Ben Carson Apologizes If Homosexuals Were Offended?

Breanna Edwards, writing on about Ben Carson's statements, quotes him:

My thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn't matter what they are, they don't get to change the definition.

If anyone was offended, I apologize to you.

via Ben Carson: 'I apologize' for gay remark - Breanna Edwards -

Why did he apologize for offending people who relished twisting his point? His statement was perfectly correct:

My thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn't matter what they are, they don't get to change the definition.

Of course, under the secular law, they are changing the definition in many places. What they don't get to change is the real meaning, the divine meaning, the enlightened meaning, just the way they haven't changed the real meaning of the word "gay," which as the homosexuals use it, is a deliberate euphemism to stop people, and especially the youth, from thinking about and realizing the inherent error that is males sodomizing each other. It also doesn't matter if lesbians don't do that particular act or that some male homosexuals don't do it. It remains a fact that if males sodomizing each other were to be seen for what it is, then the false luster on homosexuality would be as rightly tarnished as it is, which is mighty, mighty tarnished, mighty, mighty dark — utter darkness.

The poor children have been, and are still being, hugely duped and will suffer for it.

I look forward to the time when the lies of the homosexuals, which are legion, are no longer accepted as truth. That day will come!

In the meantime, people who tell the truth should stop apologizing to the ones who are offended by it. The truth-haters are the offensive ones, and it is truth that homosexuality is a mental, physical, and spiritual illness. It is fundamental error, regardless of genetics or epigenetics or anything else.

What the homosexuals are doing is taking license to do what is clearly wrong, what is anti-real love, what is physical lust and mental confusion, and calling it liberty and freedom. Well, are they truly free in damnation?

I say they are the ultimate slaves and receive the reward, the consequences, the long pain and suffering they bring upon themselves by turning from truth, from God, as God is truth, ultimate truth.

They are advocating amorality, hedonism, anarchy, so-called libertarianism, and not good government, self- or otherwise.

God bless Jesus Christ. May God finally bless all with the whole truth. Then, and only then, will we be as free as free can be.


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.