands for. There is a reason that Jesus instructed His disciples in Matthew 5:11-12: “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same… Read more »
The narrative does not need to be bent. It doesn’t matter if the IU students knew who he was ahead of time or not. But they knew enough to feel that Doug was a promoter of an ideology that they see as leading to actual persecution against gays. My point is that Doug is just as much of a purveyor of the “person under attack” mindset that the IU protestors are. Read his posts. The “Christian culture under attack” mindset is stamped all over it. It doesn’t take any narrative bending to demonstrate this. Jesus’s commands to embrace persecution may… Read more »
Pittard wrote: The “Christian culture under attack” mindset is stamped all over it. It doesn’t take any narrative bending to demonstrate this. Only someone like Pittard would deny that Christian culture is under attack, but the part of the narrative that Pittard is desperate to bend is not that part, it’s the part about Wilson’s reaction to that attack. Pittard wants to cast Wilson in the role of victim, and then blame him for being in that role. But Wilson hasn’t assumed the role of victim, so Pittard’s blame-game fails. As for the “Christian culture under attack” narrative, this is… Read more »
Pittard wrote: Here is a position to take a stand on to the death: that Jesus Christ is Lord. If people persecute you for making that claim, then rejoice. If Doug were simply preaching the Gospel he would not have needed the police escort. There are thousands of preachers and Christian thinkers that preach the Gospel and are not vilified. Pittard speaks as if Christians have no information on whether homosexuality is a sin, or something to support. It’s as if he simply has no interest in what Scripture says, but still has brass to try to tell us that… Read more »
1. “Apparently, Pittard’s idea is that of a tame Gospel that never gets anyone villified.” The Gospel is the good news of redemption through Christ. It is the arrival of grace, the forgiveness of sins, and the promise of the Living Word written on our hearts. Does this get people vilified? Of course it does. In fact, some Christians could argue that they are vilified for accepting gays into the church and not condemning them based on their understanding of the Gospel. Certainly, Doug and others on this site vilify them for living out what they see as the Good… Read more »
They do see us as the enemy. An enemy to be destroyed, hated and strangled. Christians rightly see them as the enemy. An enemy to be won, saved and delivered from their repressive sins. But we don’t cow, as the case may be, to their cries of victimization. You and the people that tell them that it is ok to embrace their “cancer” are not the ones who love. Doug, and those of us who know the Creator and Doctor are telling them the hard truth with hard words because they have hard hearts. Tender words are for tender and… Read more »
Dialectic is no way to engage a Social Justice Warrior (except as a means of educating other participants in the conversation).
The correct tool is rhetoric and effective rhetoric is Simplicity + truth + contempt .
Expect all three.
Effective rhetoric is actually Logos, Pathos, Ethos. That requires actual arguments based on actual evidence. I’ve seen very little of that on this site. Contempt is not a particularly effective rhetorical device, though it is the most common response to any opposing view on this site. I’d prefer a response with actual arguments and evidence.
That requires actual arguments based on actual evidence
That is the definition of Dialectic, not Rhetoric; you are conflating the categories.
Aristotle noted that some men are incapable of instruction and are only convinced by rhetoric. Arguments based on actual evidence and the rules of logic is dialectic.
I’d prefer a response with actual arguments and evidence.
The burden of proof rests on the accuser; it is quite rude to demand an open-ended ‘defense’ of a good man who is doing good in this world.
Dialectic is the art of dissecting opinions to verify their validity. Rhetoric is the combination of Logos, Pathos and Ethos. The dialectic is part of the analysis of Logos–are the opinions, the arguments valid?
Hate crime statistics should be taken with a grain of salt anyway as they are based on reporting which includes the victims claimed perception and include crimes involving other factors.
“Hate crime statistics should be taken with a grain of salt anyway as
they are based on reporting which includes the victims claimed
perception.”
Nice complete dismissal of these statistics. So what? None of this stuff happens? Maybe. Maybe. Okay. I’ll make you a deal, I’ll grant you that these statistics are bollocks if you’ll grant me that your dismissal also applies to Doug’s “claimed perception” that there is a secularist jihad invasion. After all it’s the victim that is doing the reporting.
Hard to say how much of that stuff happens. How much of it involves actual convictions for hate crimes? Anyway, Wilson didn’t say anything about hate crimes in connection with what he calls a secularist jihad, you brought that up. As for what he means, ask him. I’ve got a general idea, but it’s his phrase. Now if all you want to do is convince me not very many Protestants are physically assaulted or terrorized just because they are Protestant you really don’t need to trot out statistics in the first place. I would imagine that goes for most readers… Read more »
I didn’t say Wilson says anything about hate crimes. I brought them up simply to show that there is a reason why people like the students at IU have a problem with him. There are people in this country that are real victims, and the threat to them is due to people’s attitudes about them–attitudes that the students at IU would claim Doug is not helping with and may be promoting. I’m not trying to convince you that Protestants aren’t physically assaulted or terrorized just for being Protestants, and the fact that you know this isn’t true without the need… Read more »
Without knowing all the specifics of what happened at IU (first I’d heard of it) I’d chalk it up, possibly, in part to concern over threat due to attitude, but mostly to plain antipathy toward Doug Wilson’s views combined with the fact that the category of student includes a large number of sub adult representatives of the species. Whatever the case, hopefully we can recognize as unacceptable that anyone should need a police escort to give a lecture at a public university. Just like we recognize a unacceptable that anyone should be assaulted for being black, homosexual, or Jewish while… Read more »
“Whatever the case, hopefully we can recognize as unacceptable that anyone should need a police escort to give a lecture at a public university.”
Agreed. But I think Doug enjoys it all the same.
Pittard has a window directly on Wilson’s heart now? Or perhaps Pittard is just spinning a plausible narrative, hoping someone will bite?
Pittard wrote:
It doesn’t seem that Wilson gets even a fraction of the joy as Pittard gets from his fixation on telling us what to think about Wilson.
Notice katecho’s compulsion to tell Pittard what the source of his joy is. Does katecho have some special insight into the heart of Pittard?
Randman suspects that katecho wishes to write a long screed in the third person but the lightweight nature of this particular Wilson post seems to be hindering him.
Randman, It doesn’t take any special insight to see into the heart of Pittard. It is obvious. Katecho is not referring to any real source of joy, but rather what Pittard is accusing Doug of. A perverse pleasure in stirring the pot.
ohmywelch bacon. Do you hear yourself? Perverse pleasure in stirring the pot is what makes Doug het out of bed every day.
And perhaps the smell of bacon.
Do not mistake joy in the Lord with perverse pleasure.
RandMan tries, but I speculated that Pittard must have a window to peer into Wilson’s heart because nothing Pittard says about Wilson’s motives are actually demonstrated by facts apparent to all. In other words, they depend completely on Pittard’s carefully spun narrative, and nothing else. On the other hand, Pittard is giving us abundant evidence that he has an agenda to cast Wilson in the most craven and self-centered light, by telling stories about Wilson. It appears to be approaching the level of obsession. RandMan objects to my external perception of the stinkiness of Pittard’s motives, but where is RandMan’s… Read more »
I am noticing how katecho is living inside your head.
Randman enjoys katecho’s spectrum-y third person responses. Notice katecho’s consistency of style. How rhythmically he employs his now-classic maneuver of misrepresentation followed by refutation. He is so very steady with his manner there that Randman finds it more straw robot than straw man.. but enjoys katecho nonetheless.
(Randman also likes timothy following him around the site and enjoys giving him he attention he desires. Hello timothy.)
katecho’s comments are worth following; they open vistas on ways of thinking I have never seen nor attempted; I am learning from him Your comments are selfies made worse by your belief that they offer panoramic insights when at most they are abstract tangled wads of tie-dyed belly-button lint .
Really? In 2013, there were 1402 cases where bakers refused to bake cakes for homosexuals? Buying (or selling) the FBI’s definition of “Hate Crimes” might yield unpredictable results.
I wonder if we parse the data if we might find “hate crimes” where people were banned from entering an establishment because they had manure all over their shoes. In fact, Spike, you might want to check yours since it smells like you stepped in something.
JH, the data does not say anything about bakers refusing to make cakes for homosexuals. That’s not a hate crime. Are you serious?
1,402 cases in one year out of a total population of 300 million?
That’s barely a rounding error.
“Of those 1,402 cases, 60.6 percent were against gay men. Altogether, 98.3% of the gender-based hate crimes were against non-heterosexuals.”
Fair enough.
Now, how many of those “hate crimes” were committed by other homosexuals? How many were committed by those of politically-preferred pigmentation? How many were committed by members of politically-preferred minority religions? Or do the statistics not record the sexual habits, race or religion of the purported offender?
The statistics don’t reveal that information, and that would certainly be interesting to find out. But it doesn’t really pertain to my point in using the statistics. My point is that the reason that some people, like the IU protesters, get so upset with people like Doug is that they see him as perpetuating ideologies that affect people that are actually victims. My other point was to show that, at least statistically, protestant Christians are not victims. I’ll agree that the number of reported cases by law enforcement is not large, but that argument also reinforces how insignificant the crimes… Read more »
We have the same problem in Oklahoma with “Miami”. It’s My-Am-Uh.
My wife is from Welch, OK, and she introduced me to that peculiar mis-pronunciation. But then, I pronounce my birth state “Miz-UR-uh” and a border state to my current home “Looz-ee-AN-uh”…so what do I know?
The French have a saying on this topic: “Cet animal est tres méchant;
Quand on l’attaque il se défend.” (“This animal is very vicious; when attacked, it defends itself.”)
But Rev 4:7 does identify one of the living creatures as mosxw (mosco), a young bull.
A few things have come up, so I’ll be off this keyboard for a day or two. However, if anyone feels like chasing some references, here’s a few things to chew over . . . . First, a Christian rolling in on “social justice warriors,” twice no less: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426452/political-correctness-peaks-social-justice-liberals http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/426468/leftist-catholics-try-silence-ross-douthat-douthat-brushes-them-david-french While a Jew penned this one: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426460/whitesplain-this-hypocritical-accusers-black-white Meanwhile, tonight Tulane (you know; down in New Orleans) is hosting the third installment of “The Katrina Disaster Now:” http://tulane.edu/calendar/event-details.cfm?uid=C35D9AED-B9F0-5958-BB3DBAB942E096C5 The first installment was: https://tulane.edu/calendar/event-details.cfm?uid=C4850377-B1B9-786D-D892E6F715FB6A5C while the second was: http://tulane.edu/news/newwave/102315_kai-erikson_disaster-scholar_hurricane-katrina-now.cfm?RenderForPrint=1 Surely the most literal inerrant fundamentalist we can find, teamed up with the… Read more »
I’ve mentioned Samson before in the context of Trump. “Would you just step into these ropes already, please?”, said the professional Republicans?
Oh holmegm, you’re crazy! After all, it’s not like Samson was some oafish cad with a series of foreign women, or … oh.