I don't guess the author has a dog in this fight?
Posted on 01/17/2011 8:17:57 AM PST by Michael van der Galien
About a year ago, I began to commit social suicide. It was a slow process, beginning as I spoke my mind to friends about the new convictions I was forming. If I ever was A-list, pretty soon I wasn’t anymore. I never had a t-shirt of Mao or Che, but if I did, I’d burn it in defiant protest. I love America, and I have come to realize that my only hope for freedom or equality – the things my friends say they all want – is to join together with those who want to protect Her, no matter how uncool and B-list they might be.
The former First Lady stood up for the rights of gays, and wouldn’t back down to anybody. This no-longer-A-list gay, demoted because my beliefs had become uncool, appreciated that. People have been telling me for years what I can and cannot believe, where I belong and what I am, or am not, permitted to say because my sexual orientation is – supposedly – the sole determinant of my identity. But my identity, first and foremost is that I’m a Christian and an American.
I still believe in America, and because of this the Tea Party fascinates me. Sarah Palin, their standard-bearer, shoots moose, speaks her mind and damns the consequences. Hundreds of thousands gather in Washington, inspire goodwill throughout the country and pick up their own trash. This is America in action – a new revolution. These people want not just an empty promise of “hope and change,” but hope and change for real.
Besieged by Leftists who hope to shut it down, at least one faction in the Arizona Tea Party has seemed determined to shoot itself in the foot.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
Latest evidence that David Horowitz’ blog has jumped the shark.
He's right (though he left out idolatry).
David Horowitz has done a lot of good but he's still a secular conservative who buys into the idea that the Right has to keep pace with the Left on social issues and agree with it. Now these people want conservatives to drop their opposition to homosexuality. Amazing when you consider that not that long ago everyone (including the Left) was opposed to homosexuality.
The "compassionate conservatives" want to pinch pennies and are lionized by the Left. Poor Bible-thumpers are hated worse than any "capitalist exploiter."
From "It's none of your business what I do in my bedroom" to "I'll tell loud and clear what I do in my bedroom, and you had better damn well approve of it!"
Faggots unite!
If the Tea party embraces anti gay stances, religious or otherwise...they are making a mistake.
What ever you feel about gays it is of no import in the fundamental principles which inspired the Tea party movement.
I had to read five paragraphs to find out who she was talking about.
The guy’s name is Steven Anderson. Maybe he’s big out in AZ; I have not heard of him before.
The fundamental principles that inspired the Tea party was a government out of control that was not representative of the People. It stood firmly against political action that was denying the People their ‘right to representation’ and defrauding them of their income. It is no different at all in the ‘gay rights’ debate. The left-wing are trying to force it on the people and to financially punish those (with lawsuits) who don’t agree and they are doing this by denying the People their ‘right to representation on this issue. This issue is 100% a Tea party issue and where they stand on it will determine their success or failure.
Actually, the Bible does not specifically authorize the death penalty for rape.
Under the Law, rape was treated as an offense against the property of the woman's owner (husband or father) more than an offense against her as a person.
There were three possibilities where rape might be an issue:
1. A man has sex with an unengaged virgin. Makes no difference under the Law whether she consented or not. He had to pay a fine to the woman's father and was usually forced to marry her, losing all future right to divorce her. IOW, in this case the penalty was identical for consensual fornication as for violent rape.
2. A man has sex with a married or engaged woman and she resists, which would make it rape. In this case the man was executed but not the woman. But he's executed more for adultery than for rape, as can be seen from the next example.
3. A man has sex with a married or engaged woman and she does not resist. In this case it is assumed to be consensual and both the adulterers are executed.
It's pretty clear from this that the offense against the person of the woman we call rape was not a primary consideration under the Law of Moses.
The society described in the Law is remarkably similar in a number of ways to modern Islam in its attitude towards women. Divorce, for example, is very similar.
freaking hilarious!!!
the homo-agenda trolls are comming out.
conservative is conservative.
the homosexual advocates have been trying constantly to split conservative into nuances.
Tea Party should not be involved with shoveling smoke or religious controversy. Both are equally pointless, distracting, ridiculous.
The grave error of your perspective is that the Scriptural underpinnings of all morality in the West do not encourage us as individuals or a society to promote homosexuality. If the Scriptures are actually revelation from God, then from them we derive the view that it is not appropriate to endorse dishonesty, cruelty, theft, or any of the many other expressions of evil. Extra-marital sex and homosexuality are among those noted.
While it is no longer required that homosexuals be put to death (with the removal of the Mosaic Law), to acquiesce to the LGBT groups demand to support these acts/lifestyles is just as repellent to many in the Tea Party as it would be if Thieves United asked for their sin to be revered. This foundational system is how much the "fundamental principles" were originally recognized by the Tea Party.
The "Constitution" uses this same system to anchor its provisions. This is what the framers meant by "...endowed by their Creator" as noted in the Declaration of Independenc. All western law finds its roots in the Judeo-Christian Scriptural system. Thus, homosexuality does not merit promotion, but instead ought to be discouraged along with other troubling behavior. And we pray the tide is turning to return to this platform.
My point is that the ban on homosexuality has the same basis as the ban on murder: the Laws of G-d.
Unfortunately, secular conservatives don't recognize this and feel the need to keep pace with every decriminalization of perversion the Left comes up with.
American, yes. Christian, I'll leave that to God to decide. But I will pray that your eyes will be opened to what the scriptures say regarding homosexuality.
There is no "the tea party." If local tea partiers want to also take a socially conservative stance, they are free to do so. Generally, the "tea party movement" has been about fiscal conservatism, but there's no reason local groups cannot also embrace social conservatism.
There is a huge difference between being loving and forgiving toward gays, and helping to push the gay activist political agenda.
Regretably, some of these faux conservatives don’t get it. Or in the case of this presumed lesbian, they try to work on the ignorance of their audience with this kind of nonsense.
You simply cannot have a free country without building it on traditional morality. In the West, that means Christian morality, and by extension, Jewish morality.
If the great majority of citizens are unwilling to discipline themselves, then freedom will inevitably fail. A free society can afford a few immoral people around the edges. It cannot afford to become immoral itself. If a free people are unwilling to control themselves, then the state police will step in and do it for them.
Yes, the “former First Lady stood up for the rights of gays.” So what? Laura Bush is a LIBERAL. She wants to let the radical homosexual agenda destroy traditional male-female marriage, foundation of civilization. Not only that, she is pro-abortion and disdains those grimy social conservatives.
Don’t be fooled by the sweet, demure-looking librarian on the cover of her recent book. She is blue-blood country-clubber to the core.
I disagree with your statements about God’s prescribed punishment for rapists, and will paste in Lorain’s Free Net Chapel essay because he says it better than I do:
“First, it is incorrect to interpret a sanctioning of rape by God (tacitly or otherwise) being that it is unfounded in light of His character and Laws. The verses cited as examples are not properly interpreted and therefore cannot be used as an argument for such.
Let’s look at the first reference used: Numbers 31:18.
The context of this particular Scripture involves the distribution of captives of war. In study of the battles that were taking place during this time, God had often required the total extermination of all. In this instance, God allowed the taking of women and children unto themselves. It has nothing to do with rape.
The custom would be for the conquering armies to take the defeated people as slaves unto themselves. Those women who were virgins and children would be the desired ones to keep. Keeping in mind that these wars during the conquest of Canaan were wars of extermination, it was an act of GRACE to allow these heathen people to remain alive, even as slaves... Therefore it would not be an act requiring rebuke or condemnation by God.
In the other examples cited regarding the rights and welfare of the woman, we must keep in mind the context of what is being recorded, as well as the Eastern custom concerning men and women. A thought foreign to Western custom is the rights and power of the man as head of his house. In America a man can ask a woman to be his bride, and if she consents, they can proceed with their plans. It is only out of courtesy that a gentleman asks the father of the bride for the hand of his daughter in marriage.
In the East, the daughter belongs to the father and cannot be taken at will by any Romeo who comes along and finds her attractive. To this day there is a dowry required of the man desiring a young lady to be his wife in many countries of the world.
The discovery of a couple who had engaged in sexual relations outside of the institution of marriage carried stiff penalties. It could mean the death of one or both of the parties involved. (Study further the consequences of fornication and adultery.) When this act was a forced act, in the case of rape, then God gave specific instruction as to the way He wanted Moses to deal with it.
The victim of rape is always left with the shame and psychological repercussions of such a wicked act. Only God can take one who has been so violated and restore them. His grace is sufficient for anything we face. However, in Scripture, if the woman cried out for help, she would be released from any other penalty. The man who forced her would be destroyed (Deuteronomy 22:25), but the woman would be allowed to go free. The woman who did not cry out would be as guilty as the man for the fact that it appears she was a willing accomplice, and therefore not a victim.
Concerning whether a couple has been caught or not, we know that ALL sin will one day be judged by a Holy God who sees all! No one will get away with hidden sin. “
I will add that the strict laws against fornication, adultery, AND rape are not only protections for women (who are usually ruined by un-covenanted sexual relationships or attacks) but for children, too, who are often the unwanted results of such un-covenanted sexual relationships and suffer actual death, various forms of neglect, and the myriad repercussions of fatherless homes if they actually get born.
And then society gets to enjoy the fruits of THAT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.