Tuesday, October 31: This post is closed to commenting. Want to talk God and “gay marriage?” Do so at Democrats: Court Winners, Election Losers.
Saturday, October 28 @ 10:30 a.m. PDT: I attended a breakout session yesterday called “Maximizing Ministry in New Media,” led by pastor, author, and blogger Mark Roberts. He and I almost got sidetracked when I told him I’d read and linked to his article on Christians and Harry Potter, “Hoodwinked by Harry?,” after I mentioned my fantasy fiction blog. I’m waiting for an invitation to a conference for Christians who like fantasy fiction. Sign me up!
Anyway, the wireless wasn’t working in that room, so I couldn’t live-blog. I typed up a summary in Word. I’ll post it, my final thoughts on this year’s GodBlogCon, and photos next week. Thanks for reading LBC. 
———————————————————————————————————————————
I’m coming to you live from the second annual God Blog Conference in La Mirada, California. You’re having lunch, but I just finished breakfast. Before I blog about the first panel, I wanted to mention something I hope will be discussed today.
By now you’ve heard that a New Jersey court has “opened the door” to “homosexual marriage.” I think this decision and the Mark Foley fiasco, which we now know was instigated by a staffer at the homosexual advocacy group, Human Rights Campaign, will backfire on Democrats. At least, I hope so.
I am a fan of Camille Paglia, a Democrat-voting lesbian, writer, and art professor. Why I’m a fan is a long story, and I’ll tell you about it later. My taste in reading is more eclectic than I reveal on this blog, but that’s another topic for another post. Paglia was interviewed in Salon, and she says this about the Foley scandal:
Foley is obviously a moral degenerate, and the Republican House leadership has come across as pathetically bumbling and ineffectual. But the idea that this is some sort of major scandal in the history of American politics is ludicrous. This was a story that needed to be told for, you know, like two days.
Mark Foley was never on the radar of anyone outside the small circle of news junkies. So his fall and banishment from Washington were nothing but a drip in the torrential flood of current geopolitical problems. The way the Democratic leadership was in clear collusion with the major media to push this story in the month before the midterm election seems to me to have been a big fat gift to Ann Coulter and the other conservative commentators who say the mainstream media are simply the lapdogs of the Democrats. Every time I turned on the news it was “Foley, Foley, Foley!” — and in suspiciously similar language and repetitive talking points.
After three or four days of it, as soon as I heard Foley’s name, I turned the sound off or switched channels. It was gargantuan overkill, and I felt the Democrats were shooting themselves in the foot… Since when does the Democratic Party use any gay issue in this coldblooded way as a token on the chessboard? You’d expect this stuff from right-wing ideologues, not progressives.
Whether conservatives, Christians, and Republicans are disgusted by the prospect of perverted marriage or whether they just don’t want Democrats to gain majorities in the House and Senate, I hope they head to the polls in droves.
The first plenary panel is “Bridging the Christian Divide,” with Mark D. Roberts, James Kushiner, publisher of Touchstone Magazine and blogger at Mere Comments, Joe Carter, and Jimmy Akin.
Not to cause controversy this early, but a commenter on Akin’s blog asked him to ask me why I have such an affinity for the “anti-Catholic” James White. Akin is a Roman Catholic, by the way. I have a feeling we won’t get into heavy doctrinal issues today.
“Liberal” Christians, Jewish, and Roman Catholic bloggers have complained that GodBlogCon is heavily conservative, evangelical, and Protestant. We’ve been told our name is a misnomer. “ChristBlogCon” would be more appropriate, they’ve said.
Blogger SkyePuppy blogged about last night’s discussion. I couldn’t make it. 
I’m told this panel will be available for download. That’s good, because there are lots of good points that I can’t blog fast enough. My blog-out-loud thought: Christian bloggers, still fallen human beings, must be salt and light in this fallen world. But…we must do so in love. My question is what does “love” look like? Is telling the truth and calling out perversion “unloving,” for example?
1: 28 p.m. PDT: Sorry for the lack of blogging. Lunch. Talking. In a few minutes, I’ll speak on a panel called, “Bridging the Political Divide.” I won’t be able to live-blog it, so check the blogroll at the GodBlogCon site to find out who’s live-blogging.
3:18 p.m. PDT: Panel done. Spoke with Charmaine Yoest, John Mark Reynolds, and Andrew Jackson, with Joe Carter moderating, on how to bridge the political divide as Christians. I spoke a bit about the controversy I stir up when I question how Christ-professing people can vote for a politician who votes for so-called partial birth abortion.
Will do another tonight. Can’t remember the name of it. I think it’s a roundtable with Hugh Hewitt moderating. Speaking of HH, I’m sitting in the Heritage Room at Biola University live-blogging during his radio show. Last year I was on the list of bloggers he wanted to interview, and I missed my spot because I was being interviewed by Old Schoolhouse Magazine. No regrets because it’s a great publication. But I want my HH radio interview this year.
3:56 p.m. PDT: I got my HH interview. All is well.
5:00 p.m. PDT: Blogger Christof Meyer blogged a bit during my panel and captured our one-sentence piece of advice. The first thing that popped into my head: Be bold in everything you do.
Christian blogger David Robertson, who’s not here, responded to my earlier questions, what does “love†look like and is telling the truth and calling out perversion “unloving”? David says:
“[T]he answer to La Shawn’s question depends on whether one’s audience is a Christian one or a non-Christian one.” Read the rest. There’s even a Part II.
Commenter and blogger ExPreacherMan asks, “Should Christians Be Political?”
Funny, I just printed out her article to read later in the carpool lane at my son’s school and then I clicked to check in on your blog. I am the same - an electic reader.
Always enjoy your take on things.
Comment by Karen — 10.27.06 @ 12:49 pm
La Shawn:
““Liberal†Christians, Jewish, and Roman Catholic bloggers have complained that GodBlogCon is heavily conservative and evangelical”. This is just more out of context “spin” against Christians.
By “out of context”, they use the word “fundamentalist” instead of “Born Again” or “Evangelical” - comparing “fundamentalist Chriatians” to Islamists. Very few Christians fit this extreme definition.
The other thing Leftists say to trash Christians is to say “we don’t legislate morality”.
Professor Mike Adams articulates the fallacy of this argument in two columns:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2006/10/12/legislating_morality
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2006/10/13/legislating_morality,_part_ii
Leftist Christians who are so concerned about conservative Christians sre not very secure about their own faith.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 10.27.06 @ 1:21 pm
God Loves the Bloggers:
Hugh Hewitt and La Shawn Barber are in attendance and liveblogging GodBlogCon 2.0 at Biola University in Southern California….
Trackback by Pajamas Media — 10.27.06 @ 1:22 pm
I read the Camille Paglia article in Salon; while I don’t always agree with her, I respect how she thinks. If the left had more thoughtful people like Ms. Paglia, those of us on the right would have some real challenges. But there’s little danger of that happening. All you have to do is read the comments posted to Salon about the Paglia interview: leftists howling, piling on and trashing her, some of them using the most vile language you can think of.
Comment by Mike — 10.27.06 @ 1:56 pm
Homo-Foley Washington
‘Big Love’ © 2006, gringoworks [Note: Oct27, LaShawn Barber quotes Camille Paglia on moral degenerates, BlogWorld below.Oct.20 Nork nuke update, see WebWorld below, China Spanks Little Kim. Also for Oct.17 NKorea nuke/Beijing update) The Pubs, of co…
Trackback by gringoman.com — 10.27.06 @ 2:03 pm
Is it loving NOT to warn someone of the negative consequences of their behavior? My question is, are we Christians willing to warn others about what the Bible has to say about all sexual sin (including, but not limited to fornication and adultery), or only homosexuality? One reason homosexual activists have had such success in the past 15 years is that so many Christians, who should have been standing up for God’s ways, gave in to the world’s views on divorce 30 years ago (Wendy McElroy wrote a great article about this at ifeminists.com). When I say that my own temporal happiness is more important than a vow I made before God, how can I tell those who pervert God’s plan for human sexuality that I am more righteous than they?
Comment by 10km — 10.27.06 @ 2:04 pm
Gay Marriage?
“And the Lord God said, it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help mate for him.
And the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said this is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh†(Genesis 2: 18, 21-23)
It was God who designed the institution of marriage not the courts, judges, the Constitution, or society; therefore, they cannot change or the laws of God. There is no other origin of marriage in written world history other than the Bible. It is clear that the Bible teaches marriage as one man and one woman. Man cannot change this law. God made this law at the same time that he made the law that the woman will bear children. Man cannot change this law either. No marriage between men or between women will ever be recognized as legitimate by God. In other words God considers it sin.
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
“And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was met…†(Romans 1:26-27)
Once a person’s heart is “hardened†against God he will never change his sinful practices. In the above verse it says that God gave them up to a reprobate mind. In other words God knew that they had sinned so hard and for such a long time that they had lost the ability to change their attitude about God. In addition, God will allow these persons to die the sin unto death. He will literally hand you over to Satan and let him have his way with you until you die. Do not let yourself get to this point.
It should be evident that God does not condone homosexuality as a lifestyle much less allow it as marriage. Homosexual “marriage†is nothing but evil direct from Satan. We must remember what Satan’s goal is in this world. Satan wants to destroy the family unit and by so doing cause doubt concerning the things of God and confusion in the minds of people in order to obscure the gospel. Homosexuals now can be ordained ministers, they can be married legally in some places, they raise children and they want government benefits normally reserved for real marriages.
Throughout history a number of countries have allowed homosexuality to become accepted and even mainstream. In every case these countries have been destroyed and never returned.
By accepting homosexual marriage we are setting ourselves up for a fall. Without the family our country cannot stand. Homosexual marriages are not a family. They are just unrelated people living together in defiance of God. God intends for his creation to survive. He destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality as well as countries, cities and individuals since that time.
Let’s suppose that 60 to 75% of the population became homosexual over time. What would the results be? No big deal? Think about this. A large percentage of the population would die out. Homosexuals cannot reproduce by themselves plus there would not be enough children available for adoption. The bigger percentage of the population that became homosexual the less children would be born. So, the population would get considerably smaller with every passing generation. In addition, many homosexual couples do not want children so when they die there is no offspring. Homosexuals cannot procreate therefore they must depend upon someone from a real marriage between a man and a woman or a single woman putting up children up for adoption in order to have children. The only other option would be for a lesbian to be unfaithful to her partner and have sexual relations with a man (which would be sin) or to have artificial insemination from an unknown donor. In the case of a male relationship the only option would be adoption or a surrogate birth. In any of these scenarios the child would not be a blood relative of both partners and in some cases not a blood relative of either partner. What about grand children, cousins, in-laws etc? Can you imagine the confusion in a child being blood related to one of his parents and not to the other? As you can see not only is the homosexual marriage a sin (rebellion against God) but for homosexuals to have their “own†children could foster even more sin.
Children need a mother and a father to have a balance in their lives. As they grow up they receive training from a man’s point of view and a woman’s point of view who agree on the correct way to raise a child and therefore they gain an understanding of both sexes to better prepare them for life. Homosexual men especially are notorious for hating the opposite sex. If you don’t believe that simply go to a yahoo chat room and click on gay chat (if you can stand it for a few minutes) and just listen to the real homosexual men talk about women. The homosexuals portrayed on TV and in the media are not representative of real world homosexuals.
You may actually believe that you can be in a homosexual relationship and be blessed by God but you are only deceiving yourself. Homosexuality is a very bad sin because it absorbs you into the whole lifestyle. Everything that goes with it is evil. Once a person decides to turn against God then there is no end to the evil that he will do.
Homosexuals cannot procreate. God intends for his creation to survive. This is why He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Homosexuality had become mainstream and therefore its people had lost their morality, their love for God, their ability to procreate and everything else that God intended the human race to be and the cities became useless to Gods purpose and destroyed the family. God is not quick to judge. He will give people time to change their sinful ways but sooner or later he will deal with people on a personal level and a national level if a country allows homosexuality to become prevalent in society and the ones who allow and support it will be judged along with the homosexuals. A few homosexuals in any society make little difference but when it becomes mainstream or even dominates it will certainly cause a nation to fall and has. The Apostle Paul has this to say about homosexuals and those who support homosexuality:
“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge. God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud (arrogance), boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only who do the same, but (those who) have pleasure in them that do them.†Romans 1:28-32.
Homosexuals claim that the reason they need to be married is that they have a “loving†relationship and want to be with their partner for life. So what. Since the Bible originates marriage and defines it as a man and woman relationship they are in violation of Gods law from the start therefore, why can’t they just love each other. Being married to each other doesn’t keep them from living in sin as it would in a man and woman relationship. It is not a moral issue with them. There is no morality in a homosexual relationship. There must be another reason. A homosexual relationship is sin anyway you look at it so getting a marriage license does not make it valid in Gods eyes. Love is not the only reason that God instituted marriage between a man and a woman. Not only did he design the human bodies for having children in a man and woman relationship but He also designed the emotional pattern and the attractive features of the opposite sex. In addition the man was designed to protect and to provide for the woman. The father and mother concept was to give children a balanced outlook on life and respect for both sexes.
It’s all about money.
“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, Godliness, faith, love, patience and meekness.†(I Timothy 6: 10-11)
Homosexuals want to get the same benefits from the government as real married people such as government retirement benefits, tax breaks etc. Another interesting point is they want acceptance in society from the vast majority of people who do not accept them now. How do they plan to do this? By getting a marriage license? No, by force. They want the liberal, God hating, pointy headed, pseudo intellectual, activist, law making judges to force the acceptance of homosexuality upon other people and thereby legitimize their sin and force the spread of sin to others by making it legal. It’s like prostitution or drugs. If these were legalized many more young people would indulge in them and no one could tell them not to.
They want to force alternate lifestyles to be taught in schools and even churches to children as a good thing. They have an agenda even though many homosexuals aren’t even aware of it. The average homosexual on the street is being duped by the homosexual leaders (more specifically Satan) to spread evil throughout the world in order to destroy Gods creation. I realize that all homosexual people do not want these things but by participating in the homosexual life style they are supporting the efforts of the leaders and destroying their own souls.
What do homosexuals believe? Among other things:
God does not exist or if he does he will bless my homosexual relationship.
Marriage is for any two people who love each other even between brothers or sisters, mother and daughter, father and son etc.
The Bible has been mistranslated by scholars and is really not against homosexuality.
It’s OK to hate the opposite sex.
If I don’t believe in God that means he doesn’t exist.
Children can be raised just as well with two moms or two dads as a mom and a dad.
God made me a homosexual therefore I can’t help being what I am.
God gave no one a free will to choose for or against him.
God does not really punish sin. I can ignore Gods laws and be happy.
God made me a homosexual and then condemns homosexuality in the Bible.
“Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination…Defile not yourselves in any of these things; for in all of these are the nations defiled which I cast out before you and the land is defiled; therefore I do visit (see) the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomits out its inhabitants†(Leviticus :18,22,24,25)
If you think in strictly secular terms homosexuality is bad enough to ban it because of its indoctrination of children to its lifestyle. It would be (and is now) taught in schools to children against the will of parents like evolution has been for years. Evolution has paved the way for homosexuality. Evolution says there is no God and homosexuality says since there is no God we can do whatever we want to do with no consequences. However, if you think in spiritual terms and believe the Bible you will realize why homosexuality is an abomination to God and a sin worthy of death.
If you are a believer in Jesus Christ and a homosexual you are committing not only a sin but an abomination in the face of your Lord. You will lose all of your rewards in Heaven and can expect sever discipline during your lifetime and could possibility die the sin unto death. You have absolutely no business living in such a sin which God takes very seriously.
If you are an unbeliever, homosexual or not, you must come to the realization that there is a God who has provided a “so great salvation†for you. You may think that you have sinned so much that God will never accept you into Heaven. You may not feel qualified or “holy†enough to enter into the presents of God. There are no qualifications to being saved. There is nothing you can do about past sins yourself. You cannot forgive yourself. You must be forgiven by God. You will be forgiven of all sin past, present and future when you make the decision to accept and believe in the person and work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Jesus Christ paid the death penalty for the sins of the whole human race and all you have to do is acknowledge your faith in Jesus Christ to God the Father in your own words wherever you are right now and eternal life is yours forever. We are on earth for one reason and that is to make a decision for or against Jesus Christ.
“For God loved the world so much that he gave his uniquely born Son, that whoever believes in him shall never perish but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through (belief in) him can be saved. He that believes on him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already because he has not believed in the name of the uniquely born Son of God.â€
The only thing that God will condemn you for is unbelief in Jesus Christ because Jesus is salvation and if you reject him there is no other way to be saved.
“Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is no other name under Heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.†(Acts 4:12)
This is something that we must all do. Your sin, your arrogance toward God, your meaningless marriage certificate, your good deeds and morality will do you no good when you stand before God at the final judgment and are forced to confess that you have rejected Jesus Christ. You will know that God is real at that point and you will know that he knows your every thought but on that day it will be too late to change your mind. We must accept him by faith and the time is now.
“Let not sin reign therefore reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in the lust thereof†(Romans 6:12)
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved†(Acts 16:31)
“For the wages (payment) of sin is (spiritual) death; but the gift of God is eternal life though Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 6:23).
Comment by jack heckathorne — 10.27.06 @ 2:38 pm
LaShawn asked: “Is telling the truth and calling out perversion “unloving,†for example?”
Great question! Speaking the truth in love is where it is at. Without love, it is not helpful, just that old clanging gong.
I agree with another poster who mentioned that too many of us believers focus on homosexual sin rather than the breadth of sexual sin. Jesus said I am a sexual sinner, worthy of hell. That is because I have looked on a woman with impure thoughts and desires. Just looking is enough, so I am in BIG TROUBLE and without hope except for God’s gracious mercy.
I think we are deceived when we point out one group as sexual sinners, when we all are. Does that OK gay marriage with Scripture, of course not. But when we point a finger and act as if we are above sexual sin that incorrect approach is used to mangle God’s law and love.
Just my thoughts.
Trey
Comment by Trey — 10.27.06 @ 2:44 pm
Camille Paglia has long been on my list of “important thinkers”. I disagree with her on most of her intellectual stands, but I think it’s important to be able to read her and be able to defend your beliefs against her positions when you disagree.
Unfortunately my list keeps getting shorter. Michael Savage and Bill Maher used to have prominent spots on my list, but both have become too busy being Important Media Personalities (TM) of late. Oh well….
Comment by Kentucky Packrat — 10.27.06 @ 2:50 pm
I think is not to great ….
California Firefighters Fear Wind Could Push Deadly Blaze Toward Homes, Arson Probed
Comment by lamar hughes — 10.27.06 @ 3:08 pm
La Shawn: will you sometime do a post about why you like her, and also about your eclectic reading taste?
When Paglia said, “The way the Democratic leadership was in clear collusion with the major media…” it reminded me of the recent White House visit by conservative talk show hosts–never again can they ever criticize the “mainstream media” of being in with the Democrats because they got a special invite from the highest office in the land.
Comment by mj — 10.27.06 @ 3:10 pm
I think one of the most loving things you can do for another person is to NOT enable them and not indulge in passive “permission”, which a lot of us do.
I was raised a Roman Catholic and the nuns always said that hating ANYONE was just dead wrong. But that we certainly could hate their SINS and, as good Catholics, try to help them overcome them. But as near as I can recall, they were mostly suggesting that we be “good examples” to those who were living lives of sin.
I think the bottom line is that each of us needs to live our lives in a moral manner, adhering to the tenets of our individual faiths insofar as we are able, since we are human, after all, thus providing examples of a life well lived. Just doing that takes a lot of courage some times!
Comment by Gayle Miller — 10.27.06 @ 3:35 pm
you can warn someone all you want. the issue is the common laws of this land. not what the religous beliefs are of many people,
fyi- i love Paglia, she is one of my favorite liberals.
mj
your comparison is so illogical and wrong.
being invited tot he white house, is not the same as being in collusion with the white house.
Comment by sm — 10.27.06 @ 3:42 pm
You should ask Jimmy Akin why he wont debate James White on Sola Scriptura or Mary or the slippery Rock.
Maybe you might be the person who would make the debate happen! =)
Comment by Andrew — 10.27.06 @ 3:43 pm
mj wrote:
“…it reminded me of the recent White House visit by conservative talk show hosts–never again can they ever criticize the “mainstream media†of being in with the Democrats because they got a special invite from the highest office in the land.”
Notice you said “talk show hosts”; they aren’t expected to be objective journalists (which the MSM claims to be).
Comment by mockmook — 10.27.06 @ 3:53 pm
Sounds like you’re enjoying the conference.
On the question of love, consider how we teach our children the difference between right and wrong. We explain what they did wrong as clearly and calmly as possible so that they understand the whats and whys of their wrong and know the consequences of their actions.
Comment by dianne — 10.27.06 @ 4:10 pm
#11 mj, Collusion: “secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose” (from m-w.com)
Being invited and attending a party or event does not equal to agreeing on a planned blitz of propaganda.
propaganda: “ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause” (from m-w.com)
What the MSM has become over the past 40 years is a “Parrot Media”, a bunch of pompous phoneys.
parrot: “a person who sedulously echoes another’s words” (from m-w.com)
Comment by Ralph — 10.27.06 @ 4:16 pm
Two things:
[1] Paglia is, without any doubt, one of the best liberal thinkers out there — she’s honest, funny, and it’s almost immoral how widely-read she is. So if you’re a conservative, you should read her if for no other reason than to keep a balanced view of the liberal end of things. Not all of them are moonbats.
[2] Anyone who knows me knows I am a little put off by what passes for “God Blogging” in the blogosphere. I’m not sure LaShawn is a guilty party, but even if I like the politics of a Malkin or a Hewitt, their affiliation with “God” in their “Blogs” is, um self-congratulatory. Mentioning the death/persecution of a Christian every so often is hardly God-blogging.
So points to LaShawn for knowing what’s good for you, and angry-eyebrows for endorsing the “GodBlogCon” and it’s weak tea view of what GodBlogging ought to be about.
Comment by centuri0n (Frank Turk) — 10.27.06 @ 4:30 pm
This “homosexual marriage” is a paradox.
I like a mildly sarcastic analysis. If the symbol marriage is not constant with respect to gender, why should it be stable with respect to number, species, life, or time?
Let our post-modern decadence extend to encompass “Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving With a Pict”. You should be able to marry the animals and the cave, itself, in addition to the Pict, or your “rights” are being infringed, nicht wahr?
The other slightly sarcastic tack to take concerns terminology. If we cannot be certain what “marriage” means anymore, we need to develop some unambiguous terminology for a woman and a man united before God in the traditional, useful way. Should we say “my heterosexual wife” in those states where the term “marriage” has been corrupted, and we want to be sure that the audience has a precise understanding of where we’re coming from?
My ultimate message to the “gay community” (aren’t communities supposed to be capable of perpetuating themselves?) is that we’ll let our respective grandchildren discuss whether God blesses the idea.
Comment by Chris Smith — 10.27.06 @ 4:32 pm
I agree with Trey. As a born again christian, I puzzled by what the crusade against gays the church is having.
We are all sinners, a white lie you tell to your friend is as grave as two men lying with each other. It’s sin.
It’s like parenting, the more you say no to your kids, the more they want to rebel.
The more obsession evangelicals will have in bringing down the gay movement, the more it’s gonna rise.
God doesn’t need our help to fight his battles. Christians become easy prey to Satan’s tricks. The minute something happens in our society that goes against the bible, you see millions of Christians with cardboards protesting on TV like it’s the end of the world.
What about love? I’m always wondering if this Christian movement agains the gay movement is motivated by the bible or people’s own personal prejudice against the behavior.
Do we want homosexuals to change or do we want to constantly remind them of their sins to feel better of ourselves.
It’s like the story of Jonah in the bible who didn’t want to save the people from Ninives.
If Christians are so worked up about gays, then what about alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitution, dirty corporate dealings ect… I mean these themes don’t get the same “heat” that Christian generate when they talk about
Again, I 100% doesn’t agree with homosexuality, but I think Christians are going about this the wrong way, our goal is to save souls in a compassionate way.
Homosexuality is no different than lying, cheating, gossiping, or even looking at someone. How many times, have we looked at anyone on TV, public place and say “he or she is cute”, that’s adultery.
When a gay person watches television and sees a televangelist go on and on and on about homosexuals burning in hell for their sins, do you think that that person would ever want to get saved, become Christian, or re-think his lifestyle?
When I read Jesus’s journey on earth, it was all about compassion, compassion for the poor, the sick, the prostitutes, the thieves, the crooked tax collectors.
That’s the problem I have with conservatives and evangelicals these days NOT ALL, I just don’t seen any compassion.
Like Jesus told the pharisees regarding Mary Magadalene, I’m paraphrasing “whoever is without sin be the first one to cast the first stone”
Comment by Gary — 10.27.06 @ 4:59 pm
#2 Frank: “GodBlogCon is heavily conservative and evangelical.”
Went last year. The speakers and thought going on is fantastic, but yes, it is, on both counts. Also heavily into theology/philosophy and very thin on social issues. A shame, really; maybe next year they’ll broaden the scope of things a bit.
LaShawn, I hope you keep an eye on this for us.
I’m both evangelical and conservative, by the way.
Cheers,
db
Comment by Don — 10.27.06 @ 4:59 pm
I agree Centurion, too many conservative use “God” as a way to bash the liberals who are stereotypically thought of as ungodly.
I am skeptical of Ann Coulter’s, I’m wondering if her book that talks about liberals not being Godly was just another attempt to find a theme (religion) to bash the liberals even though she probably isn’t a practicing Christian or was an honest attempt for her to share her christian faith.
Comment by Gary — 10.27.06 @ 5:07 pm
LaShawn asks: “My question is what does “love†look like?”
That is a core question of most religions. I tired long ago of arguments over chapter and verse and pseudo-intellectual blathering steeped in situation ethics and moral relativism.
So, I hit the road and have spent years meeting people whose religious beliefs differ from mine in small ways, in great ways and almost beyond my comprehension.
Mostly, people of faith in less developed societies are quick to cleave to the sinner and help fight the sin. I have come to believe that the force of true love is a strong disciplinarian. To love is to be responsible and to take responsibility. That often leads to “tough love.”
There is much I have learned from the Hindus, the Shintos, the Buddhists, the Copts, the Eastern and Russian Orthodox followers and even the Muslims that has given me a better understanding of the precepts of my own Western Christian beliefs.
Challenging the agnostic is one of the great tail chasing exercises I know of. But it is an important dialog, because that is a person who denies his very soul.
Love is not a destination, it is a journey. I am always startled when someone says they have “found love.”
Comment by Heliotrope — 10.27.06 @ 5:33 pm
I agree with those who said that getting an invite to the White House is not collusion–I didn’t mean to say it was collusion. But saying that there’s an MSM when there are media people “outside” the MSM making a lot of money and getting an invite from one of the most powerful people in the world changes the definition of MSM–Rush Limbaugh now calls it the “drive by media” because he probably knows that he’s made it and has finally put a dent in the MSM.
Comment by mj — 10.27.06 @ 5:59 pm
I don’t like to see anyone question someone else’s faith. Criticize their works instead.
While my southern upbringing causes me to be startled at Ann Coulter’s “direct” style, I think she is dead-on correct, more often than not. Though I would never say it the same way she does.
As for the homosexual debate, I say:
1) The Bible does not tell unbelievers the way to act, only believers.
2) As a political matter, Christians should be involved in the political process to protect themselves and their children.
3) “Love” means love the people. Think about Jesus meeting with tax collectors, prostitutes and other undesirables. He spared the adulterous woman’s life, but told her to “go, and sin no more”.
Comment by Tom — 10.27.06 @ 6:29 pm
La Shawn,
Your question “What does love look like?” prompted me to write a two-part response over on my own blog. There you go again influencing me.
In case anyone is interested, here are the links to my response.
What Does Love Look Like? (Part 1)
What Does Love Look Like? (Part 2)
Since I cannot preview this reply, I hope that used the correct HTML.
Comment by David W. Robertson — 10.27.06 @ 7:44 pm
LaShawn,
Have a GodBlog good time.. some folks get all the blessings!!
You said, “how to bridge the political divide as Christians.”
I have been taken to task lately about my position on Christians and politics. Should we or shouldn’t we be political.
As an old Ex Preacher, I answer it here:
http://expreacherman.wordpress.com/2006/10/27/should-christians-be-political/
Keep up the great work!!
ExP(Jack)
Comment by ExPreacherMan — 10.27.06 @ 8:15 pm
Hewitt had a revealing interview with Andrew Sullivan the other day.
Comment by mj — 10.27.06 @ 9:11 pm
Do Liberals believe in God? I’m curious because liberals are eager to remove: “in God we trust” from U.S currency, “under God” in our Pledge of allegiance, crosses from public view, and Christ from Christmas. In the 60’s they removed prayer and bible reading from school.
They also want to eliminate the recitation of a clergy-led prayer at the presidential inauguration. There’s more, but you get the point. Liberals consider the aforementioned as proselytizing but I cannot think of a time when millions of souls were converted to christianity through a dollar bill, Christmas, the pledge of allegiance or viewing a cross.
I saw you on Hot Air. I think as you do, If you’re not from Africa then you are black, not African American. That term never has made sense to me.
In my post at I have links to the issues mentioned in this comment.
http://right-snipe.blogspot.com/2006_08_27_archive.html
God Bless LaShawn.
Comment by L Ortiz — 10.27.06 @ 9:28 pm
The question David responded to was a very good one, and his response was very similar, if not the same, as the one I would have given. If you’re worried about a non-Christian homosexual’s salvation, the fact that they’re not a Christian is the most important part. If it’s the fact that they’re a homosexual is making it important, then you’re forgetting that all sin separates us from God in equal measure.
And yes, calling a Christian out on their faults is a loving thing to do. But it must be done tactfully, in my opinion. Even as a celibate gay Christian, hearing homosexuality called a “perversion” is unsettling. You don’t hear the folks over at Exodus using that term. Not saying that it isn’t correct or anything, but “calling a spade a spade” isn’t always the best policy.
Comment by Jay — 10.27.06 @ 9:56 pm
LaShawn Barber is Godblogging at the GodBlogCon.
Pingback by The Anchoress — 10.27.06 @ 10:03 pm
The World Series of Catholic Theologians
Why I love the blogosphere. (HT: RomanCatholicBlog.)
La Shawn Barber is live-blogging GodBlogCon, btw
Trackback by Hugh Hewitt — 10.28.06 @ 1:35 am
OMG: Barak Obama was in town. He was in L.A. on Friday promoting his book.
Any chance you two might have met?
Comment by Glamchild — 10.28.06 @ 12:06 pm
#29
“Do Liberals believe in God?”
Is that a serious question? Iif so, it’s akin to asking whether or not right-wingers believe in God?
And if a right-winger/Conservative is a buddhist, or an atheist, or a pagan, or an agnostic, or a Seikh, or a Hindu, or a Muslim, does that automatically exclude them ffrom Conservatism?
Are there not a million shades between somoen conseidered right-wing and left-wing? Or is there no spectrum now? Just a black/white left/right ideological fence?
Comment by JohnD — 10.28.06 @ 12:32 pm
The conference sounds excellent. Some day I’m going to get there. Or maybe we ought to just have a “homeschool God Blog Con.” We would need to hold it in the summer when all the homeschoolers are more relaxed.
If I ever get to plan it, I know who’d I’d like as the keynote…
Comment by Spunky — 10.28.06 @ 3:58 pm
#29 L Ortiz asks: “Do Liberals believe in God?”
It is an important question that few dare ask. The political left in the United States seems to make a religion of state socialism funded, of course, by the taxpayer and administered by a bureaucratic elite. They envision a cradle to grave welfare state that really leaves little necessity for a god except for the funky old timers who want to do ceremonial voodoo in their houses of worship.
A basic religious belief requires faith. It is possible to have faith in your government and faith in God. But the two are neither co-equal nor interchangeable. Those on the political left place so much faith in the clever use of government and other councils of their creation that they lose touch with humility. Soon, they are beyond the “need” for God other than as an identity modifier.
It is interesting to try to pin down a “God-fearing” person on the political left. They play all manner of games with the semantics of faith. Most can not be honest about even fundamental science such as when life begins.
Most people on the political left are entirely unaware of the scientific failure and emptiness in the theories put forth by Darwin, even after 150 years of dedicated efforts to find even one substantiating piece of evidence.
There are churches that attract those on the political left. They have a flex-doctrine that is very accepting and they are extremely light on the prohibitions.
Political leftists are advocates of change because they believe that change is an improvement. Religion accepts change as a part of its continuity. But change for the sake of change defies the order of the religious universe.
Those who have religious faith do not see themselves as primitives going through the motions of their version of the creation myth. They see themselves as believers of revealed truths that have withstood the tests of time.
It is interesting to me that L. Ron Hubbard discovered that he could rope in the gullible skeptics of established religion with his wild UFO version of the creation myth. I suspect if you want to find those on the political left who are deeply involved in their religious beliefs, you need to look at the Scientologists. You might give Tom Cruise or John Travolta a call.
The “separation of church and state” concept does not work well for those who make a religion of the state.
Comment by Heliotrope — 10.28.06 @ 4:48 pm
I love to read Camille Paglia. I don’t always agree with her positions, but she is intellectually honest.
I think she is a REAL liberal, not one of the made-over marxists who are trying to pass as liberals today.
Comment by mamapajamas — 10.28.06 @ 9:51 pm
but you folks need to stop trying to christianize Harry Potter. thats just trying to justify your own personal likes.
Comment by sm — 10.29.06 @ 12:39 am
lets see, what does Gods love look like?
does it reach down and prevent people from doing things that God deems wrong?
NO! Gods love is shown in giving man the freewill to decide for himself. To face temptation and make a decision. God does not show his love by preventing those temptations from being available.
so it is a stretch to take God’s word and laws, then automatically say they must be encoded in civil law. personally sounds like the religous people Jesus opposed, not like God’s love.
yes, the church does tend to ignore greed (money and otherwise) and ignore gluttony and many other sins. They attempt to slap the word “abomination” on homosexuality in an effort to make it a BIG sin.
Like i have said to my married (divorced; seperated) friends. Straight people are doing enough damage to marriage themselves. they have no room to point at others. Including people of faith, who also have high divorce rates.
Comment by sm — 10.29.06 @ 12:48 am
one last thing
legislating morality and legislating a particular version of Christian morality is not the same thing.
Comment by sm — 10.29.06 @ 12:49 am
The following is a quote from “Separation of Church and God, The Final Judgment”
Can Homosexuals Go to Heaven?
To say that one was born a homosexual is to say that one has no free will. The fact is that there are thousands of homosexuals who have changed their ways. If only one person has changed that would prove it is possible. Furthermore, the Bible tells us to turn from our sinful ways which indicates it is possible otherwise it wouldn’t tell us to do it.
Some say that pastors quote Leviticus 18:22 out of context where it says “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination.†Chapter 18 is the giving of the Law of Moses and defined sin as it relates to sexual matters. By claiming that we are no longer under the law attempts to leave people with the assumption that homosexuality is ‘OK” now because the Law of Moses was written for the Jews of that day.
Ok, let’s put it in context. What does apply to us today?
In the New Testament Romans 1 starting at vs. 21 the apostle Paul describes the 7 stages of world apostasy and one of these stages is homosexuality. Vs. 26, “for this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.”
“And likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men working that which is unseemly and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet….vs. 32 ” Who knowing that the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”
These verses make it abundantly clear that homosexuality is indeed a sin.
The Jews of the Old Testament were under the Law of Moses. Today, although we are not under the law it is still true. The New Testament is the ruling factor in our lives and it does agree with the Old Testament in this matter.
The good news is that homosexuality is a sin like all other sins. It is forgivable. We commit sins because we take pleasure in them and like a drunk or a thief or whatever we tend to put the blame on God and say “I can’t help it I was born this way”. This is merely an effort to justify our sinful ways. We must remember that everyone has a sin nature which was inherited from Adam. In this sin nature we have an area of weakness and an area of strength. We are not all the same. In other words, one person may have a tendency to be a thief but never even consider a sin such as homosexuality. A homosexual may not consider being a thief. Yet another person may not commit either of these sins but may be a habitual liar.
There are those who are adept at hiding their sins from view. There are those who think that because they don’t commit sexual sins that they are sinless. We should keep in mind that there are not only sexual and other outwardly obvious sins but also sins of the tongue (maligning, gossiping, lying etc.) and sins of the mind (jealousy, hatred, envy).
Whatever dominates a mans thoughts determines what he does in life. The Bible declares “For as a man thinketh in his heart so is he…†(Proverbs 23:7)
However, I disagree with pastors who say that homosexuals cannot go to heaven unless they give it up. This is scripturally not true. Homosexuality is not the unforgivable sin. Rejection of Jesus Christ is because Christ is the salvation package and if we reject him there is no other means of salvation and Christ couldn’t die for the rejection of himself.
Jesus, when confronted by the religious people who were publicly condemning and wanting to stone the woman who committed adultery (John 8: 1-7), Stooped down and wrote on the ground with his finger while the religious people were talking to him. We don’t know what he was writing but I would suspect that he may have been writing their sins in the dirt and drawing an arrow toward each of them. Finally he stood up and said “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her†They were convicted by their own conscience and left one by one. He asked the woman what happened to her accusers and had any man accused her. She replied “No man, Lord†(she believed in him) “And Jesus said unto her, neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.â€
The message is that we should not condemn people because of their sin because ours is just as bad. Jesus was without any sin and he did not condemn the woman.
It is not the Job of Christians today to reform the world. It is the job of Christians to evangelize the world.
Christian activism and holier than thou Christians are playing right into the hands of Satan. If we as Christians spend our time trying to correct the sinful acts of others by law or intimidation we have failed miserably in our mission. Who will preach the gospel of Christ if not us. If we alienate unbelievers because of our actions our witness will be ineffective.
The heart of man must be changed for it is where evil resides.
Only Christ can truly change the heart of man and only through the effective witness of Christians who know and understand the true mission of the Savior.
The Bible clearly says that “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”. In other words we are all sinners not just homosexuals. Pastors who preach on sin and condemn sinners are wrong to do so.
For salvation the issue is not sin at all. Jesus Christ paid the death penalty for all sin. God the Father poured out the sin of the entire world upon Jesus Christ on the cross. Christ bore those sins and paid the death penalty of sin for all humanity.
“Who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being (spiritually) dead to sin, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes (punishment) ye are healed (drawn together). 1 Peter 2:24.
“He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement (punishment) for our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed (drawn together with God). All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way, and God (the Father) hath laid on him (God the Son) the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:5)
All sinners can be saved. A change of life style will not save us but faith will. . All you have to do is believe.
“I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead (spiritually), yet shall he live (spiritually in heaven). And whosoever lives (physically) and believes in me shall never die (spiritually). (John 11:25&26)
“I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me” (John 14:6)
It is difficult for some to believe that God would save a murderer, rapist, homosexual, adulterer or child molester. These are sins that are visible to others so we tend to condemn those who commit them. However, to God there are other sins which are just as bad as these but may be not visible such as arrogance toward God or jealousy which can lead to all types of evil. To God sin is sin and it must all be paid for by someone who is qualified. That someone is Jesus Christ.
The fact that our sins are paid for is not a license to sin. God will punish his children if they continue in habitual sin without confession (1 John 1:9) and without forsaking. There is warning discipline then comes severe discipline. We are told to resist sin.
“Let not sin therefore rein in (control) your mortal body, they you should obey it in the lust thereof.†(Romans 6:12)
If we constantly give in to sin for an extended period of time and develop a hardened heart against God He can allow us to die a long a horrible death or simply take us out of the world which was the case when the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. This is called the sin unto death.
This does not mean that we loose our salvation. Jesus said “…him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out.†(John 6:37b) We will loose our rewards in Heaven as believers but not our salvation if we die the sin unto death.
Jesus did not come into the world to condemn mankind. He came into the world to provide a means by which man could escape his death penalty. He has offered us a pardon by taking the punishment of sin upon himself so that we can be presented as righteous before God.
“For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved†(John 3:17)
If you are a homosexual and you think that you cannot get into heaven because of your sin take heart because there is only one condition for salvation.
“He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him. (John 3:36)
The door is open and the decision is yours.
Comment by jack heckathorne — 10.29.06 @ 2:18 pm
Gary, I like what you have to say about homosexuality and Gd’s laws. I, too, am very uncomfortable with homosexuality and realize that I can’t soften my stand against it just because of my emotions for the homosexual; however, I do think that we need to be MORE compassionate to homosexuals and be careful how we speak, even as we stand our ground on our beliefs. We can’t hope for them to want to join us in the service of Gd when we talk about them in such condemning terms. Also, it is VERY IMPORTANT to remember that the gays who march defiantly in San Franscisco parades, all scantily clad and behaving obscenely or with their inflated scrotums (yeah, have you seen those?), are not the majority, really. The majority of homosexuals are leading quiet, discreet lives right in your hometown and may be your son’s English teacher or your father’s nurse, etc. The parade marchers really push my buttons, not because they are homosexual but because their style is degenerate and defiant and mocking of anyone with biblical values. It’s “in your face.” It pays to remember that there are people of faith out there who are gay and who struggle with overcoming it, or who have decided to give up on that and just accept themselves and their homosexuality. My heart goes out to them, but I appreciate their discretion and privacy. Yeah, I guess you could say I just want them to stay quiet and not be in my face. I think many of them cannot help what they are and I am sympathetic to that, but they don’t need to mock my values and beliefs either, because I am NOT sympathetic to that. I say “NO” to the Jerusalem Gay Pride Parade.
There was an interesting movie made about Orthodox Jewish homosexuals called Trembling Before G-d. I highly recommend it. They interviewed a couple of my favorite Orthodox rabbis. Parts of it may be missed on viewers who have no understanding of Talmudic laws and principles, but it is still a very compelling documentary.
About Harry Potter, I know that many religious Jews and Christians are concerned about the occult elements in the series. There are Jewish parents who will not allow their children to read them at all. My take is that the books are very moral — there are clear delineations between good and evil, and the characters who represent each. Good always wins out over evil, and Harry and his friends want to do good. I decided the series is acceptable to me not just because I like it, but because I truly believe that the stories represent good morals. I know some Christians believe this is just a sly way for Satan to slip in there and get control of us, but in Judaism, the Satan is viewed a bit differently. More like the evil inclination and less like a demon ready to pounce when your guard is down.
As for Christians getting political — yes, absolutely, just don’t tread on my Orthodox Jewish freedom of belief in the process. People of faith have to fight politically. It’s the only way. I would like for religious Jews and Christians to find the areas where they intersect and then stand together and fight for a more moral society. It pains me to see that a lot of the attorneys who work for the ACLU are secular Jews, as are many of the people who bring lawsuits against references to G-d being in the public domain. How sad. How sad that anyone would think that The Ten Commandments are inappropriate for a school setting or a courthouse, but how tragic when that person is a Jew, and his heritage leads directly back to those Ten Commandments. I have no problem with prayer in school as long as Christians respect that Jews do not pray to Jesus and as long as they respect the nonbelievers’ right to refuse to participate. But to throw out ALL religious expression is really a shame, and talk about being on the wrong battlefield. Our children need moral and biblical guidance more than ever nowadays, not less.
Comment by batyah — 10.29.06 @ 2:39 pm
Gary,
If Christians are so worked up about gays, then what about alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitution, dirty corporate dealings ect…
The difference between the homosexual issue and alcoholism or prostitution is not the fact that it’s sin. Of course you’re right that they are all sin. The problem is that homosexuality is being promoted by our culture as a good thing, a healthy thing, a non-sin (if the culture were to actually use that “s” word). On the other hand, our culture frowns upon alcoholism, prostitution, drug addiction, and dirty corporate dealings, so there’s no point in protesting–the culture is doing that for us already.
Homosexuality is no different than lying, cheating, gossiping, or even looking at someone. How many times, have we looked at anyone on TV, public place and say “he or she is cuteâ€, that’s adultery.
Looking at someone and saying, “he or she is cute,” is not adultery. That’s just acknowledging beauty, the way we would say that a particular painting is beautiful or a rose is especially pretty. Adultery in your heart is looking at someone and saying, “I wonder how he or she would be in bed,” and maybe even toying with the idea for a while. That’s sin. That’s as bad as homosexuality or prostitution or murder.
Comment by SkyePuppy — 10.29.06 @ 6:27 pm
La Shawn,
Great to see you at GBC! I hope the rest of your weekend was wonderful.
Comment by SkyePuppy — 10.29.06 @ 6:28 pm
Jack Well said, I wish more christians would be compassionate as you seem to be. You get more with sugar than vinegar.
I’m curious to know Lashawn’s point of view in this.
Comment by Gary — 10.29.06 @ 6:30 pm
“Adultery in your heart is looking at someone and saying, “I wonder how he or she would be in bed,†and maybe even toying with the idea for a while. That’s sin. That’s as bad as homosexuality or prostitution or murder.”
So, that being the case, we should punish people for adultery (or thinking about sex with someone else) and prostitution and homosexuality the same way we punish murderers.
Electrocution or beheading? Which would God approve?
Comment by JohnD — 10.29.06 @ 6:49 pm
JohnD,
So, that being the case, we should punish people for adultery (or thinking about sex with someone else) and prostitution and homosexuality the same way we punish murderers.
Electrocution or beheading? Which would God approve?
Apparently I was unclear.
My comment about adultery and murder both being sin has nothing to do with punishment by the government. I was referring to what I believe is sin in the eyes of God. God Himself will do whatever punishing or forgiving is necessary. But it is up to those of us who wish not to sin to understand when our thoughts take us into the terrriory of sin. If we let ourselves go there, God will not see our sin as any different from the sin of a murderer.
Comment by SkyePuppy — 10.29.06 @ 7:03 pm
“the scientific failure and emptiness in the theories put forth by Darwin, even after 150 years of dedicated efforts to find even one substantiating piece of evidence.”
Creationists often make the false accusation that Darwinism/Evolution theory is literally a ‘blind faith’-type religious ‘experience’ for scientists.
The truth is actually far removed from such propaganda. Evolutionary evidence (unlike religious claims) is constantly questioned and peer-reviewed by scientists.
There is a saying that the thief is always afraid of being robbed
Comment by JohnD — 10.29.06 @ 7:05 pm
and the other conservative commentators who say the mainstream media are simply the lapdogs of the Democrats. Every time I turned on the news it was “Foley, Foley, Foley!†— and in suspiciously similar language and repetitive talking points.
====================
This is my criticism to the media - it’s not the fact that it was pro-liberal, but pro-homosexual that is profoundly detrimental to society. Starting with the coverage of the Catholic Church scandal.
There are many important things that came out of the Catholic Church scandal, including:
- a greater awareness of how much sexual abuse is entrenched in every corner of society, even in the ones deemed the holiest;
- the first and only chance for many of the victims to put forth a lawsuit regarding their ordeal;
- the punishment for men who destroyed the well-being and lives of many vulnerable kids.
However, there are other aspects of the media coverage of the Catholic Church scandal that have been detrimental regarding the problem of sexual exploitation in society.
A recently released study has shown that 81% of the priest abusers exploited male adolescents, and not small (prepubescent) children - or girls. In the great majority of cases there was no physical violence involved, it was expressly a homosexual case of exploitation or abuse, not “pedophile” abuse (pedo as in children).
The media, which for the most part is obsessed with pro-homosexuality, insistently hid this fact from the public. Why is this a grave problem? Because awareness that homosexuals and bisexuals exploit minors is essential for action to be taken in every case where it occurs, just as awareness that priests abuse kids was necessary to break through the cloud of denial that often hanged in a Church cover-up. The same can be said regarding society’s denial of women abusing children.
When many of the boys in the Catholic Church scandal tried to tell someone about their abuse, the reaction was often one of extreme denial. The Church and others would also attack the victim for suggesting “such a bad thing” about a priest. The Church’s powerful lawyers often informally (and sometimes formally) bullied the victims into silence. In a set of attitudes and behaviors that profoundly mimics the Catholic Church hierarchy, pro-homosexuals often insist that homosexuals do not abuse minors, period. This is as monstrous a lie as saying that priests do not abuse minors, or that women don’t either. What this creates is an environment of denial that makes it virtually impossible for other victims to come foward and seek justice.
Read this letter to the editors of Beaver County Times regarding the ACLU – written by Dan Reeping – Oct. 12, 2006:
” The writer [of Thursday’s editorial “Blind Eye” ] does not understand the legal problems the superintendent of the pretend school district would be subject to if he started an investigation of a gay teacher or gay person without iron-clad proof of sexual activity.
If the superintendent would start an investigation of a gay with e-mails similar to those sent by Foley (before the text messages), the ACLU would bring suit immediately against the superintendent, and the district would pay millions.
The e-mails did not demonstrate any real indication of being of a sexual nature. Therefore, any questions or suggestions using these e-mails that a gay communicating with a student was improper would be considered harassment of a gay.
By law, the superintendent must have a blind eye until he has proof of a crime. That isn’t the way it should be, but that’s the law. ”
You have pointed to how sickening Foley’s mind is. What I find sickening is how much the media and society likes to narrow their attention to priest abusers. Are they joking to themselves that the only sexual exploiters of minors in the US are confined to the priesthood?
Pro-homosexuals also insist that the majority of abusers are heterosexual males. Although the assertion is disputable depending on the way the measurement is taken, or the population studied, the numbers game is besides the point. A case of abuse is not life-damaging because it produces one statistical number or another. Take the case of gender. A minor that is sexually abused by a woman does not suffer less than one abused by a man, even though women have a lower statistical total of perpetrators than males. The focus of attention should be on investigating perpetrators who are homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, priests, rabbis, lay teachers, counselors, mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts, coaches, that is, everyone. One category is not more special or more innocent than another. Even if the majority of perpetrators are male, does that mean, for example, that the victims of female perpetrators should be relegated to invisibility, silence, trivialization, and consequently, lack of justice?
Every time a pro-homosexual says homosexuals don’t abuse minors, or that the majority of abusers are heterosexuals, what they are really doing is creating a climate of denial about the countless real cases that exist where the perpetrators are homosexuals and impeding preventive action. Similarly, compared to the millions of estimated abuse cases, only a tiny minority of sexual abusers are priests. Should we then divert attention from all the real cases where the perpetrators are priests and focus only on the big total of “lay men?” Are the victims less important because of the statistical total of their perpetrator category? Should we systematically erase the fact that such abusers are priests, just like the media has done with the homosexual factor in the Catholic Church and other cases?
This brings us to the tawdry PR excuse that this Republican leadership put forth. Let us not forget that most of these Republican leaders are libertarians, not social conservatives, which means they are quite pro-homosexuality, pro-pornography, and possibly pro-prostitution - as long as it’s not publicly stated so. One of the Foley excuses put forth by the Republican leadership was saying that had they acted on the first ambiguous but non-sexually explicit Foley emails, the media would have tarred and feathered them as “homophobic.” The latter part of the excuse is totally true, but responsible people do not go along with a cowardly media obsessed with pro-homosexuality - they fight it. Responsible people do not fail to investigate homosexual exploitation of minors because they are afraid of being slandered as “homophobic.” Responsible people investigate both the possible homosexual exploitation and they denounce the dishonest manipulations of a pro-homosexual media that silence awareness regarding homosexual abuse.
I have no doubt the Republican leadership knew about Foley’s sick homosexual mind and behavior, and, like the Catholic Church, preferred to turn a blind eye instead of taking firm and responsible measures. Now they want to find someone to blame, so it’s all the liberal homosexuality-obsessed media’s fault. It is not.
However, let us imagine that they had gone to the media with the first set of emails and made Foley resign. Can you imagine the “Gay Witch Hunt,” “Republican Homophobia Hysteria,” headlines that our dominant pro-homosexual media would have screamed? “Tar and feather” is an euphemism to what the media would have done to such Republicans. The media reaction would be one of extreme attack on the Republicans for suggesting “such a bad thing” about a homosexual. Because, just like Foley and the Catholic Church, the media may make all kinds of speeches blasting the exploitation of minors, but, like Foley, many of their actions or inactions are one of the cornerstones of the current system of sexual violence that exists in society. And this also includes the media’s pro-homosexual attitudes which destroy awareness that homosexuals and bisexuals are, like other categories, abusers and exploiters. The media, by creating a climate of denial and silence, is profoundly failing the countless victims of harassment, exploitation, or abuse where the perpetrators are non-heterosexuals.
And this is just as sickening as what Foley has done.
Comment by Alessandra — 10.30.06 @ 5:06 am
skyepuppy
well your argument would be consistent if you was also running around proclaiming that alcohol need sot be banned. At least those who are alcoholic shoudl not be allowed to legally buy alcohol.
also, if you was screaming just as loud for adulterers to be punished by the laws.
you taking Gods law seriously, and forcing your views on others are two different things. for some reason, on the issue of homosexuality, you guys seem to forget that.
Comment by sm — 10.30.06 @ 12:17 pm
SM,
How many times do I need to say that I’m not asking for punishment for anyone, beyond what we already have? We punish murderers. Fine. We don’t punish homosexuals. Fine.
My objection is that our culture (the MSM, our schools, etc.) actively promotes homosexuality as a good thing. This is the only activity that I can think of (off the top of my head) that is widely viewed as sin that is being promoted by the culture. All the rest (murder, alcoholism, prostitution, drug abuse, smoking, and mostly adultery) are frowned upon by the culture.
When the culture promotes sex outside of marriage, I object to that as well.
Please read more carefully. There’s no inconsistency.
Comment by SkyePuppy — 10.30.06 @ 1:58 pm
I think this Mark Foley fiasco is bad for the Republicans. What exacerbates it is the recent allegations against the Republican running for governor of Florida, Mr. Crist (sorry, I heard the story on talk radio and am not sure of his first name and the spelling of his last). It is starting to resemble a mini version of the gargantuan problems facing the Catholic Church. At least Crist did not violate a minor. The man who alleges the affair is 21.
No, these in the closet practicing homosexuals in the Republican party does not set well with me and I am sure quite a few others.
John
John
Comment by John — 10.30.06 @ 2:29 pm
I read the first sentence as saying that LaShawn is a lesbian and Democrat, and was trying to make sense of that!
Anyway, I used to be quite a fan of Camille Paglia, because she is extremely intelligent and has incisive, non-PC opinions about cultural matters. She was great at pointing out how feminist ideas of “sexual harassment” and “date rape” deny all agency to the woman and that that’s not the way sexuality works in real life. However, in recent years I’ve come to think she is quite nihilistic, celebrating “paganism” and making often irresponsible statements. Like Andrew Sullivan, a good writer and smart commentator, but very radical on sexual issues.
Comment by Steve — 10.30.06 @ 4:14 pm
I think it’s funny, coming back to this thread a few days later, that the matter of homosexuality has so much play in but the issue of whether or not one is blogging about “God” when one is blogging about how badly-flawed the MSM is has gotten almost no play at all.
Let me suggest something to the readers here that will either bounce off the thread as if it was never metioned or cause an all-out flame war: I think that homosexual agenda in the U.S. (if not world-wide) is a function of the way the church views all sins today and not a function of clever marketing on the part of homosexuals.
See: if the church viewed all sin as an offence to God — you know, divorce for reasons other than adultery, living together outside of marriage, sex outside of marriage, not to mention lying, theft, murder and (wait for it) coveting things your neighbor has, and not just homosexuality — and was teaching people that only God’s grace overcomes sin, there would be a lower divorce rate, a lower teen pregnancy rate, a lower rate of corporate scandal and greed, and no issue at all regarding homosexual marriage because Christian marriage would be intimidating to those who think they want a weak imitation of it.
The question is not whether the church should oppose homosexual “marriage” but, in fact, how the church ought to oppose homosexual marriage. Is it by causing laws to be passed which criminalizes everything without any reference to God and His holiness, or is it by evangelizing and harvesting the people God is calling to Himself and then, as the Bible tells us to do, exhorting them by the word and by the biblical model of church discipline and fellowship to do the good works God has made us to do?
The real answer to homosexual marriage is not stoning those caught in the act: it is by confessing that we are saved by grace through faith — and that all sinners ought to seek that grace while it is available to them rather than to seek their own vain reasonings which justify their own sins. Like the sin of legalism, the sin of hypocracy, the sin of snobbery, etc.
Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.
Comment by centuri0n (Frank Turk) — 10.30.06 @ 4:54 pm
If even 25% of the liberal talking heads and pundits had half of Camile’s intellect & honesty, we’d be looking at a major upset this Nov akin to 1994’s upset by the GOP.
They aren’t and we can pretty much stick a fork in the moonbat’s woldview by the time ‘10 rolls around. Whenever the grownups decide to take the reins back from the looney left fringe, it would behoove them to pay attention to her.
Ciao
Comment by Andy — 10.30.06 @ 9:28 pm
Exactly Centurion. I don’t see Christians get worked up about divorce rates which are high among christians. I rarely see pastors on sunday talk negatively about divorce.
It’s funny, I was reading an article about various political people who were opposing gay marriages, but had been married and divorced several times.
I think the goal of christians is to preach the good news to everyone, that’s it. not to fuss about laws and politics.
If each christian were to get one person saved per week, or per month ect… then more people will be christian, if more people are christians, then, the people at the government are christians and the rest is easy.
Now, my simple strategy may sound TOO simple as people may say it’s easier to say than do. But that’s when the power of prayer comes into play, if you pray to God to help you save that next door neighbor, I think he will help.
Rather than praying and fasting about making sure that anti-gay laws or anti abortion laws are passed, let’s just pray for our brothers and sisters in our community, city, state, country, world for them to get saved.
I think many NOT ALL evangelicals are having the wrong agenda.
Each day when i pray, i really ask God to give me his strenghts and courage for me to go around and minister the word of God to people I encounter.
Cause at the end of the day, it’s really about brining more souls to Christ, we’ll be judged on that not “demonizing” sinners.
Comment by Gary — 10.31.06 @ 9:46 am
Continue the God and “gay marriage” discussion here:
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/10/31/democrats-court-winners-election-day-losers/
Comment by La Shawn — 10.31.06 @ 9:55 am