As an Anti-Christ, Anti-Progressive, Dan Savage Blames Christianity: CNN/YouTube - Dan Savage - Gays [misnomer] Most Targeted Minority

All things being equal, if I call people banksters (which I do) and someone else beats up a bankster, that's not my fault. Someone beating up a bankster is not a consequence of my calling someone a bankster.

If Christians say that homosexual "marriage" is undermining the institution of procreative, heterosexual marriage as the central institution of humanity and the only legitimate form deserving of the label marriage because it is extremely important for a whole host of reasons but someone else beats up or bullies a homosexual, it is not the Christians' fault and the beating and/or bullying is not a direct consequence of the Christians' open observations.

Do you know how many issues can be framed in this way? If you don't like it that BP leaked oil into the Gulf of Mexico and you call them an environmental disaster but someone else blows up BP's headquarters, how is that your fault? It isn't, not unless you pushed for that.

There are people who hate banksterism who will do violence on banksters. There are people who call themselves Christians who will do violence on homosexuals just because they are homosexuals. Those aren't Christians. There are environmentalists who will do violence against extreme polluters. This is mostly assuming they can "get away with it."

There are though homosexuals who have called for the physical persecution of Christians who speak against homosexuality. I've been on the receiving end of that hatred and even homosexual fascism, but I'm not going to say that every homosexual is at fault for it. That would be stupid, just the way this video is stupid and anyone who agrees with it.

If the point of the video is to say that there is a slippery slope and that Christians should qualify their statements with calls for anti-violence, I will agree with that approach. However, that is not what the video is doing. The video is claiming that homosex is fine, as being Black is fine, as being a female is fine, being an ethnic Jew, etc. Being Black or female or born of "Jewish" parents is not a behavioral choice in this world, or at least it hasn't been. (You know there are mad scientists who have "ideas.")

Look, I have three main fundamental issues with the "homosexual community" as they've deemed themselves:

1) I do not agree that homosexuality is ever harmless. I know it is a harmful error. It is a mistake and regardless of whether or not it's genetic in the way that so many homosexuals and others claim that it is. There are plenty of genetic mistakes. I've written extensively on the subject, as have others. You can search on it on this site and elsewhere.

2) I do not agree that homosexuality is not a behavioral choice. One can define homosexuality in ways that say that it is more than outward behavior, but the outward behavior remains a choice. However, I also know that the Holy Spirit can change souls on the inside in terms of what attracts them and what turns them off and everything in between. I know that there is no limit as to the power of the Holy Spirit. I also know that disbelief has retarded and is retarding humanity and that I will be vindicated in saying this.

3) Jesus did not condone homosexuality nor was he a homosexual. This is a theological issue for scriptural interpretation, but it is absolute garbage the idea that Jesus condoned it or was it. People such as Elton John don't know what they are talking about. They spread total lies about Jesus. Homosexuality was, and remains, completely inconsistent with the wholesomeness of which Jesus spoke. It would be totally inconsistent for Jesus to have condemned a near laundry list of sexual behaviors while turning a blind eye to homosexuality. He did not though call down the wrath upon homosexuals or anyone else. He did though clearly warn people concerning all manner of offense in God's eyes.

I have shot down with clear references to scripture and logic every homosexual argument put forth to the contrary that I have ever encountered, and I've had plenty of homosexuals attacking me on this blog and on other sites and at length. Their theological claims never stand up to close scrutiny and logic.

You may rail against these statements of mine, but you will do so thoughtlessly.

I am not a coercive democrat. The real law, which is the law of God, is against homosexuality, just as it is against greed and violence and so many other selfish things. How to be consistent in this knowledge is the task of the real Christian.

If you think that Jesus accepted everyone the way he or she was, then tell me what he was doing when he was shaking the dust from his feet?

This Dan Savage uses the word hate over and over, but does he not hate? What will he do or say when homosexuals gang up on others and beat them for being anti-homosexuality? Has it not happened yet?

Is it to become a crime to hate homosexuality? If so, I will be an outlaw; but considering the general lawlessness of the United States, what difference will that make in the vast configuration of things? I will shake the dust from my feet, that's what.

By the way, there's nothing "progressive" about censoring free-religious exercise, which includes proselytizing for one's religion, including Christianity. This Dan Savage is not more "progressive" in the sense he's using the term than was President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who called freedom of religion one of the Four Freedoms.

"The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way, everywhere in the world." That's what the most "progressive" President in American history said.

Dan Savage wants to use the power of the coercive state to censor people from being able to worship God in their own way. He believes that his homosexuality trumps anyone's right to repeat Jesus's words and to explain them and why in Christianity, homosexuality is known for the error it is.

Well, Dan, if you want a hot war, keep it up. There are people who will re-fight the American Revolutionary War to reestablish their right to quote Jesus and to explain what they believe Jesus's words mean. If the homosexual community wants that fight {I know many, even most, in there do, based upon the drive to take over the U.S. military and to destroy Islam if lying about it (falsely moderating it) doesn't work}, you'll both be wrong.


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)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.