The Dallas Observer Blog



Add to Technorati Favorites

Blogroll

The Concession Stand

The Midway

Sure, They Name-Drop Jesus. But What in God's Name Do They Know?

Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:46:00 PM
Barack Obama with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., in a now-famous photo taken three years ago

There were the “Cocktail Christians”: the Lutherans in my Wisconsin hometown who did their sacred rites on Sunday morning and tipped multiple martinis Sunday night. Punch in; punch out. That was their version of the Christian faith, performed to the tune of dirgelike hymns and clinking cocktail glasses.

Another one of my mother’s pet phrases was “All this and Jesus too.” These were the folks who celebrated their own wonderfulness -- their wealth, their health, their beauty -- and tacked on a few props for Jesus when things were really sweet.

My mom was altogether different, a righteous Democrat wrapped around a core of abstemious fundamentalist. She told me how, at 18, she’d watched Martin Luther King Jr. on television and concluded, right there in her all-white neighborhood on the South Side of Milwaukee, that he was right and everyone else was wrong. She shook a pale finger in her parents’ faces and pronounced them racists.

She hauled me to Vietnam War protests when I was a kid and taped an anti-war poster to my bedroom door. Later on, she’d work the phone at a crisis pregnancy hotline. All of this left a deep impression on me.

I found out that fighting for social justice didn’t contradict our theologically conservative Christian beliefs. She was a Bible-thumping provocateur, pricking the consciences of her staid brethren while holding tight to Jesus-is-the-only-way. She was my hero.

I thought of her pet phrases when I examined the buckets of God talk dumped on us by the presidential candidates, especially the Democrats. Have we ever heard so much Jesus name-dropping? And what’s interesting, looking at some of the statements Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have made, is that their words sound remarkably authentic to these holy-roller ears.

You know how it is when foreigners try to cuss in English and they put the F-word in all the wrong places? That’s how politicians usually sound when they do Jesus talk. But let me tell you, Clinton and Obama are slick. Either that or they’re sincere.

Hillary Clinton Gets the Holy Ghost

Last summer, Clinton, a lifelong Methodist, told The New York Times, “I believe in the father, son and Holy Spirit, and I have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit on many occasions in my years on this earth.”

Wow, Hillary, this is like a Pentecostal moment. See, holy rollers talk all the time about the presence of the Holy Spirit. If you’re real old-school, you say “Holy Ghost.”

Now Bible Girl has also felt the presence of the Holy Spirit on many occasions. It’s one of the really cool things about being a whoopin’-and-hollerin’ Pentecostal -- not that you have to be a Pentecostal to experience it. But us holy rollers kind of make a point of “inviting” the presence of God into our worship services, our prayers, our times of meditation on the Word of God. We like hanging with the Holy Ghost.

The presence of the Holy Spirit is when you can actually feel God in the room -- it is a palpable thing. It engages the senses; it often makes me feel kind of tingly. There are times when it has caused me to shake involuntarily, often when I am ministering in the church or praying for someone. I know I’m weird, so don’t feel the need to point it out. People respond to the presence of the Holy Spirit in all kinds of ways. I have seen weeping, falling, dancing, crazy joy.

Don’t know how it happened to Hillary; she doesn’t offer details. But I have observed something else about the presence of the Holy Spirit: When it is there, things change. People become sorrowful for their sins and repent. Folks get healed, delivered from the oppression of evil spirits and destructive habits.

So Hillary, what did the Holy Ghost do when he hung around you?

“I think she’s just saying that to try to appeal to black voters,” one friend told me.

Hillary went on to tell The Times she believes Jesus was physically resurrected, a mark of orthodox Christian belief. She wiggled a bit, however, when queried about two matters evangelical Christians hold dear: whether Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, and whether the Bible is the Word of God, meaning it is the authoritative guide for life and doctrine.

Is belief in Christ needed to go to heaven? “That one I’m a little more open to,” Hillary responded. “I think that it is, as we understand our relationship to God as Christians, it is how we see our way forward, and it is the way.”

Translation: It is the way if you think it’s the way.

Asked how literally one should interpret the Bible, Clinton said, “I think the whole Bible is real. The whole Bible gives you a glimpse of God and God’s desire for a personal relationship, but we can’t possibly understand every way God is communicating with us. I’ve always felt that people who try to shoehorn in their cultural and social understandings of the time into the Bible might be actually missing the larger point that we’re supposed to take from the Bible.”

Translation: I’m looking at the broader points Scripture makes. The pesky little stuff, like warnings against various kinds of sins? Stick with the big picture.

Clinton professes to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, but she is no evangelical. Her beliefs are spongy. She has left plenty of room to depart from traditional Christian thinking.

Barack Obama Comes to Jesus

Obama wasn’t raised in any particular faith. His father was Muslim, a fact some of my fellow Christians have used to take pathetic cheap shots. Obama is, in fact, an oddity for America: He is an adult convert to Christianity. He belongs to a United Church of Christ congregation on the South Side of Chicago led by controversial pastor Jeremiah A. Wright.

As noted on the excellent blog Get Religion, Obama’s conversion story has gotten short shrift in media coverage. Asks Get Religion contributor Dave Pulliam, “When was the last time a major presidential candidate made this explicit of an expression of his personal faith in Jesus Christ?”

Here is what Obama told a church audience in Hartford, Connecticut, recalling his response to a sermon by the Reverend Wright:

“…[D]uring the course of that sermon, he introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, He would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in Him. And in time, I came to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active palpable agent in the world and in my own life.

“It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn’t fall out in church, as folks sometimes do. The questions I had didn’t magically disappear. The skeptical bent of my mind didn’t suddenly vanish. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth and carrying out His works.”


Re-read those last two sentences, OK? Now, all you evangelicals out there, is that an authentic come-to-Jesus moment or what?

You’ve got all the essential elements: a realization of one’s sin. An understanding of the need to place one’s trust in Jesus Christ. A decision to submit to God’s will.

Obama’s confession of faith is more complete and “theologically correct” than any of the major candidates’. Yet when I picked up my son at his Christian school the other day, the kids were engaged in a heated discussion about whether Obama is really a Christian, no doubt echoing conversations they’ve heard in their homes. One 9-year-old boy, the budding cynic, opined that Obama just says that to get votes.

So what does all this mean? I for one consider Clinton and Obama a brother and sister in Christ, based on their explicit statements about having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Their words are persuasive; they have the ring of authenticity. No, I’m not so jaded that I attribute all this talk to mere politicking. Obama has said far more than he had to concerning his faith, and he has risked turning off the young, educated voters who’ve propelled his campaign thus far. That speaks to his sincerity.

But there is a disconnect with both of these candidates, a decided incongruity. Obama talks about dedicating himself to discovering God’s truth; so where is he in grasping God’s truth concerning the sanctity of life? Both he and Clinton are strong supporters of abortion rights.

Both candidates say they’re opposed to gay marriage but that they would not seek a constitutional amendment prohibiting it. Obama believes in some type of civil union that would afford gays most of the legal rights that accompany marriage.

Well, is gay marriage a healthy option for families, or is it not? If it is, why not go all the way and put it on a par with marriage between a man and woman? Both candidates, it seems, have chosen ground that delays having to make a real choice.

I know what my mom would have said back in the day. So they say they’re Christians? Big deal. Faith, you see, is always followed by fruit.

“Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do,” as James’ letter puts it.

I can see and hear the sneer. “All this and Jesus too.” --Julie Lyons

51 Comments:

too long idiot says:

EPIC FAIL

Do you even know what a blog is? This is too long. Practice some self-control in your writing and try again.

chad says:
Dan says:

You are hands down the most wordy blogger I've ever seen.

This is, of course, a common election tactic. Love America and God, but don't be too much of a fanatic about either.

As a Southern Baptist I've found it interesting that Bill Clinton & Al Gore were never embraced by the "Religious Right" despite their SBC pedigrees.

Nobody wants to be appear to the the godless atheists, so this "I'm a person of faith" bit is often heard.

However, they have to walk a tightrope because if they're "too influenced" by their faith, then they scare the American public.

religion of bacon says:

All that pontificating and you didn't even touch on the whole issue of Reverend Wright's virulent hate-whitey / hate-America / Jesus-was-black version of Christianity, and Obama's refusal to say exactly what aspects of it he disagrees with? Meh.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788

Religion of Bacon,

I saw that EYE OPENING footage. Wow, so much for Clinton being the first black president, or even Hillary being the first black first ladey.

Matt K. says:

So what if it's a long post? It was coherent and well thought out. If you disagree with aspects of it, fine, but you should at least have the courtesy to explain yourself.

Jesus Guy says:

Hey Bible Girl

Check out the serious hate you buddy Dreher is throwing down against Obama's church and Pator.
The comments are what's really scary, did you know that Obama is the "anti-christ" and a "racist".

Rod's written numerous columns attacking Obama's church and his wife. Rod doesn't have the intellectual ability to challenge Obama directly so he attacks his church and his wife.

Also, looks like he's won't post any comments disagreeing with.

It appears he's give up civility of Lent.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/03/what-should-oba.html

religion of bacon says:

Imagine if McCain (or Bush, or any other white politican) attended a church whose pastor was the white-power equivalent of Rev. Wright. It would (and should) be stop-the-presses news on every TV network and news web site. That politician's career would probably be over. Yet Wright is Obama's "mentor," and Obama gets away with saying, "he's like an old uncle that says things you disagree with sometimes." No, he's a virulently racist pastor with a large congregation who gives awards to Louis Farrakhan. And Obama has been a member of that congregation for a long, long time.

Jeffrey Weiss says:

Julie, are you suggesting that you believe that every behavior (or thought) that you believe to be against the will of God (a sin)ought also to be prohibited by US law and/or the Constitution? Or that any candidate who allows for greater flexibility in the civil law than s/he perceives in God's law is being untrue to his/her faith?

That's not an inherently illogical position to take. But it is a pretty limiting one...

(and as for those of you who suggest her entry is un-bloggy because of length. I suggest you broaden your blog fundamentalism. Plenty of blogs have long posts.)

Barack covered all points of salvation but he is still holding things back. Like that statement has been carefully glossed over and was carefully said.

Something is amiss. That or he is just aware that he is still a Democratic candidate.

Ah yes partisanship. Makes you so proud to be a civilized American and living in a Western society when you can box up politics, beliefs, faiths, ideas, thoughts or even God, stick a label on it and call it a day.

Julie's last post made me truly step back and just look how this election year is shaping up. If for nothing else, it will be very interesting to see how it unfolds.

No matter how it unfolds, I still have to serve and obey my God. I still have to pray for the leadership of this country and I still have to love and help others just as He loved me. If (and some say when) Barack wins, I hope Christians don't take a leave of their senses because a Democrat is back in office like they did with Bill Clinton.

Has anybody seen a full sermon from Rev. Wright?

You can be all doom and gloom but you can't preach that without hope. Not preaching on hope is the very anti-thesis of what Jesus preached about in His time here on earth.

Don't ask God to damn your country. Ask God to restore, uplift and heal. Yes, God promised that even these Gentile nations would be blessed if our faith and our obedience was with God and God alone.

This guy is going off of what he personally feels and not what God is telling him. God told Jeremiah to preach the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonian Empire but the heart of the Father was always present in all the messages delivered.

I just hoped Rev. Wright did the same in his sermons.

religion of bacon says:

Check out the serious hate you buddy Dreher is throwing down against Obama's church and Pator.

What exactly does Dreher say that you think constitutes "serious hate?"

Don't you think that shouting "God DAMN America!" repeatedly in front of a congregation is rather umm... hateful?

religion of bacon says:

Looks like Obama has done the right thing:

"I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies," Obama said. "I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Reverend Wright that are at issue."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080314/D8VDF8FG0.html

I wonder what all the Obama supporters who were defending Rev Wright's comments think about this?

chris says:

I'll start caring what Rev. wright has to say when Rev. Wright is elected or makes public policy in America. Until then, who gives a rats ass what he says. All of the candidates have shady friends and supporters.

McCain's glowing endorsement from John Hagee of the San Antonio megachurch said the Roman Catholic Church was "the great whore" and a "false cult system". McCain stood with the guy on stage and said he was proud of his endorsement.

So...does it really effing matter at the end of the day?

Braden says:

Julie, forgive me if this comment is a little rambled. Reading your blog entry stunned me, and has left me feeling somewhat speechless. However, there is still so much I wish to say. How do I begin?

Growing up the child of a life-long COGIC member, I resented the way folks that claimed they had the holyghost always assumed that they had the market on the holyghost cornered. They believed that just because they were rolling, screaming, shouting, dancing, clapping, speaking in tongues, not wearing pants, not wearing any make-up, and going to church 5 nights of the week, they were the only ones that were saved. They believed that the members of my father's family (Good Baptist Christians) were not saved, only because they didn't worship in a loud, demonstrative style. They believed that my father's family was not getting a ticket to heaven, only because they wore pants and put on a little rouge on their cheeks to brighten their faces.

Interestingly enough, I scan over my mother's family, the holyghost declared COGIC's, and find individuals in their 50's dying of diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. I find poverty and rent checks, rather than mortgage receipts. I find mental illness, dyalysis ports, divorce, and obesity. Yes, I also find that good ole holyghost. But not in the form of victory, freedom, and growth. I find him only when they are expressing their worship and admiration of God, and when they are trying to find ways to look down on all of those who supposedly don't have the holyghost.

As for my daddy's folks, the quiet, pants wearing, limitted understanding of the gift of tongues, no experience with feverish praise services, they own their homes, businesses, and cars. They families are in tact. Their children graduate from colleges and begin healthy lives.

Tell me, Julie, is the only evidence of the holyghost being present is volume, wild expression of worship, and an overwhelming heap of emotion? I'm just asking.

I would much rather a quiet worship experience, where the holyghost guides me to have a healthy and abundant life, rather than a jacked-up life that's splashed with olive oil.

My second point... Julie, I should have made this comment following your other article about Senator Obama's position on abortion. But I got too busy. Now, that you have brought it up here, I can't leave it untouched.

You mentioned that you didn't understand why your African American Christian friends were not concerned about abortion issues. Julie, it's not that black Christians are not concerned about abortion. We love our little babies just like white Christians do.

But here's the thing... When you're worried about how you are going to pay the light bill, how you're going to find the money to put gas in your car to get to and from work, where you can find the money to pay for your child to go to even a historically black university, abortion becomes less important when it comes to social issues. Solve the many social ills that we face, then abortion will decrease.

Now, I have a question for any that care to answer it. How can so called Christian conservatives judge Senator Obama and Clinton for their positions on abortion and civil unions for gays, but give Georgy Porgy a free pass to slaughter American soldiers and the citizens of Iraq? How is it that the Rethuglicans go unchallenged on their Christian faith on their many social policies that are widening the gap between the haves and the have nots? How is it that we have allowed issues of Christian faith to enter policy floors. What's not fair, Julie, is that if someone of the Islamic faith insisted that their articles of faith were included as policy and law, mainstream Christians would be screaming bloody murder.

Finally... If the Rethuglicans were good Christians like they say they are, why won't they create an amendment that would make the voting rights of African Americans fully existent and never to be challenged?

And yes, to all the so called bloggers that respect the rules of blogging: I am fully aware that this comment was long. I apologize now for it. But I had to say what I had to say.

Julie Lyons says:

Jeffrey,
Nope, I'm not suggesting that at all. Take fornication, for instance. Is it sin, according to the Word of God? Absolutely. Do I believe it should be legislated against? No way--not as long as it involves consenting adults. God created us with strong sexual desires. Fornication is a sinful expression of a normal desire, according to Scripture, but the consequences of that sin are mostly limited to the adults involved.

Abortion also violates God's Word. But nothing about abortion is natural; God designed men and women to nurture their children, not destroy them. Abortion causes an enormous amount of collateral damage. Innocent human lives are lost. Allowing this killing cheapens the value of life and cheapens society.

I support legislation against things like abortion that are destructive to innocent lives.

Julie Lyons says:

A note to y'all:

Bible Girl is a weekly COLUMN embedded in a blog. Note the name of the category: "Bible Girl: The Unfair Park Religion Column."

Pretty soon, though, Bible Girl will be a stand-alone blog. Or so they tell me.

Jeffrey Weiss says:

Continuing the discussion: But the item you highlighted was civil gay marriage, not abortion. Civil gay marriage (which has nothing inherently to do with the religious versions unless we as a society make the link) would be between consenting adults, yes? So what's your point?

So you're gonna join the bloggery for real, are you? It will eat your life if you aren't careful..1:-{)>

Seriously, do you happen to know the day that Bible Girl will no longer be associated with this blog in anyway or even if this is possible or to be.

As my Dad use to say, the Sister Lyons is kind of long winded, these sermons every week are getting very stale.

You really get in the way of some otherwise awesome blogs and comments. You bring us down with your up with jesus shit.

Now is the time for you cogregation get on here and flame "my dirty gay rectum" ...but really think about moving on and creating an your own blog home. You deserve more than just this.

I will miss you with heart and soul. I can't wait to read your new book and see you promote on The 700's club version of
The Ellen Show

Toots says:

Hey BaconButt, hate to tell you this but Jesus was not white. I know...sorry to tell you this but Jesus didn't have red or blond hair. He had black hair and was probably Arab.

McCain thought he knows how to pick religious endorsees. How about John Hagee. He thinks God gave us Katrina because of gay sin, he thinks the Catholic Church (the Great Whore) worked with the Nazis to kill the Jews, he thinks God will unleash terrorists on America for its support of the two state solution of Israel and Palestine.

McCain knows how to pick 'em too.

Okay Julie, admit it. You like being treated like an off colored step child that stutters and walks with a limp.

I mean heck, you were an editor. One only has to look at Robert and see editors are at heart human pin cushions.

Then you start the my-guess-is-better-than-your-guess-game on Unfair Park, aka, Bible Girl, from the perspective of a pentecostal. If that isn't a kick before you kiss my ass placard I don't know what would be. And now you want to go full time, addictions, there must be something about them, repetition maybe?

Probably the best indicator we have of the foolishness of religion is how foolish one looks when one takes it seriously. Actual believers of any faith are on the margins of society. The reason they're there is because, well, they look like fools.

Faith is about guessing. Religion is about wagering on the guessing. Your column today is about why your guess is better than our guesses without admitting you're guessing which makes you look foolish.

Abortion also violates God's Word. But nothing about abortion is natural; God designed men and women to nurture their children, not destroy them. Abortion causes an enormous amount of collateral damage. Innocent human lives are lost. Allowing this killing cheapens the value of life and cheapens society.

I support legislation against things like abortion that are destructive to innocent lives. Julie Lyons

Whoa Julie, abortion is not natural? Gimme a break girl. Abortion is as natural as living and dying.

The greatest number of abortions are natural abortions. They're called miscarriages if the pregnancy is acknoweledged. And, surprise, surprise, they're for the same reasons we have for elective abortions. Miscarriages occur when the fetus isn't a viable entity and or the mother isn't capable of carrying it to term for whatever reason.

Your position on God designing us for nurturing children isn't Biblical. As I've pointed out repeatedly besides often for you God has a thing for babies, especially boy babies.

It was God who sent down the angel of death to kill all the first born males without the mark of blood on the doorway when God was attempting to get Pharoh's attention.

It was God who had Abraham put Isaac on the alter.

It was God who killed David and Bathsheba's first born son to punish the parents for their sin.

It was God who ordered through Moses the slaughter of thousands of male baby prisoners of war.

If you resort to pointing out that all of the instances I've mentioned occured in the Old Testament I would like you to explain why you should advocate making a law to support your Christian position on abortion. That's because Jesus is about the New Testament. And no where in the New Testament will you find Jesus advocating secular laws to support faith in Him.

If Jesus didn't feel it necessary to have secular support then why do you?

If God killed children with reckless abandon then how can you say He's against killing the unborn?

If most abortions are natural abortions how can you suggest abortion is unnatural?

One more serious, very serious, question. Can you show me anywhere in your Bible where God as Christ or God as God suggests the unborn or any child goes to Heaven?

Rhinosaur says:

Oh great, another abortion argument.

I'm beginning to wish I was aborted so I didn't have to hear or read any more it.

If you think abortions are bad, don't get one.

Julie Lyons says:

Harvey,
C'mon, you know I'm not talking about miscarriages. I'm talking about abortions initiated by human hands. Whole 'nother thing.

Babies and small children are not able to make a choice to reject or accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their savior. If they die before making that decision, I entrust them to God's mercy.

There is no biblical passage I'm aware of that explicitly states what will happen to them. Longstanding orthodox Christian thinking is that before the age of accountability--which I believe is different for every child--a child will go to heaven if he or she dies.

Bottom line: God is a loving God. He isn't looking to send people to hell. We must reject his Son in order to punch our own ticket to hell.

Bill M. says:

Sitting here trying to figure out why Julie's ire has fallen on those good Minnesota Lutherans who ended the Lord's day with a martini. My Catholic parents, after noon mass, used to stop off at a tavern and have a couple beers with friends. We kids had orange soda pop. It never crossed our minds that we were doing anything sinful. My guess -- correct me if I'm wrong, Julie -- is that this has almost nothing at all to do with those martinis.

Richie Sheridan says:

"God forgive them because they know not what they do."

Most, it not all religious philosophy, is gibberish. It all got screwed up with the Council of Nicea, at which the Emperor ordered Jesus to be made God, and the Roman Catholic Church was born, from which came all the Christian sects of today, all Christian franchises.

Jesus words have been edited and repackaged to help create the CORPORATE CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. Most,if not all Christian religious theologies are disempowering. The shedding odf Jesus blood for our sins is hogwash.

The most misunderstood, yet most powerful words of Jesus are, "What I have done, ye shall do and even greater things.

We are in a mess today as a society because we have strong religions who embrace homosexuality, who embrace war, who embrace materiality.

"PUT NO MEN BETWEEN YE AND THE FATHER."

We will get no where as a society, and will continue to suffer unnil we all come together and agree on basic moral principles, and rules of conduct. Some conduct we will have laws about and some will be between us and God.

Jesus was the worlds greatest agitator. If there was ever a need for agitiation to get at the truth is is NOW!!!

Julie Lyons says:
Harvey,
C'mon, you know I'm not talking about miscarriages. I'm talking about abortions initiated by human hands. Whole 'nother thing.

I don't think so Julie, I really don't think so. You see a miscarriage is an abortion, if abortion is defined as intentionally ending a pregnancy.

Miscarriages occur when either the fetus or the pregnant woman's body decide the pregnancy is no longer viable. If as you suggest, maybe guess works best here, the fetus is a soul at conception with a divine design then we can assume a miscarriage is God's will, right?

Now at what point in this guesstimate of yours do we reassign blame from God's will to human sin?

Do we hold the woman who can't carry a fetus to term because she abused her body during puberty with excerise or diet? After all her actions are the reason her body can't complete a pregnancy.

How about the daughter whose mother abused drugs or alcohol during her pregnancy which resulted in the daughter having a body that can't support pregnancy? What if the reason she can't carry a fetus to term has nothing to do with her but is the fault of the genetic offerings of her husband?

Do we assign blame to the women above or their husbands, or how about the medical community that goofed and did something that makes succesful pregnancy impossible?

Or do we only assign blame to those who intentionally initiate an abortion? Kinda sorta like God did when he killed David and Bathseba's baby for their sin, right?

One of the problems I have with your abortion as sin is based upon the perverted concept of sin as defined by Christians like yourself. You believe in the age of accountability and that it's individual specific. One has to wonder how you as a Christian judge an abortion as sin when you don't know whether the woman having the abortion is in reality accountable.

An example would be a woman who opted for an abortion and had never been exposed to the Christian perspective on it being a sin. Sin as Christians define it is a deliberate act against God's law. No where in the Bible does it say having an abortion is against God's law.

This can further be complicated by the teachings of Christ where he mentions many being called and few being chosen. This is not them choosing Christ but Christ choosing them. If Christ didn't choose them, one of the called but not chosen, then we have to assume there isn't that awareness Christians experience duing salvation. Condemning them for a sin when they are without the awareness of Christ much less the awareness of an act being a sin kinda sorta flies in the face of your logic about the age of accountability, right? In fact if we take Jesus serious about His pickyness when it comes to people He wants to share His Heaven with Him and His Father we have to wonder how He can condemn those He's already condemned for all practical purposes doing things he condemns.

Babies and small children are not able to make a choice to reject or accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their savior. If they die before making that decision, I entrust them to God's mercy.

There is no biblical passage I'm aware of that explicitly states what will happen to them. Longstanding orthodox Christian thinking is that before the age of accountability--which I believe is different for every child--a child will go to heaven if he or she dies.

Bottom line: God is a loving God. He isn't looking to send people to hell. We must reject his Son in order to punch our own ticket to hell.

Now that's as convenient as a pocket on a shirt let me tell you girl. Can you imagine how many people you'd get to become Christians if there wasn't a weasel clause in there for babies finding their way to Heaven?

Too bad Christ didn't explain that. But then He didn't explain a lot of things. So Christians put their own twist on it, right?

He didn't explain about Heaven and babies, y'all fixed that with a little creative tweaking.

He didn't explain how He felt about homosexuality. No problem, same logic that covered Christ's backside on the baby thing got creative one more time.

We can go down the line girl, abortion, prosperity, America, war, etc and so on. One has to wonder about y'all, really.

Loving God you say? Jesus said those who didn't believe in Him would suffer eternity in an everlasting fire? I blacksmith a bit. I know fire. It's hot. I'll be sixty this year. I know a little bit about time. Forever will wear you down, unless you're in Jesus' definition of Hell, then it's the thing.

Richie Sheridan says, "We are in a mess today as a society because we have strong religions who embrace homosexuality, who embrace war, who embrace materiality."

Interesting perspective there Richie. I assume you're a Christian, right?

I disagree with you by the way (btw).

I see the problems in our society coming from twixt and tween. Most of us understand twixt and tween. It's when we're not there but we're not here yet either.

You see at one time people mostly believed what they were told. After all there wasn't much to suggest otherwise. That was "there" I guess you could say.

Now just about anything anyone says can be checked seven ways to Sunday in the blink of an eye. We'll call that "here" if you don't mind.

Between then or "there" and now or "here" we have b.s.. The problem with b.s. as I'm sure you're well aware is a little goes a long way. This is especially true when it comes to information that's critical to community.

Let's take your "embracing homosexuality" for instance. Great example and I'm glad you brought it up. "There" took the position that homosexuality was unnatural, it was intentional, it was evil.

"Here" accepts homosexuality as natural, it's exhibited in lots of different species for different reasons. "Here" also doesn't necessarily see it as intentional because everyday there are new revelations about sexuality that suggest choice is an illusion. Most importantly "here" doesn't see homosexuality as evil. If it's not intentional and it's not unnatural then it can't automatically be categorized as evil.

This is where twixt and tween causing all the confusion comes in to play. That's because a lot of people are stuck twixt and tween "here" and "there" because of b.s..

"There" says homosexuality is bad and that sounds, well, reasonable if you don't have a homosexual you care about in your life. If you do have someone in your life that you care about that's homosexual then "here" makes sense.

Of course the good thing about twixt and tween is it's all about transition. And more and more people are less "there" than "here" because more and more people know a homosexual and they care about them. Caring about them forces one to consider the b.s. of "there" and invariably the conclusion that it's b.s. and "here" becomes the standard.

All of us spend our own space and time in this twixt and tween, or transition period or place in time you might say. So at any given point in time there's no consensus on homosexuality because some people are stuck "there" while others are twixt and tween and others are "here".

This lack of consensus is the mess you've pointed out. It is a mess. And sad to say we'll be there until we get the majority of people out of twixt and tween to "here". Then we can put "there" in it's place in history to be studied for what it was.

It would be a lot easier of course without all the b.s..

We are in a mess today as a society because we have strong religions who embrace homosexuality, who embrace war, who embrace materiality. Rickie Sheridan

Wrong.

We are in a mess today because we have strong religions who codify ignorance. Or to put in the language of the street, we are in a mess today because religion is bull pucky.

It is interesting that Rickie puts hugging homosexuals on par as evil as wrapping one's arms around war and making out with materialism.

What exactly does Dreher say that you think constitutes "serious hate?"

Don't you think that shouting "God DAMN America!" repeatedly in front of a congregation is rather umm... hateful? religion of bacon

Funny you should ask that, seriously.

May I ask you the difference between Wright saying "God Damn American" and Hagee and his ilk saying "Katrina and 9-11-2001 is evidence God is damning America".

Wait a minute, I get it. Wright is talking about race instead of homosexuality.

Julie Lyons says:

Bill M.,
Nah, I've got nothing against those good German Lutherans!

Defeat Plaza says:

Do you think harvey "toert of babel" lacey likes to hear himself talk? Evidence below.

Abortion also violates God's Word. But nothing about abortion is natural; God designed men and women to nurture their children, not destroy them. Abortion causes an enormous amount of collateral damage. Innocent human lives are lost. Allowing this killing cheapens the value of life and cheapens society.I support legislation against things like abortion that are destructive to innocent lives. Julie LyonsWhoa Julie, abortion is not natural? Gimme a break girl. Abortion is as natural as living and dying.The greatest number of abortions are natural abortions. They're called miscarriages if the pregnancy is acknoweledged. And, surprise, surprise, they're for the same reasons we have for elective abortions. Miscarriages occur when the fetus isn't a viable entity and or the mother isn't capable of carrying it to term for whatever reason.Your position on God designing us for nurturing children isn't Biblical. As I've pointed out repeatedly besides often for you God has a thing for babies, especially boy babies.It was God who sent down the angel of death to kill all the first born males without the mark of blood on the doorway when God was attempting to get Pharoh's attention.It was God who had Abraham put Isaac on the alter.It was God who killed David and Bathsheba's first born son to punish the parents for their sin.It was God who ordered through Moses the slaughter of thousands of male baby prisoners of war.If you resort to pointing out that all of the instances I've mentioned occured in the Old Testament I would like you to explain why you should advocate making a law to support your Christian position on abortion. That's because Jesus is about the New Testament. And no where in the New Testament will you find Jesus advocating secular laws to support faith in Him.If Jesus didn't feel it necessary to have secular support then why do you?If God killed children with reckless abandon then how can you say He's against killing the unborn?If most abortions are natural abortions how can you suggest abortion is unnatural?One more serious, very serious, question. Can you show me anywhere in your Bible where God as Christ or God as God suggests the unborn or any child goes to Heaven? Julie Lyons says:Harvey,C'mon, you know I'm not talking about miscarriages. I'm talking about abortions initiated by human hands. Whole 'nother thing.I don't think so Julie, I really don't think so. You see a miscarriage is an abortion, if abortion is defined as intentionally ending a pregnancy.Miscarriages occur when either the fetus or the pregnant woman's body decide the pregnancy is no longer viable. If as you suggest, maybe guess works best here, the fetus is a soul at conception with a divine design then we can assume a miscarriage is God's will, right?Now at what point in this guesstimate of yours do we reassign blame from God's will to human sin?Do we hold the woman who can't carry a fetus to term because she abused her body during puberty with excerise or diet? After all her actions are the reason her body can't complete a pregnancy.How about the daughter whose mother abused drugs or alcohol during her pregnancy which resulted in the daughter having a body that can't support pregnancy? What if the reason she can't carry a fetus to term has nothing to do with her but is the fault of the genetic offerings of her husband?Do we assign blame to the women above or their husbands, or how about the medical community that goofed and did something that makes succesful pregnancy impossible?Or do we only assign blame to those who intentionally initiate an abortion? Kinda sorta like God did when he killed David and Bathseba's baby for their sin, right?One of the problems I have with your abortion as sin is based upon the perverted concept of sin as defined by Christians like yourself. You believe in the age of accountability and that it's individual specific. One has to wonder how you as a Christian judge an abortion as sin when you don't know whether the woman having the abortion is in reality accountable.An example would be a woman who opted for an abortion and had never been exposed to the Christian perspective on it being a sin. Sin as Christians define it is a deliberate act against God's law. No where in the Bible does it say having an abortion is against God's law.This can further be complicated by the teachings of Christ where he mentions many being called and few being chosen. This is not them choosing Christ but Christ choosing them. If Christ didn't choose them, one of the called but not chosen, then we have to assume there isn't that awareness Christians experience duing salvation. Condemning them for a sin when they are without the awareness of Christ much less the awareness of an act being a sin kinda sorta flies in the face of your logic about the age of accountability, right? In fact if we take Jesus serious about His pickyness when it comes to people He wants to share His Heaven with Him and His Father we have to wonder how He can condemn those He's already condemned for all practical purposes doing things he condemns.Babies and small children are not able to make a choice to reject or accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their savior. If they die before making that decision, I entrust them to God's mercy.There is no biblical passage I'm aware of that explicitly states what will happen to them. Longstanding orthodox Christian thinking is that before the age of accountability--which I believe is different for every child--a child will go to heaven if he or she dies.Bottom line: God is a loving God. He isn't looking to send people to hell. We must reject his Son in order to punch our own ticket to hell.Now that's as convenient as a pocket on a shirt let me tell you girl. Can you imagine how many people you'd get to become Christians if there wasn't a weasel clause in there for babies finding their way to Heaven?Too bad Christ didn't explain that. But then He didn't explain a lot of things. So Christians put their own twist on it, right?He didn't explain about Heaven and babies, y'all fixed that with a little creative tweaking.He didn't explain how He felt about homosexuality. No problem, same logic that covered Christ's backside on the baby thing got creative one more time.We can go down the line girl, abortion, prosperity, America, war, etc and so on. One has to wonder about y'all, really.Loving God you say? Jesus said those who didn't believe in Him would suffer eternity in an everlasting fire? I blacksmith a bit. I know fire. It's hot. I'll be sixty this year. I know a little bit about time. Forever will wear you down, unless you're in Jesus' definition of Hell, then it's the thing.Richie Sheridan says, "We are in a mess today as a society because we have strong religions who embrace homosexuality, who embrace war, who embrace materiality."Interesting perspective there Richie. I assume you're a Christian, right?I disagree with you by the way (btw).I see the problems in our society coming from twixt and tween. Most of us understand twixt and tween. It's when we're not there but we're not here yet either.You see at one time people mostly believed what they were told. After all there wasn't much to suggest otherwise. That was "there" I guess you could say.Now just about anything anyone says can be checked seven ways to Sunday in the blink of an eye. We'll call that "here" if you don't mind.Between then or "there" and now or "here" we have b.s.. The problem with b.s. as I'm sure you're well aware is a little goes a long way. This is especially true when it comes to information that's critical to community.Let's take your "embracing homosexuality" for instance. Great example and I'm glad you brought it up. "There" took the position that homosexuality was unnatural, it was intentional, it was evil. "Here" accepts homosexuality as natural, it's exhibited in lots of different species for different reasons. "Here" also doesn't necessarily see it as intentional because everyday there are new revelations about sexuality that suggest choice is an illusion. Most importantly "here" doesn't see homosexuality as evil. If it's not intentional and it's not unnatural then it can't automatically be categorized as evil.This is where twixt and tween causing all the confusion comes in to play. That's because a lot of people are stuck twixt and tween "here" and "there" because of b.s.."There" says homosexuality is bad and that sounds, well, reasonable if you don't have a homosexual you care about in your life. If you do have someone in your life that you care about that's homosexual then "here" makes sense.Of course the good thing about twixt and tween is it's all about transition. And more and more people are less "there" than "here" because more and more people know a homosexual and they care about them. Caring about them forces one to consider the b.s. of "there" and invariably the conclusion that it's b.s. and "here" becomes the standard.All of us spend our own space and time in this twixt and tween, or transition period or place in time you might say. So at any given point in time there's no consensus on homosexuality because some people are stuck "there" while others are twixt and tween and others are "here".This lack of consensus is the mess you've pointed out. It is a mess. And sad to say we'll be there until we get the majority of people out of twixt and tween to "here". Then we can put "there" in it's place in history to be studied for what it was. It would be a lot easier of course without all the b.s..We are in a mess today as a society because we have strong religions who embrace homosexuality, who embrace war, who embrace materiality. Rickie SheridanWrong.We are in a mess today because we have strong religions who codify ignorance. Or to put in the language of the street, we are in a mess today because religion is bull pucky.It is interesting that Rickie puts hugging homosexuals on par as evil as wrapping one's arms around war and making out with materialism.What exactly does Dreher say that you think constitutes "serious hate?"Don't you think that shouting "God DAMN America!" repeatedly in front of a congregation is rather umm... hateful? religion of baconFunny you should ask that, seriously.May I ask you the difference between Wright saying "God Damn American" and Hagee and his ilk saying "Katrina and 9-11-2001 is evidence God is damning America".Wait a minute, I get it. Wright is talking about race instead of homosexuality.

Hmmmmm, I guess Julie's hanging out with us heatherns is working. She's the first pentecostal I've ever been around that seemed to okay alcohol consumption for Christians.

Most of them damn Christians who drink the way Rod Dreher damns Obama's pastor.

Joe says:

As long as lengthy posts are the order of the day...

Hey, Julie, I have a question.

What's your point? That politicians will say whatever they have to in order to get elected? Wow, that's shocking. Here's a bit of reading:

United States Constitution, Article VI, Line 3:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

America was not founded as a "Christian Nation". The Founding Fathers were not Christians; they were primarily Deists. They believed in an unnamed higher power. Look through the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution: there is not one mention of Jesus Christ. I will not deny that they were religious. That can be seen in the final paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

"Supreme Judge of the World". "Divine Providence". These are terms meant to include any and all religions under one banner. And guess what? Some religions have beliefs that are different than those of Pentecostals. Hell, how many Christian sects have the same beliefs?

Maybe I should come to the point. Sure, we can argue about each candidate's religions preference. We can go back and forth about how well they uphold the standards of whatever wonky flavor-of-the-week religion they espouse. But who cares? Is that going to have a bearing on they way they act when they sign bills into law? Is that going to have a bearing on the way they comport themselves in foreign relations, or when faced with a natural disaster?

If it does, I don't want that person anywhere near my government.

Histopher Cristhins says:

Let's call a spade a spade.
This author is a member of a church where the Bishop gives enemas to women as a form of counseling, then spanks them. When he spanks their ass, which is filled with watery shit, the buttocks release this mixture of H20 and fecal matter. This mixture sprays all over the Bishop and the woman being counseled. THIS IS GROSS! Yet, these women continue to go back to this Bishop. Julie Lyons thinks these women are "brave". I say they are full of shit.

No one in their right mind would allow an act like this to be performed on them, time and time again, unless they enjoy it.

Now, perched upon her scatological perch, she passes judgment on Hillary Clinton, and Senator Obama as SOMEHOW SHE KNOWS their personal belief system.

If Julie Lyons had her way, Luby's would only serve the items she enjoys and get rid of the rest. If she doesn't understand or like something, she wants it to go away. However, like the shit stains on your sisters at the COGIC, this philosphy just doesn't smell right. Speaking of Luby's I hope that Bible Girl understands that her namesake book declares glutony a sin and sinners go to hell.

Does anyone find the irony in a woman that is more fasinated with shitty enemas than with her Lord and Saviour? You can't rationalize with someone that is this irrational.

mm says:

I liked Hillary's answers. More on that:

"When faith simplifies things that need to remain complex instead of giving us strength to live with complexity, when it gives answers where none exist, instead of helping us appreciate the sacredness of living with questions, when it offers certainty when there needs to be doubt, and when it tells us that we have arrived when we should still be searching - then there is a problem with that faith."

- Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, author of the new book "You Don't Have to be Be Wrong for Me to Be Right."

brint says:

[i]"Now at what point in this guesstimate of yours do we reassign blame from God's will to human sin?

Do we hold the woman who can't carry a fetus to term because she abused her body during puberty with excerise or diet? ..."[/i]
-harvey

Harvey, you're doing it wrong. You're not supposed to think. You're supposed to know.

Christine Matthews. says:

Julie Bible.

Please hurry and take your anti gay, anti woman, anti everything and go away as soon as possible. You are the weakest link. You are an insult to those that live out side your evangelical bubble. You views belong in a nursing home and not in a city as progressive as Dallas Texas.

Donnat says:

I guess Obama should do like Hillary, don't attend church and then you won't have the opposition broadcasting your preacher's words all over the media with the hint that they are your own.

I pray every day that Obama becomes our next president, however, I don't go to church.

Brint, the Devil's in the details. And the details, they're a Devil all their own.

Julie only has a son. But one has to wonder, if she had a daughter instead of a son would she be on her like stink striping a skunk if said daughter wanted to go out of athletics or dug in seriously about weight control? This could at some point initiate a miscarriage, er, uh, abortion.

Since she has a son one has to wonder how she feels about her God's thing for male children. I'll bet the book against one page that Julie has said, "God, same yesterday, today, and tomorrow." And never once as she said that has she looked at her son and thought back to the Bible and God's love for little boys, especially non-jewish boys.

If I was a Christian and a parent I think I'd be very very afraid. The God of the Christians seems to find punishing children for the sins of the parents as okay. The problem with that is the sins that cause Him to be so mean spirited a logical mind wouldn't find necessarily deserving that kind of attention.

Look at the story of David and Bathsheba for instance. Bathsheba's husband was off at war, doing God's work, maybe killing a non-jewish child every now and then because he could, you think? Anyway Bathsheba is a woman. She's got hormones. We all know about women and their hormones. Even women don't mess with women when the hormones are messed up.

So there's poor Bathsheba missing hubby big time. All by herself up on the roof where no one could see doing a bath thing. I'll bet any man, well, almost any man, has had a fantasy of a woman like Bathsheba with those hormones raging doing the bath thing on the roof.

Well, there was one man who saw the bath thing by Bathsheba. He was king David, THE man after God's own heart. Even though he had a harem, there's something about a woman doing the bath thing that creates something even a harem has a hard time working out to any degree of satisfaction.

So he came calling, little rub a dub dub in a tub on his mind. I know. He was doing a bad thing. Unless of course you figure he was king and her husband was at war doing God's work, maybe killing a non-jewish kid now and then because he could. So a rub a dub dub in a tub taking care of her needs could be considered God's work too if you think about it. I know, not on the level of dedication to God as non-jewish kid killing, but he was king and all the action isn't always on the front lines. Poor Bathseba, them hormones raging and the kind ordering to rub a dub dub in the tub with him like she'd rub a dub dubbed in the tub without him. Puts a whole new perspective on damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I'm sure you're familiar with the rest of it. She took serious what he was poking at her for fun.

No, wait a minute. This is Julie's story. A soul was created with a divine design. It didn't just happen. It was God's will and it was here for a purpose.

When God's will happened, the oops that passeth all understanding some people would say, David sent word for the husband to get his butt back home to take care of his wife's needs.

David didn't take into consideration the kind of man husband was. You see David besides being THE man after God's own heart was a showboater. No one in all of modern day professional sports has had showboateritis like king David had it.

Husband wasn't like king David. He was a team player, in fact we might say he was the ultimate team player. He was such a team player that even after the king ordered him to bump nasties with his wife he wouldn't. He wouldn't because his men were still at war, maybe killing a non-jewish kid on occasion, God's work. No, the husband spent the night on the porch rather than get something his men couldn't, that's a team player, they don't make them like that no more.

Husband went back to war, team playing one oh one, maybe killing a non-jewish kid on occasion, God's work.

David had a problem, well two. He had a woman he saved from succumbing to severe needitis rub a dub dubing in a tub who had taken serious what he'd been poking at her for fun. And he had a captain who had disobeyed a direct order to bump nasties with his wife. Not only had he refused to bump nasties with her, he'd refused to even go into the house and had stayed on the porch that night, the whole darn town knew about his carrying the team player thing to the extreme.

So king David did what anyone would do. Well, let's say anyone that was THE man after God's own heart would do. He sent orders for the husband and his men to lead an assault. If they weren't killed in the assault they were to be killed and it was to look like they'd gotten killed in the assault.

It happened. And life was good for king David and Bathsheba. They got married and she joined the harem. Back then the first child of a marriage could show up anytime and theirs did quicker than most.

God killed the kid. No He didn't do it quick, took a week or so, really really worked David over with it, giving us a preview of the kind of God that would create a hell designed with an everlasting non-consuming fire I guess.

It was a boy baby Julie, a boy baby. God killed it. He didn't kill it because it was non-jewish either. He didn't kill it for anything it had done. No, He killed it to punish king David and Bathsheba for their rub a dub dubbing in the tub.

The Devil's in the details. Sometimes we find a little more God in there than we'd like also. If God created that little boy from the tub action of David and Bathsheba then we have to wonder why the husband and all of his men had to die because of it.

What kind of God would do that?

Maybe to point out abortion isn't all that bad you think? After all, if David had sent Bathsheba out of state and she'd gotten an abortion there wouldn't have been a need for those men and her husband to die, right?

There wouldn't have been all the PTSD claims against the royal treasury from the men who killed the men for king David years later. But that's another story.

brint says:

Harvey, I'm with you.

Just saying that people who "know" or "believe" things, don't like questions that make them think.

When Julie says, "abortion is wrong," you might as well be saying "no it isn't." She can understand that at least.

Morning Brint,

I think we have an obligation to take assumptions like Julie's to task. With knowledge comes responsibility. We've got it, the knowledge, and we have an obligation to share it.

I'm hoping they create a Bible Girl blog for us. Because if they do and they don't ban the writeous folks like us we'll have a platform big enough to land 757s in formation. That's what pentecostalism gives a logical mind for a playground.

brint says:

Harvey, I like the way you told the David & Bathsheba story. Recounting and critiquing Bible stories in a contemporary way never fails to expose just how insane they are.

You might enjoy Slate's "Blogging the Bible."

http://www.slate.com/id/2141050/

But this video here, is one of my favorite.

http://www.superdeluxe.com/sd/contentDetail.do?id=D81F2344BF5AC7BB77D6A0E55069BD0A9B3A52CB005FA7D7

Thanks for links Brint. I think your favorite is now one of mine.

I hope you got a chance to see Obama's speech today. If not Huffington Post has the text and news channels are playing snippets of it.

The reason I mention that is I see a similarity between what he did today and what folks like us try to do everyday.

If you put up a split screen with Obama giving his speech and one of the talk jocks like Rush or our own hypocrite Mark Davis spitting out their stuff it would not be unlike reading a pentecostal message and one of ours.

I am in awe of how Obama stated his position. He didn't talk down to anyone. He didn't talk up to anyone. He just talked to us using examples that we can all relate with I believe.

Have you seen Julie? I haven't seen or heard from her in days. Must be the weather.

Jack Jett says:

brint

i love your link to superdeluxe.com.

are you an adult swim fan? superdeluxe is one of my favorite sites. the tim and eric awesome show, squidbillies, aqua teen, and sealab.

you and lacey are always the rational voice of reason on this site. i have no patience at all for hatemongering and bigotry. however, i am far more grossed out how self indulgent and condescending this lady journaist is.

i do wonder if she really believes this crap that she spews out or if she is just working from the ANN COULTER HANDBOOK OF FAME.

Julie Lyons says:

I'm sorry I haven't responded to more of the comments. I'm not hiding, I'm just on deadline. I'll be back.

Come on Julie, deadline? It's raining too hard for work. Come back in and play.

Jack, I love you bro but keep one thing in mind please. We need Julie as much as she needs us. This is a dance. If you don't like her legs concentrate on her eyes, but we must keep moving to the music.

Julie is the chosen one says:

This is such a joke...

abortion and gay marriage AGAIN!!!

that is so 2004..
so 2000
so 1996

I will go on the record today and say that this self loathing closet case will still be preaching about this crap in 2012.....

and NOTHING will have changed...
this vomit is a complete waste of our intellect...

Bibl