Posted on 06/09/2014 3:14:27 AM PDT by Bratch
Robert Reilly is one of the more respected men in Washington, DC. As a very young man, he was a special adviser to President Reagan. He is a longtime music critic, specializing in teaching the emergence of amazing new orchestral music. He was a spokesman behind the green line during the Iraq war, reporting directly to Paul Bremer, head of the occupational authority. He led the Voice of America.
Reilly's new book cannot get a hearing; there is a media blackout, a stonewall even among the conservative press who, according to a high-ranking think tank scholar at the Hudson Institute, owe him at least a hearing on his controversial new book Making Gay Okay, out now several weeks from the Catholic publisher Ignatius Press.
But so far, silence—or the sound of slamming doors.
Nothing in National Review, not even National Review Online. Nothing in Weekly Standard, even though Reilly reached out personally to his old friend Bill Kristol. Nothing in the American Spectator, which has already rejected a piece on the book by one of their longstanding contributors. The Wall Street Journal didn’t even lead the publisher along. They said simply and firmly, “no.”
What is everyone so worried about?
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The Assemblies of God haven’t changed....the Southern Baptists haven’t changed. Real Christians of every stripe will never change their stances!
But of course they do. Perhaps you're not old enough to remember when lubricious Christian/Evangelical books started coming out in the 70's and 80's, somewhat pink in the face in their effort to prove that they were not prudes and just fine with most of the Sexual Revolution as long as it had a fig-leaf of God-talk. Having agreed on just 3 rules
--- all the varieties of heterosexual indecency ran triumphant through the churches.
The shelves are now even fuller of Christian books which, centering on romance, emotion, relationship and pleasure, go on to permissively discuss mutual masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, role playing, surgical sexual modification, "mood enhancement" (fantasy, images, drinks and drugs), trash talk and sex toys.
Look in the Marriage and Sexuality Dept (LINK) of any Main Street or Online Christian book outlet, and you'll see hundreds of examples of what I mean.
Since most of them see fertility (procreative potential) as, at worst, an annoying glitch, but one that can be fixed!--- and at best a somewhat unrelated lifestyle option --- this stuff is actually gay-marriage-for-heterosexuals.
Yes, Mr. And Mrs. satisfaction-centered Christian: sizzling, self-actualizing and sterile. It shouldn't be surprising the gays moved in to claim it: it's a perfect fit.
The Assemblies of God and Southern Baptists teach that contraceptive sex is sinful?
I guess you didn’t read the article. It’s an anti-sodomy book.
You’d be surprised how many folks in these churches have large families and don’t use contraceptives. They don’t take a position pro or con. On the other hand while the Roman Catholic Church takes such a position, A majority of married Catholics at least in America seem to ignore such a position and use contraception. So there is an issue of corruption everywhere in many Christian churches and the loss of clear coherent spiritual teaching.
Hence we go back to my original point...we have to start somewhere!
The Duggars are Southern Baptist. Many Southern Baptists have come out against oral contraceptives that may act to end life after conception though they are neutral regarding other forms such as condoms or rhythm type methods. Of course Amish and old order Mennonite families are definitely against contraceptives. There are many Pentecostal conservative churches where contraceptives are frowned upon. There are “more with Catholics on contraceptive teachings then those against Catholics...at least when it comes to Catholics who still adhere to their church’s teachings..that is!
It might be better to think in terms of all “real Christians” everywhere, no matter what denomination or faith practice, when I speak of Christians “returning to our senses” in the fight for a renewed moral consensus in our nation. We might as well learn to hang together for the Faith, for God will certainly judge us all individually!
The real issue is, why is one passing the judgement and to what purpose. Life is pleasant with me no longer smoking. It is, it also frees up money for me to spend on some other stuff. People did pass judgement on my smoking habit. In perspective, however, it was a good thing my behavior was considered “wrong”. Were there some people who did it for pride? Sure were. But there were also people who saw how I was limiting my capacities through what I was doing, hurting myself, and they did it out of genuine concern, or proper judgement. Would it be wrong for someone to go around saying who ultimately deserves heaven or hell. Sure, but it’s not wrong to feel worried about someone because you know said person is hurting oneself, cutting oneself off from feeling companionship of the Holy Spirit, or engaged in some narrow-minded belief that limits one’s potential.
Good replies. My reasoning was that God is the judge, based on criteria that He has made reasonably clear to us. Among everyone who calls himself a Christian, there shouldn’t be must dispute, because the Bible is clear.
We’re not expected to judge others’ souls, but we’re entirely competent, from a religious standpoint, to say, “This action is wrong.” Also, as with the example of smoking, we can also use natural reason and say, “This action is has a high probability of a bad outcome for yourself and others.”
I agree with you: there are many people in a variety of denominations who welcome the children who come to them, so to speak. I simply am not aware of a significant organization, other than the Catholic Church, which has this as a standard.
And as you pointed out, the standard is ignored by many Catholics, and there is constant pressure to toss out the standards. That is the comparison I was making with homosexual activism, in the demand that traditional Christian morality be “officially” changed in order to please those who aren’t willing to follow it.
I will be more precise. Heterosexual perverts do not try and COERCE Church thinking via the courts as homosexuals do. That is the difference.
Otherwise such things as polygamy, polyamory (Orgies), pedophilia and bestiality would be forced on Churches as the new social normal.
You never heard of the HHS Mandate?
Thanks for clarifying what was not clear to me. I know from personal experience that journalists even on the conservative side are afraid to review books that tell it like it is about homosexual behaviors. I watched a good journalist turn down the opportunity to write a magazine review about an excellent analogous, thoroughly researched book about the reality that many people can and do get successfully helped in living happy heterosexual lives after the dangerous psychiatric syndrome of same sex attraction. My guess is that she was afraid she would not get more work published by the magazine where she often has articles. The homosexual propagandists have sent a censorious chill across the world of writers. The following group have been perfecting their censoriousness for decades: National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association. http://www.nlgja.org/ Debate and research are dead for this group. It’s their subjective view of the world or the highway for other journalists. They’ve sought and gotten a high proportion of jobs in the main stream media.
We are talking about sexual perversion no?
Yes, it is true that plenty of leftist groups are out there to force their will on Americans and Churches.
But when we talk about sexual perversion, there is only one group that uses the courts to force its will on people of faith.
We begin to feel sorry for someone caught in a vice. The person is sincere. We feel sorry for him. We begin to overlook what he does. But if one person can be excused, so can others. We have to tolerate such deviations. We cannot stamp out all vices or command all goods. The next step is that those who are seen to be excused or tolerated claim they have a “right” to be the way they are. If they have such a “right,” then obviously others have a duty to protect that right. But if someone has a duty to recognize a vice, it cannot be a vice; it must be held to be a good. But if it is a good, it is wrong to object to it or criticize it. Those who try to recall the original virtues are said to be hateful. The public then silences any criticism of the vice. It becomes established as a right and a good. The one who practices the vice has now silenced any opposition or criticism of what was once a disorder.
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/3141/homosexuality_and_the_logic_of_a_disordered_polity.aspx
Contraception is a perversion, in the original and genuine meaning of the word: a twisting of a thing away from its original form and purpose.
That was hard to counter with group homes (I guess they aren't called orphanages anymore) being nightmares.
I believe the official GOP counter-argument was "um der....I dunno".
Too much work, obviously.
This is one of the dangers of blindly following 'conservative' writers, leaders and politicians and thinking that they're on your side and it's your team.
Again, thinking for oneself is obviously too much work.
I think the country is in serious trouble. The libs are trying to run it into the crapper, which is bad enough...but can we honestly expect it to be defended by the likes of those on this thread?
I don't despair because of our enemies...I depair because of our 'friends.'
So couples that use the rhythm method are perverted? Because that method is a means of contraception.
Condoms are also used to stop the spread of disease and are not limited only to contraception. A male with a vasectomy or a woman unable to conceive may still opt that condoms be used to minimize risk of an STD. You may consider such people to be perverted but such people are not barred to buy contraceptive and safe sex products in stores. Stores do not police the sexual morality of persons buying contraceptive or safe sex products.
Why is Hobby Lobby fighting on the basis of First Amendment considerations? Before Obamacare, companies could just say no, contraceptives and safe sex products are in the category of personal lifestyle choices and personal responsibility but now that Obama’s minions have forced this on everyone, Hobby Lobby can’t just say ‘no’; they need to say ‘encroachment on free exercise of religion’. But the point is that Obamacare and its HHS mandate are not ***necessarily*** an attack on religious beliefs, because most Americans, religious or not, believe in personal responsibility.
HHS requires Hobby Lobby to provide contraceptive products to its employees and Hobby Lobby refuses but this refusal does not prevent these employees from accessing such products in stores. Prior to the HHS mandate there was never any distinct group suing stores for denial of contraceptive or safe sex products or suing companies similarly.
Those who use contraception are not a group that can plead discrimination and force court rulings based on discriminating behavior. The Hobby Lobby case is not about discrimination, it is about the encroachment of a federal government insurance mandate. Whereas, homosexuals are suing cake shops over state level discrimination.
Wedding services are much more intimate and unique to the wedding particulars. Wedding service providers create as art the wedding cakes, floral arrangements, church and reception decorating, wedding cards and many of not most of wedding service providers are adherents to biblical teaching.
Refusing to make a wedding cake to a same-sex couple is barring professional cake making wedding services to same-sex couples by those that are obedient to their faith and by those whose moral codes are otherwise repulsed by the notion of same-sex marriage. Such refusals are a social expression of how society views homosexuality. It has nothing to do with HHS mandated insurance coverage.
The issue of coverage for contraception is diffuse whereas the issue of homosexual perversion is narrowly focused. Contraception is about insurance coverage for lifestyle choices and practices. It is no different than dental coverage and most employers do not offer or offer very little coverage on dental because the vast number of dental health conditions are caused by poor individual practices. Such coverage conditions fall under personal responsibility. These personal responsibility issues do not attack the Church. Whereas, homosexual perversion does attack the Church through the courts.
Denial of contraception coverage affects all people of both genders, of all adult ages, of any ethnicity, of any sexual orientation and so on; this denial does not discriminate. However, refusing wedding cakes is focused on one group and one group only; homosexuals. (It’s conceivable that Satan worshipers could be denied wedding services, but there is no history of the courts being used to coerce wedding service providers to provide services to Satan).
There is only one group of sexual perverts that uses the courts to force its will on wedding cake makers, wedding florists, B&B honeymoon suites, etc. This group would be homosexuals.
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.