More Or Less Everyone Agrees That Rick Perry Is a Moron for Comparing Homosexuality to Alcoholism

Categories: Politics, Science

640px-Rick_Perry_CPAC_Florida.jpg
Gage Skidmore
Smug, per usual
If nothing else, Rick Perry deserves points for hubris.

In California to stump up business for Texas -- including a proposed factory to build batteries for Teslas -- the governor responded to questions about the Texas GOP platform's endorsement of dangerous reparative therapy for LGBTQ individuals by comparing homosexuality to alcoholism.

"Whether or not you feel compelled to follow a particular lifestyle or not, you have the ability to decide not to do that," Perry told the Commonwealth Club of California, "I may have the genetic coding that I'm inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way."

An expert on alcoholism at UT-Southwestern says that both alcoholism and homosexuality can be marked by biological indicators, but comparing the two is "apples and oranges."

"There's similarity in that, someone with the predisposition to be an alcoholic can choose never to drink alcohol," he says, "in the same way that [a gay person] could choose never to have sex, but why would you ask someone to do that?"

Rudy Oftering, a Perry supporter and vice president of the Metroplex Republicans, an LGBTQ friendly Republican group, took issue with Perry's comments.

"Some Republicans continue to insist that there is something wrong with being gay," he says. "Are we going to be the party of limited government or the party of limited tolerance?"

Dr. Steven Pounders, the primary care physician of Ron Woodruff of Dallas Buyers Club fame, says that Perry's pronouncement is dangerous and inconsistent with proper medical care.

"[Perry] continues to purport the notion homosexuality is a disease or a perversion when it's clearly been declared by all by all medical institutions as just a normal variant of human behavior," he says, "whereas alcoholism is certainly part of a continuum of obsessive compulsive disorders."

Perry's comments are especially harmful to young Texans, Pounders says.

"There's so many poor young people that are growing up and feeling alone because they aren't getting good support," he says, "hearing such comments from people who are looked to to lead us is just terribly awful."


Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
262 comments
anon
anon

Try this quote from Tommy J. (the last sentence is particularly good!):


http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/quotations-jefferson-memorial


""I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816[10]"

anon
anon

It would be fun to rewrite Perry's quote: 


"Whether or not you feel compelled to follow a particular lifestyle or not, you have the ability to decide not to do that," Perry told the Commonwealth Club of California, "I may have the genetic coding that I'm inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the [heterosexual] issue the same way."


If homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, then so is heterosexuality. I wonder if Mr. Perry might choose not to live a heterosexual lifestyle? 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obligated to call for help of the civil power, it’s a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”
-- Founding Father Benjamin Franklin

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 “Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.”

-- Founding Father James Madison

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

“The civil government functions with complete success by 

the total separation of the Church from the State.” 

-- Founding Father James Madison


Sotiredofitall
Sotiredofitall topcommenter

It sells with his supporters who actually show up at the polls to vote.   Most of those who disagree can't be bothered to take time to vote.


You get the government you deserve.

colorme
colorme

mr charm that you are. i am assuming you only chime in if you feel like it. speaking of wanks

colorme
colorme

Perry is no different than Obama. How the hell anyone can VOTE  for either of them is abhorrent.

colorme
colorme

If you want to get married, get married It has always aggravated me that some wank government official has to sign off on it. We are to look to them for the"Approval" stamp. USA was built by radicals.

colorme
colorme

wow, sure is disheartening to be represented by perry state side & obama nation wide

Rupubitarian
Rupubitarian

As someone who has gone back and forth between being a Republican and Libertarian for several years I can tell you the issue of gay marriage is more pressing than many want to admit.  There are those who believe in it and more of those who don't really care but think it is in the best interest of the party to lay as low as possible on the topic. It is primarily the extremist that want to make noise about the subject.  Yet rehashing previously debated topics that will never go anywhere does nothing to help the party but has the ability to cause harm. 

rogjohns64
rogjohns64

Why are homesexuals so intolerant of people who believe homosexuality is wrong?


Where do they get off telling other people how to think?

Letusreason
Letusreason

Next let's legalize beastality like the Germans did. They argue it's a perfectly normal human condition.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@colorme It isn't really about getting married or not.  It is about getting equal treatment under the law.  Legally, a marriage is little different from a business merger: the assets and liabilities of two distinct entities are combined into a new entity, which is recognized by the law and has certain advantages or disadvantages associated with it.  Those against it don't have any real argument against gay marriage except that it violates their religious beliefs, which is an argument in opposition to the Constitution itself.


A sign outside one church put it best: "We're sorry if gay marriage threatens the sanctity of your fourth marriage."

JackJett
JackJett

@rogjohns64 See the question from phoo....I ask that often and never get an answer.  Christians are not content going door to door or hanging out in front of strip bars and gay clubs shoving their entire belief system in the faces of those NOT interested, but they also travel to foreign lands where people already have their OWN religious belief system and they shove THEIR BELIEF system down their throats. 

So WHER IN THE FUCK do they get off telling EVERYONE AROUND THE WORLD how to think? 

So let me answer your question but don't ignore ours.

Homosexuals are intolerant because they have spent years and years in an effort to have the VERY SAME RIGHTS as EVERYONE ELSE and while they get close, there is a small group of small minded bigots who are in such need of feeling superior through some holier than thou BS who spew hate and do so in the name of god.

phoo
phoo

Why are Christians so intolerant of people who believe Christianity is wrong?


Where do they get off telling other people how to think?

rusknative
rusknative

@rogjohns64 kinda like demanding that "oral sex" is not really sex...and anyone that rejects "oral sex" is a repressed victorian far right mega christian.

JackJett
JackJett

@Letusreason What is the purpose of bringing something offensive and irrational into the conversation? And if you are attempting to be a spokesmodel for god, don't you think you should at least have the balls to attach a name to such comments?

rusknative
rusknative

@Letusreason WWI propaganda poster convinced all Americans that "The Hun" was an animal and pervert.....must have been true.

Letusreason
Letusreason

So the opposition is against the redefinition of the family. That Church has divorced itself from the Bible and so their comment is said with all irony.

This gets to the issue of the ideal. Is it ideal to have so many kids born into single parent households or so many living in broken homes?

Why is a broken home a good reason to redefine marriage?

Why not strive to restore the family? Who among us living with a broken family looks fondly on that?

colorme
colorme

@bvckvs @Rupubitarian The majority of Texans do not give a damn who you marry. Despite your angst, bad boy, Texans don't complain unless you are one of those who does not pull their weight. You seem to move with politicians.& to be a bit tainted. Meet people who are not of the asshole class.

planecrazy
planecrazy

@bvckvs "In Texas, the majority of voters are bigots and hate-mongerers"


Congrats.  You get the idiot statement of the day.

JackJett
JackJett

@rogjohns64 ......rogjohn64.....crickets......christian crickets.....can spew and slander but never with an answer.

Must be busy telling other people how to think.......to think of an answer to my question.

Letusreason
Letusreason

@JackJett, I'm simply pointing out that the debate on homosexuality is a red herring. The real debate is what you have just mentioned.

Do we continue to interpret the Constitution as the founders wrote it or do we abandon their approach?

If you find the founders offensive, or God offensive or me offensive, remember that no other framework has provided such a successful model in the history of the world.

Letusreason
Letusreason

The point I'm making is that our legal system is based on natural law not the whims of our current desires.

If we want to give up natural law on what grounds are our rights protected?

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@Letusreason I think you miss the point of the church's sign.  They're pointing out the hypocrisy of accepting divorce, which either Paul or Peter put on a level with murder in one passage of the Bible, while adamantly refusing to grant equality to anyone deviating from their idea of "the norm".

Homosexuality is not causing kids to grow up in broken homes.  I'd guess it is a small percentage of marriages that end because mommy likes another mommy or daddy likes other men.  Mostly they end because one spouse or the other is either cheating or beating on their partner.  You'd restore a lot more 'sanctity' to marriage by focusing on fixing the problems hetero couples have with each other than by fixating on gay marriage.

colorme
colorme

@bvckvs @colorme
 I am bracing myself for you to elucidate my ignorance. If there is no government involvement, then what are the parades about?

Letusreazsonn
Letusreazsonn

@planecrazy  Yes it is because they forgot to mention idiotic fuckwad, ferrets, weasels, and arrogant hypocrites.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Letusreason


“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Letusreason ... the Founders that bought, sold, owned, abused and raped their Negro slaves?


The Founders that excluded Slaves, Women and Indian from the "natural rights" they claimed for themselves?


“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.” -- George Washington

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@Letusreason I have a co-worker who's dog used to hump the bejeezus out of anything it could: other dogs, legs, bricks, its water dish, corner of a building, anything.

Seems like "natural law" might have a few loopholes in this particular arena.

From another angle, the laws of nature wouldn't define any kind of marriage.  Just mating.  Natural selection would, hypothetically, take care of any aberrant behavior.  So...........,

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Letusreason


“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson

CogitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum

@Letusreason Also,  what "rights" of yours aren't being protected if same-sex marriage is recognized as legal?

CogitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum

@Letusreason "...our legal system is based on natural law ..."

How do you figure? Where, in nature, is such a thing as "age of consent"? If the law was based on nature, it would be legal for old men to have sex with 13-year-old girls.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@bvckvs @colorme You need some new material, it's becoming all too obvious when you have nothing to counter with.

Letusreason
Letusreason

@donkey, are you suggesting that imperfect men, who knew truth but couldn't live it, yet had the fortitude to put into law rights that would in time come to fruition following a civil war are now to be used to suggest those rights aren't real?

Letusreason
Letusreason

This is a good example which would prove that humans being in nature and of nature develop behaviors outside of the norm just as other animals in nature do.

The key issue is what is the norm in nature? If 99% of people developed some illness that illness wouldn't be considered the norm for the human condition. The 1% without that illness would properly represent the norm.

Are we no different than animals? Did God not set us apart from animals with purpose?

This gets to what Perry is saying. People are born with all types of conditions. As humans we can reason and determine that which is normative and proper. If we are saying its time to give this up, the entire idea of inalienable rights loses all merit.

Letusreason
Letusreason

All of our rights as Americans are enshrined in "the Laws of Nature and of Natures God"

We can add laws such as the age one must be to marry but we aren't entitled to redefine nature.

We are not debating homosexuality. We are debating what we mean by freedom. Is that freedom bound by God (as in the Constitution) or have we embarked on a new concept for America?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Letusreason ... "RIGHTS" are a subjective concept created entirely by MAN.


I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. 

-- Abraham Lincoln



CogitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum

@Letusreason You lost me at "God." Superstitious nonsense that some people believe should never be the basis for determing civil liberties for us all.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Letusreason


"... thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”


You still haven't defined this nebulous nonsense you call "natural law".

CogitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum

@Letusreason You are missing my point. If, as you say, our laws were based solely upon nature, it would be acceptable to have sex with pubescents, as this is what occurs in nature. The fact is that we have enshrined in law the age of consent because we have decided as a culture that we value things like allowing young people the freedom to an education and a measure of self-determination rather than allowing them to be impregnated as soon as biologically viable. But it wasn't always this way. See, this is an example of changing mores surrounding women, sex and female self-determination.

I'm very sorry if your religious views and homophobia render you inhospitable to the changing societal mores surrounding gays and same-sex marriage, but it is abundantly clear that you can no longer use the Constitution as a facade for your bigotry.  

JackJett
JackJett

@Letusreason You do know that NOT everyone believes in your god or the way you believe in your god.  And some people don't believe in god at all.  We will always be embarking on a new concept of America or else we wills stay stagnant.

Letusreason
Letusreason

Do you know that the Big Bang theory was first proposed by a devout Catholic priest?

Sure, you will bring up the treatment of Galileo long ago and I will point out that the Catholic Church operates one of the largest telescopes in the world today in support of scientific research.

Christianity isn't the superstition that you think it is.

Taste and you shall see. Seek and you will find.

Letusreason
Letusreason

Be honest, do you disbelieve that the founders had a clear concept of natural law or do you want to move away from that concept in our modern times?

Letusreason
Letusreason

I already explained this above. Simple question for you. If God doesn't rule us and we have no problem killing and eating animals, what is your view on German beastality?

Animals can't consent, I get that, but since when do we ask animals for their consent to eat them?

As I pointed out this isn't theory. Germany debated this and then legalized beastality in 1969.

JackJett
JackJett

@DonkeyHotay  Where have you been?  I feel like I have been left alone in the field of Deliverance.  I have missed your humor and need someone else to take the bashing for a while.

Letusreason
Letusreason

@donkeyhotay, you do understand that's what happened in 1969 Germany don't you?

What Founding Father rejected natural law? Or do you not see the debate on homosexuality as the proxy war that it is?

CogitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum

Believing something without evidence is the definition of superstition. You have no evidence on which to base your belief.

CogitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum

@Letusreason You be honest -- you are using this meaningless "natural law" term as a way to justify your religiously inspired belief that homosexuality "just ain't natural." When I think of something that could truly be called a law of nature, all I can think of is physics. Are you saying the founding fathers thought our unalienable rights should be based on the laws of physics?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Letusreason ... if this concept of "natural law" is so clear, why can't you simply and concisely define it?



RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@Letusreason You cannot move into the future with one foot stuck in the past.  The Mosaic understanding of God's law and marriage was vastly different than what we understand both to be today.  Mosaic law condoned slavery, which we know now to be a violation of the Natural Law embraced by the founders.  Mosaic law prescribed death by stoning for adulterers, a sentence which, if levied today, would leave many of "God's Houses" or churches, mostly empty.  Papal laws advocated conversion by the sword (it was from the christian crusaders that this tactice was learned by the muslims).  Hitler justified his extermination of jews, in part, with writings from Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Movement.  Manifest Destiny was a simple ploy to cloak genocide in the name of progress.

As Ghandhi (sp?) so eloquently said: " I like your Christ very much.  Not your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

If you want anyone else to take seriously arguments from a Christian perspective, you're going to have to fix the Church first.  I say that as a christian; one who has left the church's dogma behind in pursuit of faith.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Letusreason  " If God doesn't rule us "


Which "god are you referring to? There are 1000s proposed by man.


Be specific, and show your work.



DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@JackJett ... there are giants everywhere that must be vanquished from the kingdom.


Stay the Course!



DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Letusreason ... your reference to this mythical "natural law" is meaningless, it doesn't exist objectively, and you've failed to define it to any subjective consistency.


“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”
~John Adams

CogitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum

@Letusreason Buddy, you lost me when you spouted malarkey about Germans legalizing bestiality. Your incoherence is mind-numbing. You went from German bestiality to the legal system being based on natural law to Nature's God, the founders and now 1969 Germany(wtf?). 


Just as an aside, Jefferson was a deist - not a Christian - meaning "Nature's God" had no resemblance whatsoever to the Abrahamic god.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@CogitoErgoSum "Are you saying the founding fathers thought our unalienable rights should be based on the laws of physics?"


Quantum fluctuations would dictate that a Gay particle -- opposite charged Hetero  -- would be a certainty.


The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle would indicate that the more you try and measure it, less precision is available.


Then there's the BIG Bang theory for all the size queens.



... if "God" created Man in HIS IMAGE -- and 10% of mankind is gay, then it would follow that God is Gay ... at least partly ... or perhaps bi-sexual.


Is there a Mrs. God for sexual release? ... or does he just have sex with homeless tweenage Jewish peasant "virgins" who are already engaged?







Letusreason
Letusreason

Natural law is of course inspired by Gods law. That's why the earliest people to define it and refine it were Christians. Augustine and Aquinas to name a few.

If I'm wrong, than the founders wanted no religious influence to impact our society. If you are right, why did General George Washington provide an account of a court marshal because of homosexual acts?

It seems that religious or not the founders didn't allow it in society.

"At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom's Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier...Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return."

Letusreason
Letusreason

Out of curiosity which 'denomination' did you walk away from?

You correctly point out that Christ brought love to Mosiac law, which didn't remove laws, but raised them to a higher standard of judgement.

To your point about stoning, when He saw the woman at the well he said for the one without sin to cast the fist stone, which of course was a test none could pass.

However, he also told her to leave and turn away from her sin.

Are we now at a point where we have to associate people with any one particular lifestyle and therefore any assessment of a lifestyle is an assessment of the person?

If so, my original point was that this mentality led to Germany legalizing beastality out of tolerance, because without an objective moral code anything is permissible.

Letusreason
Letusreason

From founding father Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary. That's pretty specific.

GOD, n.

1. The Supreme Being; Jehovah; the eternal and infinite spirit, the creator,and the sovereign of the universe.

God is a spirit; and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @JackJett "...the knight's sole responsibility is to succour them as people in need, having eyes only for their sufferings, not for their misdeeds.”

Letusreason
Letusreason

This quote isn't contrary to what I am saying rather the opposite. Adams is saying that they didn't receive the Constitution on a mountain like Moses. Rather, he was saying regular people got together and hashed out a framework that would work for them, allowing the freedoms God granted to them unencumbered.

If you disagree look at America's first dictionary published in 1828 by Noah Webster, whose dictionary is still in print today.

You can cherry pick and misquote the founders all you want, but Noah Webster was a founder.

MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

Letusreason
Letusreason

It's simple, if our legal system is based on popular opinion and not natural law, no society can ban beastality; case in point Germany. That's not theory, that happened.

To say that Jefferson was a deist and therefore wouldn't have subscribed to natural law in the sense I am articulating tells me you've never read his modified Bible, the do-called "Jefferson Bible" which removed the miracles of Christ and left the 10 Commandments (Gods law).

Here's James Madison, the Father of the Constitution. "Upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, and to sustain ourselves according go to the 10 Commandments of God"

I am public school educated and I know this. What is your excuse for acting like you don't know this to be true?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Letusreason "allowing the freedoms God granted to them unencumbered."


However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  -- Leviticus 25:44-46 


When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  -- Exodus 21:7-11

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Letusreason


"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?" 

- James Madison

Letusreason
Letusreason

Which God is properly cited by John 4 as shown above?

That's actually very specific.

Letusreason
Letusreason

So which God is properly cited by John 4 as stated above?

Its clear you think the founders were bigots, but their concept for a country has worked out pretty well.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Letusreason ... citing the Religious Calvinist extremist Webster is no more meaningful than citing the Bible itself.


Makes as much sense as a Muslim citing The Koran as proof that "their god" is the one and only.


But now that you've shown yourself to be ignorant enough to assert the laughably absurd "god" of the christian bible as your source of nonsense, your credibility shall be that of any other superstitious imbecile.







RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@Letusreason Riddle me this: Predestination or free will?  Predestination, as embraced by most Christians, renders faith meaningless.  If it has been predetermined by God who will attain salvation, there is on point to the ceremony and dogma of the church.  If we have free will to determine our own destiny, does that limit the scope and extent of God's omnipotence?

More to the point of the article: should we be estranging those who don't share our faith, or reaching out to them?  Does public condemnation of people based on behavioral differences or moral disagreement adhere to the teaching of Jesus?  Jesus himself said he came for the outcasts, not the righteous.  Jesus dined with prostitutes and was hanged with thieves.

These admittedly argumentative questions may seem circular and off point to you, but then again, so are you arguments trying to fit a secular legal system into a theological solution.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Letusreason ... so you're asserting a Calvinist Orthodox "god" as the one and only "True God", eh?


LOL!


Webster in early life was something of a freethinker, but in 1808 he became a convert to Calvinistic orthodoxy, and thereafter became a devout Congregationalist who preached the need to Christianize the nation.


Webster grew increasingly authoritarian and elitist, fighting against the prevailing grain of Jacksonian Democracy. Webster viewed language as a tool to control unruly thoughts. 


His American Dictionary emphasized the virtues of social control over human passions and individualism, submission to authority, and fear of God; they were necessary for the maintenance of the American social order. 


As he grew older, Webster's attitudes changed from those of an optimistic revolutionary in the 1780s to those of a pessimistic critic of man and society by the 1820s.


His 1828 American Dictionary contained the greatest number of Biblical definitions given in any reference volume. Webster considered education "useless without the Bible". 


Webster released his own edition of the Bible in 1833, called the Common Version. He used the King James Version(KJV) as a base and consulted the Hebrew and Greek along with various other versions and commentaries. 


Webster molded the KJV to correct grammar, replaced words that were no longer used, and did away with words and phrases that could be seen as offensive.


In 1834, he published an apologetic book in defense of The Bible and Christianity itself.

Letusreason
Letusreason

I don't find that argumentative at all and I think you are spot on. I reject predestination and I think that view is restricted to mostly Calvinist in large part. Regretably, I believe the Puritans had Calvinistic tendencies which have shaped Americas view of Christianity.

I also don't believe that free will limits God for I equate it to a parent who sees a small child put their hands on a glass of milk and knows they will spill it before they do. The parent didn't make that happen, but a parent who is wiser than a child sees things the child doesn't. Not sure if that analogy makes sense.

I believe we all struggle with our own issues and therefore can relate to another on that level. Augustine's "with due love for the person and hatred for the sin" is my view but that's becoming a cliche.

We need to be honest enough to say that what is wrong is wrong because we are all doing something that is wrong.

Letusreason
Letusreason

So let's address natural law first from the current "non-bigoted" Webster's dictionary.

"In jurisprudence and philosophy, a system of rights or justice common to all human kind and derived from nature rather than the rules of society, or positive law".

The founders took John Locke's version of "life, liberty and property" sound familiar?

Locke wrote a book titled "The Reasonableness of Christianity; As Delivered in the Scriptures"

Is this enough proof for you, or is John Locke also a bigot to be discredited?

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...