About those extremists . . .

Update: Consider how many people who identify as pro-choice agree with pro-life positions on specific topics, then consider how radical the Democrat’s platform is (unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortions at any time, including “partial-birth abortions”/infanticide).

Pro-choice views (Gallup, 2011)

–Make abortion illegal in the 3rd trimester – 79%

–Make abortion illegal in the 2nd trimester – 52%

–Ban “partial-birth abortion” – 63%

–Require parental consent for minors – 60%

–Require 24 waiting period – 60%

“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

The Democrats, and the media who advance their cause, are the real extremists.

—–

Many media types, politicians and false teachers reflexively use the “extremist” label against conservatives and say we’re being divisive.  Apparently that is easier than addressing the issues and arguments themselves, but it seems more like a concession speech to me.

Read CNN: making it illegal to kill girls for being girls is “divisive” for the latest example.  Let’s see: nearly four out of 5 people think gender-selection and partial-birth abortions should be illegal, but we’re the extremists?  It seems to me that killing a female human being for the sole reason that she is a female human being is pretty extreme — especially when those in favor of it being legal are accusing us of waging a war on women.  Being divisive is good when one of the options is so deadly.

Granted, some people are extremists and unnecessarily divisive, such as Democrat Fred Phelps*.

But those who hyperventilate about the “radical right” (or “extremists,” “fundie nutjobs,” “wacky fundies,” or other eloquent terms of endearment) are either disingenuous or really bad at math, because the majority of Americans share our views on the most controversial topics.  Consider this by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason:

A poll of readers of the L.A. Times once showed that, in the area of abortion, prayer, in school, homosexuality and traditional family values, the majority of Americans agree with so-called “extreme fundamentalists.” 70% of Americans believe that the traditional family structure is always best; 76% favor prayer in public schools; 55% are against legalized abortion; 61% think that homosexual relations are always wrong. These are the views of the “radical right,” but these are also the views of a majority of rank and file Americans.

Let that bolster your confidence, the next time you’re being marginalized for your conservative moral values. The “radical right” isn’t so radical. It’s actually mainstream.

If we’re so extreme, why have citizens in over 30 states voted to maintain the original meaning of marriage?  This issue has never lost at the ballot box.  If they think we’re so extreme, why don’t they just use their faux majority to elect legislators to legalize partial-birth abortion and such?  Then they wouldn’t need judges to ignore their duties and make up their own laws.

The “extremist” label is just a cheap way to attack the person and not the arguments, just like they do with the passive-aggressive “intolerant” label (Because whoever yells intolerant first must be the kind, tolerant one – right?).

I submit that if the media, entertainment and education establishments weren’t so outrageously biased the numbers would shift even further to the right.  For example, consider that 90% or more of the media are die-hard pro-choicers and they do everything in their power to spin stories in their favor.  Yet the population is still split pretty evenly on the topic and the pro-choice % is shrinking — and the more clearly survey questions are worded the more pro-life the results are.

The only way you can categorize majority views as the radical right is if you are perched comfortably on the radical left.

* Yes, Democrat Fred Phelps is a Democrat.  Did I mention that he’s a Democrat and not a Republican?  Because he is.  A Democrat.

Chuck Currie of Westar Institute breaks irony meter

False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie was correct in pointing out the wrongs of those protesting Mars Hill church in Portland, but he misses the irony. See via The Mars Hill Church Portland Protest UnChristian:

About 20 protesters lined Southeast Taylor Street carrying banners and shouting obscenities as church-goers left when the service ended.

That’s business as usual for the pro-gay groups.  Emboldened by false teachers like Chuck, gay domestic terrorist groups are getting violent.  They know that politicians and police fear doing anything in response because they’ll be called “homophobes” and possibly lose their jobs.  Many gay pride parades — and presumably those that Chuck took his 6 yr. old daughters to — exhibit behavior that should result in arrests, but police look the other way.

And that:

The protesters, some of whom wore kerchiefs to cover their faces, shouted profanities at adults and children.

There could not have been a more ugly and inappropriate display.

Mars Hills Church preaches a messed up and warped version of the Gospel, no question.

LOL at false teacher Chuck calling Mars Hill’s Gospel warped just because they believe, correctly, that homosexual behavior is a sin.  Remember, Chuck is the guy who says Jesus is not the only way to salvation (despite the 100+ verses that disagree with him), the Bible is hopelessly full of errors, that Jesus is pro-abortion, etc. — and we’re supposed to care about his definition of the “real” Gospel?  (He’s part of the non-Christian Westar Institute that represents the “Jesus Seminar.”)

A quote from the newspaper:

“Shame on you bigots,” one woman yelled at worshippers as they left. “Shame on you homophobes. You’re not welcome here. You’re going to burn in hell.”

Sounds like Fred Phelps to me!  I wonder if the woman is a Democrat like Fred and Chuck?

“Either of us could be wrong, so let’s call it a tie”

Twice this week I encountered commenters who ran out of arguments and resorted to claiming that either of us could be wrong.  The implication was that it made the discussion a toss-up and we should just end the debate – with them getting their way, of course.

Here’s one of them, in context of a discussion on Romans 1 and natural functions.

In context with the idol worship we see what comes next. I could be wrong, can you admit that you could be wrong?

My response:

You are wrong and should stop teaching falsely. Whether we could be wrong is irrelevant. I say people shouldn’t beat up gays. Could I be wrong? Maybe, but I don’t think I am. But using your “logic” I could be wrong so I shouldn’t debate the point. That is stupid logic.

Here’s the other example:

So, Neil, the Bible and the [Methodist] Book of Discipline are never wrong?

My response:

The “we might both be wrong, so let’s call it a tie” philosophy is silly. Fred Phelps could use the same approach but I hope that wouldn’t stifle anyone’s criticism of him.

The Bible is never wrong. It is capable of being misunderstood, but never wrong. It is remarkably clear on this topic, and the BoD [Methodist Book of Discipline] is in sync:

100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms. 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman. 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children). 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

Could I be wrong?  In a hyper-technical sense, of course I could be.  Hey, maybe this is all just an illusion and I didn’t really type this.  That isn’t supported by the evidence and we don’t live our lives that way, but there is always some extreme scenario where we could be mistaken.

But that isn’t what the other party is aiming at.  They think they are right, and are using this argument to avoid conceding a point where they know they are out of ammunition.

One of the most insidious ways the pro-gay lobby in the Methodist Church does this is to press for resolutions noting that we don’t have full agreement on the topic.  They make it sound innocent, as if we are just stating the obvious.  But of course they are trying to generate an official document that implies that there just isn’t enough biblical guidance on the topic to make an assessment.  Therefore, we should relax our standards.

The lesson here: Don’t let them get away with it.  Just point out how they obviously think they are right and have the burden of proof to back up their claims.

Roundup

Attention young people who campaigned and voted for Obama: Don’t look surprised when employers don’t want to hire you because you’re unemployed.

—

Hey, I thought no one would be impacted by oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” — Homosexual Activists Target Jim Walder, Illinois B & B Owner, for Denying ‘Civil Unions’ Ceremony.  This is a typical tactic for them: Target Christians to sue then scare others into falling in line.

—

From the flying pigs department: Hey, I sort of agreed with false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie on the topic of Democrat Fred Phelps:  U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor Of Westboro Baptist Church Right To Protest.  It was fun watching one false teacher attack another.

Phelps & Co. are awful, but restricting religious speech — even for those with teachings as false and despicable as Phelps and Currie — is dangerous and unconstitutional.

Chuck forgot to mention that Phelps is a Democrat, though.  Would have have missed that little point if Phelps was a Republican?

—

Hey, I thought the homosexual rights leading to pedophile rights argument was supposed to be a slippery slope fallacy?  Apparently not.

Sadly, this isn’t too surprising when homosexuality is deemed moral because it’s natural.

“Pedophilia is another “sexual orientation,” comparable to heterosexuality or homosexuality, according to expert testimony recently presented to the Canadian Parliament.” (http://online.worldmag.com/2011/03/04/pedophilia-as-a-sexual-orientation/)

It does demonstrate that the logical slippery slope argument that other sexual orientations will be reconsidered morally is not a fallacy, but true. When an argument supporting homosexuality is accepted, it can’t artificially be withdrawn when it makes logical sense to apply it elsewhere.

I found the pro-homosexuality arguments to more like cliffs than slippery slopes. Once you buy their fallacious reasoning you’ve gone off the cliff. On the way down you realize the other creepy things you’ve justified.

—

Yea!  Former Planned Parenthood Golden Gate affiliate closing all 5 clinics in Bay Area – Hey, maybe if they hadn’t spent 750k fighting parental notification bills they could have stayed open.  BTW, anyone who thinks parents shouldn’t know when their kids are going have a physically and psychologically dangerous operation to kill their grandkids needs a moral compass tune-up.  I knew one person who opposed parental notification because the kids might get hurt by the parents, but that logic would lead schools to never send report cards home, among other things.

—

Hey, I thought no one would be impacted by oxymoronic “same-sex marriage,” Part II: Homosexual and bisexual indoctrination in elementary school. I think I showed this a couple years back.  It is a good item to save for those claiming the LGBTQ lobby isn’t trying to indoctrinate kids as young as kindergarten.  This is so repulsive.  One of the underlying fallacies is that you have to do things like this to stop bullying.  But of course you can stop bullying without affirming destructive behaviors in those being bullied.  The guy giving the “hiding my shin” soccer example and pretending that sexual preferences are like physical body parts was ridiculous.

Technorati Tags: Religion,Christianity,politics,pro-life

Roundup

Ben Witherington III on the virgin birth / conception – it has huge theological implications

The reason Jesus’ death was sufficient to atone for the sins of the world, is because his was a perfect self-sacrifice, an unblemished sacrifice. And in the Jewish schema of things, in the Biblical scheme of things, this was exactly what was necessary, and all that was necessary to atone for sins. So way back at the beginning, the Son of God came into the world by means of virginal conception, by passing our fallen human nature passed from one generation to the next by normal human intercourse.

Also see The Virgin Birth – it still matters, a piece I did a couple of years back.

Interestingly, theologically liberal Christians typically deny the virgin birth and even seem embarrassed by it (as if the creator of the universe couldn’t do such a thing!), yet cults like Mormonism and false religions like Islam do believe it is true.

—

Do unemployment benefits encourage people to avoid working? – of course they discourage some people from seeking jobs.  I’m very sympathetic to people being unemployed, but unlimited unemployment benefits will send the wrong message and harm the economy further.

—

Fred Phelps, Democrat – yep.  The Westboro “Baptist” pastor ran as a Democrat several times, among other things.  Be sure to note that when you refer to him.  As one commenter noted:

. . . if this Phelps [“character”] had even voted republican ONCE for local dog catcher it would be the lead story for NYT, WP, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, et al. The headline would read: REPUBLICANS SPREAD HATEFILLED MESSAGE WHILE PICKETING ELIZABETH EDWARDS FUNERAL.

—

Ethanol Subsidies Show Why Washington Is Broken – even Al Gore knows these are not only ineffective but counterproductive, yet we keep wasting billions of dollars on them.  Billions!

—

Coming soon to a country near you: Belgian archbishop targeted by gay activists over AIDS remarks – Even though the CDC reports that the risk is nearly 50 times higher for gays, the archbishop is accused of being a “homophobe” for stating the obvious.

—

Edgar’s book review on “Why Evolution is True” – good stuff (the review, not the book).

Evolutionary Theory is Lacking
Having read Coyne’s Evolution, I’m still not persuaded naturalism (i.e. Darwinism) is true. If anything, Darwinism as defined by Coyne might be a way of trying to explain how diversity (common ancestry) evolved on planet earth. That is, how we went from a single living cell to a full grown man.

We’re still missing lots of details. Consider these four points:

• Origin: How did we get to the 1st living cell? From inOrganic to Organic?)
• Morality On page 230 – Coyne, speaking of humanity says, “The world still teems with selfishness, immorality, and injustice), but in a Darwinian world absolute moral values do not exist. If what he says is true, there most be an absolute moral code giver.
• Meaning Why me? Why now? Think: How do we counsel a young victim of rape? should we lie to the child? or should we tell the truth? Well that’s how nature works. Sorry. NEXT.
• Destiny Where did we get this idea that we’re going to die (self-awareness)? And why do we care that we die anyway? why is life preferred over non-existence?

—

Ten Things You Need To Know About ‘DREAM Act’ S.3827

—

Kinda convicting – Why are Christians so reluctant to share the life saving and life changing truth of the Gospel?

—

 

Technorati Tags: Religion,Christianity,politics,pro-life

Roundup

A Pakistani Christian needs your help

Her crime? The court claims she committed blasphemy against her fellow farm workers while defending her belief in Christ. She spoke firmly of how Jesus had died on the cross for the sins of mankind and asked the Muslim women what Muhammad had done for them.

She was pressured but refused to renounce her Christian faith and accept Islam. So they locked her in a room and violently abused her. Next, they announced from the mosque that her face would be blackened an paraded through the village on a donkey.

For protection against this act of violence, she was taken into custody. Officials eventually caved to the demands of Muslim leaders and Asia was unjustly charged with blasphemy and ultimately sentenced to death.

Please sign this petition to have her freed

—

A Christ-centered Marriage Is Christ-centered Parenting

What is our marriage telling them about Christ and his bride? They see it all. They hear our fights. They absorb our attitudes. They know who or what really sits on the throne of our lives. They watch how we handle resentment. They hear the way we talk to each other. They know when we hear the Sunday sermon and apply it. They also know when we ignore it.

The message that our marriage preaches either repels or attracts our children. God wants your child to watch your marriage and think, “I want a marriage like that, and I want the God that produced it.” Or, “When I think of the beauty of the gospel, I think of my parents’ marriage. I want to be part of a church that is loved by God the way my dad loves my mother. I want to be part of a church that finds its joy in submitting to Christ as my mother joyfully submits to my father.”

—

The Questions Christians Hope No One Will Ask: by Mark Mittelberg – FREE Kindle Book

—

More Switches Than the Internet

“One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor—with both memory-storage and information-processing elements—than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.”

Evolutionists are certain, however, that all of this—and all the rest of biology by the way—just happened to arise on its own. They can’t explain how, but they’re absolutely certain it is a fact. After all, any other explanation is not scientific and in any case chimpanzees and humans have way too much in common. Anyway the world is too evil and god never would have made all those beetles, so evolution must be true. With evolutionists, it’s all about philosophy and theology. Religion drives science and it matters.

—

Will the government allow the Westboro hate brigade and Fred Phelps to protest the misunderstood CAIR Bears of Islam? – Here’s hoping they both lose.  Phelps just parades as a religious type to bait people into lawsuits.  They could sell tickets to this one.

—

SCARY: Jay Rockefeller openly talks of government yanking FOX off the air…what would happen then?

I don’t know what to say here.  We are really in uncharted territory now.

Democrats keep OPENLY talking about doing all sorts of things that are so damn blatantly un-American.

Taking FOX News, a business, off the air?

How is that the purview of the government?

Here’s my gut feeling: the next five to ten years are going to be ROUGH. The Left is pushing so hard now for a reason…and that is because this seems to be their last chance ever.

The welfare states of Europe have failed. We’re broke. There is no money to keep paying entitlement programs and supporting the unions. The Democrat Party is on the verge of collapse. They know it. So they are going to push as much madness as possible while they still can.

—

A couple links from Jill Stanek

Ramesh Ponnuru responds to William Saletan’s advice for the pro-life movement:… Saletan says that if pro-lifers “were to embrace contraception and give it moral sanction,” it would reduce abortion more than any anti-abortion law. I’m highly skeptical. Are people really having sex without contraception because pro-lifers have refrained from proselytizing in favor of contraception?

Come on, Ramesh. Everybody knows that National Right to Life’s lack of a position paper on contraception must be the main cause of unmarried women using birth control sporadically and improperly.

And the latest on the pro-aborts attempts to use the government to eliminate their competition, crisis pregnancy centers (you know, the groups that offer free services to women in need but aren’t interested in killing their unborn children).

Pro-lifers testified yesterday against a measure to regulate pro-life pregnancy centers at a NYC Council committee meeting:Council Member Daniel Halloran raised questions about the city government telling a group that it must disclose what it doesn’t provide, suggesting that Planned Parenthood should change its name to indicate that it also plans for nonparenthood.“I am very concerned that if the government can step in here it can step in other places and do exactly the same thing,” he said.

—

Go see this sweet, sweet 30 seconds of video where Ann Coulter puts Joy Behar in her place — Domestic Divapalooza: Behar VS. Coulter

The money quotes:

Behar: I want to know if you want to be water-boarded.

Coulter: Do you want to be aborted?  Cause I think you support abortion.

I dedicate that clip to false teachers like Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis and Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie and other pro-abortionists like them.

They wring their hands about the water-boarding of a handful of terrorists (oh, the humanity!) while approving taxpayer funding of this.

—

By any means necessary — An important graph to remember when people claim how Sarah Palin brought down the 2008 ticket.  She was the reason an otherwise poor candidate even had a chance and temporarily went into the lead.  It was only when the Left realized how powerful she would be that they set out to destroy her, with a literal 18-to-1 bias on the big 3 and MSNBC.

—

First conviction unlikely to help Obama shut Gitmo – must be a typo, because he was going to do that first thing.  Unless he made an empty promise and had no idea what he was talking about at the time . . . naw, the American people wouldn’t stand for that.

 

 

Technorati Tags: Religion,Christianity,politics,pro-life