Democrat Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist “Church” is still a Democrat

I love pointing out that Democrat Fred Phelps is a Democrat. The typical reaction from those on the Left is denial and disbelief. They just know that he must be a Republican, even though there is a good reason that the media never mentions his party affiliation.  After all, why would the Leftist media leave out such a key fact as his political affiliation (he actually ran for office) while they are trying to paint him as a right-winger? Oh, wait, I answered my own question.

Of course I’m not trying to imply that all Democrats are like Fred. I’m pointing to just another example of media bias and how they leave out key facts to distort the truth.

I encourage others to point out his official party affiliation every time that he or his Westboro Baptist “church” are mentioned.

Don’t just take my word for it or even that of (eek!) Wikipedia.  Go here and search for yourself — https://myvoteinfo.voteks.org/VoterView/RegistrantSearch.do .

fred phelps

If you trust the mainstream media you are not using wisdom and discernment.

Hat tip for the link to the voter registration site: Sifting Reality

 

NALT (“Not All Like That”) Christians = Not Christians

John Shore is a false teacher who has started a group perpetuating the false dichotomy that everyone claiming the name of Christ is in one of the following categories:

  1. Aligned with their pro-gay theology, where homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, etc. are gifts from God and it is sinful to say otherwise.
  2. Someone like Democrat Fred “God hates fags” Phelps and his Westboro “church”

That is transparently ridiculous, of course.  There are countless Christians who believe the Bible and agree with God’s views yet can still reach out to gays with truth and love.  The message is simple: We don’t have to make people straight before sharing the Good News with them.  You can tell them that even if homosexual behavior wasn’t a sin they would all have plenty of other sins for which they need forgiveness, just like straight people.  But if you really love them then you won’t lie about God’s truths and you won’t affirm them in physically, emotionally and spiritually destructive behavior.

Here is more about the NALT group:

(Notalllikethat.org) – The purpose of the NALT Christians Project is to give LGBT-affirming Christians a means of proclaiming to the world—and especially to young gay people—their belief and conviction that there is nothing anti-biblical or at all inherently sinful about being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.

It is a train wreck of bad theology, and to make things worse they “especially” target to young people.  Something about millstones comes to mind.

The Bible couldn’t be more clear.  Bible-believing Christians and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people* (religious or not) can see these truths:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe 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).planned
  • 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 of any kind.

The more you read about this group the creepier it gets.  When John Shore plugs himself on Amazon, his top three quotes reveal what he is all about.

One is from Rob Bell, a false teacher.  I can see why Shore would use him given Bell’s popularity, but Bell is still awful.

Then there is Shelby Spong, the fake Christian who always wears a clerical collar so people don’t confuse him with the head of the National Atheist Association.  That’s how anti-biblical he is.

But the first reference Shore uses in every site I’ve seen is from Dan Savage, an on-the-record Christ-hating atheist bully, the guy who coined the phrase “Santorum” to describe a disgusting by-product of gay sex**.

Dan Savage (“Savage Love”; It Gets Better) calls John Shore “America’s preeminent non-douchey Christian.” Rob Bell (“Love Wins”) has declared Mr. Shore “awesome,” and “a brilliant writer.” “John Shore is a gadfly,” wrote famed theologian John Shelby Spong, “calling the Christian Church everywhere to act the way it says it believes about love and justice, which of course makes him an uncomfortable presence in those churches that do not like to be forced to face reality. So were the prophets of old. So was Jesus of Nazareth.”

If Dan Savage likes your theology then something has gone horribly, horribly wrong.  That would be something to be ashamed of, not to be used as your top reference.

Not surprisingly, Spong compared Shore to the prophets and Jesus.  But Jesus and the prophets were wildly unpopular with the world, while Shore is loved by the world and those who hate God and his word.

I can’t think of a single person who pushes pro-gay theology that isn’t off the rails on the essentials of the faith.  Peel back the layers and you’ll find that if they are pro-gay then they deny most or all of the following: Jesus’ divinity, Jesus’ exclusivity for salvation, the authority of scripture, etc.  They pretend to like the Bible while undermining it at every turn.

My favorite tactic with them is to point out how the Bible teaches over 100 times that Jesus is the only way to salvation, so of course it is a view that every Christian must hold.  Then I ask if they agree with it.  Of course, they don’t.  That helps expose them for what they are.

You can comment on Shore’s NALT project here.  Here is another good response to these frauds.  

Run, don’t walk, from people who claim to follow Jesus yet talk like Shore, Bell and Spong. It is beyond parody that a Christian would consider an endorsement from Dan Savage to be a good thing.  The only thing worse would be an endorsement from Satan himself. 

Update: Here’s more about Dan Savage.

Meet Dan Savage. Liberals love him. He wants Sarah Palin to get cancer. He’s an openly gay anti-bullying activist and founder of the “It Gets Better Campaign,” which focuses on “giving hope to LGBT youth.” He’s made a lot of money by teaching college students around the country how to do things with their mouths (I’ll leave it at that). He’s an icon in liberal media circles. Dan Savage, ladies and gentlemen, thinks abortion should be mandatory for the next 30 years in order to control the human population.
—–

* The three general types of pro-gay theology people: 1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it isn’t the word of God” (obviously non-Christians) 2. “The Bible says it is wrong but God changed his mind and is only telling theological Liberals” (only about 10 things wrong with that) 3. “The Bible is the word of God but you are just misunderstanding it” (Uh, no, not really.)

** In a spectacular irony, Savage infamously led to the coining of the term “Santorum” to describe the disgusting byproducts of a gay sex act: “the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex.”

He was trying to get back at former Senator Santorum for labeling homosexual acts as sinful, but Savage didn’t realize the net result of his name-calling.  After all, it is Savage’s disgusting byproduct that is the problem. Assigning someone else’s name to your filthy output doesn’t demean them, it demeans you.  What self-mockery!

Roundup

From Robert Gagnon on Facebook.  Yep, we were right all along, but too many people believed the easy lies and said it wasn’t the case.

From Robert P. George: ‘Some marriage revisionists think it’s now politically safe to tell the truth.

‘Confident that they have now secured their victory in both law and public opinion, marriage revisionists are increasingly willing to admit that key arguments made by their opponents–arguments they were themselves until recently ridiculing and even denouncing as “scare mongering”–were right all along. Evidently, they think that honesty and candor about the logical implications and future legal consequences of redefining marriage are now politically safe. The latest example is Kent Greenfield, a Boston College law professor and supporter of marriage revisionism, writing in no less mainstream and respected a journal of left-liberal opinion than The American Prospect. Here are his opening sentences: “It’s been a few weeks since the victories in the marriage cases at the Supreme Court, and maybe it’s time for the political left to own up to something. You know those opponents of marriage equality who said government approval of same-sex marriage might erode bans on polygamous and incestuous marriages? They’re right.”

Read the entire article here: www.prospect.org/article/slippery-slope-polygamy-and-incest.

“Same-sex marriage” isn’t really about equality, it is about an attempt to destroy Christianity.  “Oh, no, that won’t happen, they won’t tell you what you must preach and they won’t make you sanction these unions.”  All lies, just like the lies noted above.

The attempt to eradicate Christianity will fail, but we didn’t have to let it get to this stage.  Shame on all the wimpy Christians who refused to out the fakes who support “same-sex marriage.”

Why The Mainstream Media Doesn’t Give A Damn About Black Kids — good analysis.  Here’s what you should ask Leftists every chance you get: If you oppose the rich, the males and the racist, why not go after those who blindly support the rich, white abortionists* who kill black babies at a rate three times that of whites and who will kill them at an even higher ratio when the Democrats fulfill their platform of taxpayer-funded abortions?

*Yes, I know that while most abortionists are white males there are a few black abortionists like Kermit Gosnell. I’d be happy to talk about Gosnell and how the media covered up his trial and spent literally hundreds of times more effort on Zimmerman’s trial.

Is the root cause of crime poverty or fatherlessness? — Poverty does not cause crime.  Fatherlessness causes poverty and crime.

There was almost zero coverage of the trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell (literally zero at many sites like MSNBC, the LA Times, etc.).  There was massive coverage of the George Zimmerman case, which only went to trial because of pressure by the the Department of Justice and political opportunism.  How about the trial of Nidal Hasan, the Muslim who killed lots of non-Muslims on a military base?  Yep, you guessed it: Almost no coverage at all.

If you only get your news from the mainstream media you are part of the problem.  Then again, you are probably not reading this blog, either.  So I guess I wrote this paragraph to no one.

Here’s the best summary I’ve seen: Trayvon mythology and anti-civilization

Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children Kicked Off Facebook — Conservatives beware: Don’t trust Facebook.  Your pages will get dumped for vague and/or baseless reasons while multiple sites called “George Zimmerman must die” are allowed to exist.

10 THINGS THE MEDIA AREN’T TELLING YOU ABOUT THE ZIMMERMAN CASE

All gun control advocates should be forced to watch this: The Store Owner Who Killed 5 Gang Members.  They think that the owner should be disarmed.

Hat tip: The Way the Ball Bounces

Are You Raising Your Child to Be a Hero Like Temar Boggs?  Too bad the Left is worshiping Trayvon and not Temar.

The Story: Last week a teenager in Pennsylvania saved a 5-year-old girl from abduction by chasing down a child predator.

10 signs that the global warming scare is all hot air

Free ObamaPhones for Illegal Aliens — Yep.  It is easy to do.

A good analysis of Democrat Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church cult.

Let it be known: Westboro Baptist Church is a little fraud that casts a long shadow. So speak bravely, Christian.

About those extremists . . .

no-right.jpg

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 PhelpsU.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.