The following is a comment reply/post. See the original post, "SODOM NATION: SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, U.S." Scroll down to see opit's (John's) comment.
John, as you know from reading many of my posts, I'm not for the current system. I'm against coercion, and the current system is based upon coercion. I understand where that came from. I understand the motivation. It's not the solution though. It never has been.
Only everyone freely choosing righteousness is the solution, and homosexuality isn't righteous. It's harmful and a behavioral choice.
What they are doing is trying to get people to believe that homosexuality isn't harmful. That's a lie, as you read in, "Homosexuals: What they ignore."
Look, many things are mundanely legal that are harmful. Cigarette smoking is harmful, but it's mundanely legal, albeit under more and more restrictions to protect others from second-hand smoke. Well, the homosexuals don't want any restrictions, so they're trying to pull a fast one by getting everyone to falsely believe that there is no harm in homosexual behavior.
I don't smoke. I don't like second-hand smoke. Society has passed coercive measures against second-hand smoke.
Rather than coercive measures being taken against others, the right way though is for every smoker to quit. Barring that, the next best thing is for them to do their best not to subject others to their smoke.
The best way to achieve a non-coercive outcome with smokers is via education, assistance, and understanding just how addictive nicotine is.
Educating the selfish purveyors of nicotine of course is essential. They need an ever-increasing guilty conscience until they stop.
The last thing we need though are laws restricting people from speaking the truth about the dangers of nicotine and all the other dangerous and harmful compounds in tobacco smoke and juice, etc. The same hold for homosexuality.
There are many attempts being made to outlaw saying homosexuality is harmful and disease causing and spreading and is itself a pathogenic state or condition. Such truth might harm someone's self-esteem is the rationale. What it means is that the truth might seer some consciences.
If someone hears the truth about his or her harmful behavior and goes on doing it anyway, he or she will suffer. As a Christian though, I am obligated to sound the warning but not judge, condemn, or punish. I can't resort to violence or threats of violence; otherwise, I'm defeating the whole movement toward the right emotional state that will result in the Earth and Heaven of which Jesus spoke.
Of course I'm discriminating in my own soul, but the question is am I being unjust? I know that continuing harmful behavior under the guise of it not being harmful is the injustice. It is unjust to teach children that no harm will come to them if they choose to be homosexuals.
I say this, and the homosexuals want me silenced by force of arms under the law of hate-speech. Well, I say the speech that homosexuality is harmless and that there is nothing wrong with it is hate-speech. I say they hate that which is good and right. They hate what tells them to live up to a higher standard of harmlessness. They hate what will help protect children from making a bad choice.
Understand that this issue is ripping the Episcopal Church in half too. The homosexuals are perverting whole bodies with lies.
Jesus is the truth. He isn't for building anything based upon falsehoods. Homosexuality as harmless is falsehood. Nothing should be built upon that falsehood. Anything that attempts it will come crashing down doing plenty of harm on its way.
It's a choice people must make.
The Church has no openly unrepentant homosexuals. Any body that accepts openly unrepentant homosexuals as being equally worthy is not the Church. It is something else. It isn't Christian.
The mundane secular state that has continued to reject the real message of Jesus will come crashing down.
I say that we are to speak the truth about harm and then let it be. That's what I've done. I've pointed out the facts about the harm of homosexual behavior while at the same time promoted not using force to prevent it but rather just letting the homosexuals sort themselves out by whether or not they accept or reject the truth about the harmfulness of homosexuality.
The only place recorded that Jesus used coercion was in cleansing the temple. That's hugely significant. If we follow along in the development of the concept of the temple (from the word coming to Moses right on through to Jesus being the temple and what he said the temple would end up being — encompassing), we then see the temple changing in the minds of people. It starts out designed for people with low comprehension (the Mosaic law was the maximum their hard hearts could handle and then some) and ends up for people with comprehension extending far beyond the so-called intellectuals of today.
Jesus cleans the temple of selfishness in all its forms. He said the temple (place of worship) would no longer be confined to that temple building (that was leveled) or even Jerusalem. It would be wherever believers are in body but also in mind and spirit right along with the spirit of God as one.
What I'm saying is that the coercive democracy is working toward enforcing homosexuality, actually threatening with violence and punishment those who reject homosexuality as being on an equal footing with heterosexuality based upon homosexuality not being harmful.
It's all garbage, just as the reasons Bush gave for invading Baghdad and just as the reasons the false-Zionists gave in rationalizing their violent takeover of Palestine were all garbage.
Those false-Zionists too want what I say about the truth of their lies to be outlawed as hate-speech. Bush and his hardline neocons also want what I say about the truth of the cover-up of 9/11 and the rest of their lies to be outlawed and punished under sedition laws.
I believe that some things ought not to be spoken as they cause temptation. I also believe that once evil is loose in the land, only truth can put it back in Pandora's Box. Only truth can protect the innocent children from the predators and evil twisters.
Let them crucify me for it. I'll be in the best of company. If there's anything worth dying for, it's truth, because then I'll live. I believe that with all my heart. It isn't worth living and dying for lies, because then I'll really be dead.
God bless everyone with the truth.
What do you think? Enter a comment below.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)