would voters? the filthy queer ones anyway...
Posted on 06/27/2013 10:23:32 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
President Barack Obama on Thursday praised the Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage as a "victory for American democracy" but clashed with his African host over gay rights in a sign of how far the movement has to go internationally.
Obama said recognition of gay unions in the United States should cross state lines and that equal rights should be recognized universally. It was his first chance to expand on his thoughts about the ruling, which was issued Wednesday as he flew to Senegal, one of many African countries that outlaw homosexuality.
*snip*
Papi Nbodj, a 19-year-old student who stood by the road to the presidential palace to see Obama's arrival, said homosexuality is against the religious beliefs of most in Senegal.
"We are in a Muslim country, so we certainly cannot have it here," he said. "And for me it's not OK to have this anywhere in the world."
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
“...Is there any nation left who...”
Yup.
Half of this country.
would voters? the filthy queer ones anyway...
[”We are in a Muslim country, so we certainly cannot have it here,” he said. “And for me it’s not OK to have this anywhere in the world.”]
Hmmm. And the Fabian Socialist’s Stooge POTUS is hoisting the Rainbow flag from the White Hut with the help of the SCOTUS.
What does this mean?
Fill yer hands, Pilgrims.
>>Uh oh!!
It’s exactly what the Odumbo’s commie handlers have in mind.
Enflame the Muslim Useful Idiots so they’ll burn down the American village — meanwhile, the Russian Obprichniki are purging the façade of decadence, and the Bear is reawakening.
What does “received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion” mean?
>>It upsets me to find myself agreeing with a Muslim.
Muslims won’t perceive the agreement, infidel - all they’ll see is the provocative Rainbow flag waiving over a smoldering America.
“Sodomite Rights” - a total oxymoron.
“I do not approve of Islam and some of its more terrible ideas—BUT I honor the dedication of their followers who will die to get their will heard”
It isn’t their unwillingness to die. It is their willingness to slaughter and enslave. There can be no respect for that.
We were never called to resort to the violent tools that make Islam the threat it is. God’s word is our tool. And our willingness to live by it. His word will not return void.
“The way I understand it, the MORAL law always applies, the sacrificial (ceremonial) and civil and dietary statutes are not....”
Correct. I believe it was in Acts, when the Jewish believers were trying to decide if the Gentiles had to convert to Judaism.
If Zero lived in his home country, he would be against it. His handlers in this country have told him it is good. He wants the money. He will suck whatever he has to, and to hell with his Muslim beliefs.
He’s a Muslim when it’s politically convenient for him. Who does he think he’s kidding? Besides himself?
There is no law and no good action that will save a man’s soul. Grace through Jesus will. This is the message of the Gospel.
Now, will following Scriptural mandates benefit a nation? Absolutely, it would. But, again, what was put forth was basically that if Christians were more militant in enforcing Scriptural legal codes on the US, the USA would be better off.
To that, I replied...Christianity would not be better off. That isn’t what Christianity is. Christianity isn’t a law that is mandated.
It is a free will, opt-in grace through faith in Jesus who is a hammer-swinging Jewish revolutionary who grew up in a podunk town. He did miracles (even according to secular Jewish historians like Josephus). He raised the dead. He ate with sinners (including tax collectors). And, for all that He was killed and thrown into a cave. He was resurrected, which explains why the very men who deserted Him while He was alive, died for Him after the resurrection-denier would say He was dead.
He wasn’t dead. Men who won’t die for living men, won’t day for dead men. He was resurrected.
So, it would be foolish to be reductionist with the Gospel for the sake of a lesser, yet noble pursuit. I say that as a conservative, Patriot, and as a follower of Jesus.
true...
yes, I’ve heard the rational. People say, “I’ve discovered the Gospel and found the Lord, so I don’t do politics. Voting is not what God wants.”
-Indifference is a sin, the sin of Pilate.
-Neglecting one’s duties is a sin. Even civic duties.
People who stand by and do little or nothing with great injustices in our society are complicit. The Gospel is not an excuse to become a rare-voter and lecture others that politics is a vice.
Just people understand that criminals need to be prosecuted, whether they are converted or unconvert. The unjust are indifferent to civic law becoming perverted. The just will never stand by and allow the law to become perverse.
“Book ‘em, Danno. Because it’s a sin if you don’t.”
No one said anything about Christians not voting. Does a person like that even exist on Free Republic?
Senegal’s leader is just a hypocrite. Buggery is some kind of a norm in a Muslim world. Their hormones are high but it is not a good idea for any women to make herself “consumed” traditionally before marriage for obvious reason. I guess sodomy is more common in any Muslim nation than it is in San-Francisco.
i am glad to hear that you are encouraging Christians to vote and participate in the political process.
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.