Is The Anschutz Corporation, Denver, Colorado, via its media subsidiary or affiliate, Clarity Digital Group, LLC (DBA: Examiner.com), publicly censoring me solely for my clearly articulated and supported Christian beliefs? It sure feels that way.
Well, Matt Begley, you didn't disappoint me that you claim you are not a homosexual. You just sound exactly like the most rabid of the homosexual-fascist activists.
You are lacking in your education concerning libel and free speech. You supplied no evidence for your claim that Scott has conspired to commit mass murder, an extremely serious allegation on your part. Scott has, in fact, explained on his website and in articles elsewhere on the Internet that he did not encourage the death penalty for homosexuality. If you can show me where he's lied about that, then I'll take a different look at him.
Your personal anecdotal evidence concerning homosexuality doesn't make it a wholesome endeavor. It doesn't make it free of the slippery-slope problem. You say they are being harmless, but that's because you take a shallow look. Homosexuality is fraught with grave risks, and it is a sin to mislead whole generations of youth into thinking otherwise. HIV is epidemic with male-on-male sex in the youth of the US despite all the sex education and "safe sex" talk. There's something clearly inherent within the homosexual mind that is causing the behavior. That's only the tip of the iceberg too.
"...it is a fact that those who are extremely outspoken against gays, especially to the point of crusading, most often turn out to be projecting upon others, the hatred they feel fo r themse lves." Well, even right there you admitted that you don't have any proof. You concluded emphatically that Scott is a closet homosexual while then stating that you believe "most" turn out to be (some don't, according to you), which is still unscientific. Regardless, it would be irrelevant.
You have a very flawed grasp of Christian theology. It's beyond the scope of a sole comment to set you straight on it all, but your entire approach claims enlightenment without consequences for errors. However, I know you know there are consequences. Therefore, you're openly confused, which helps explain your venomous defense of homosexuality: men sodomizing each other as a perfectly wholesome activity. Don't go into how not all homosexuals are males and not all male homosexuals sodomize each other. The exceptions among males are rare enough to make the rule.
"You and your ilk, such as lively, would deprive your fellow citizens of their rights, thus you are a traitor." Well, I took you for a homosexual. You've taken me for one outlawing homosexual behavior via the secular law. I haven't done that. I have simply said that homosexuality is a fundamental error and that people should not engage in it. It is true though that I subscribe to the definition of marriage as set down by Jesus Christ, who is vastly more reasonable, logical, empathetic, and just than are you.
Furthermore, the "rights" you ascribe to homosexuals are still being debated. Do pedophiles have rights? Many of them are clamoring for them. With the current political trajectory, how long will it be before there's someone like you arguing against someone like me concerning pedophilia? If you don't know that there is a huge hedonistic/anarchistic flow just below the surface of the homosexual movement, you're pretty ignorant and gullible/naive.
"If you wish to live in a theocratic world, join the Taliban." No, if I wish a Theocracy, which I do, I'll remain a Christian. If you wish to lock up theocrats, I hardly believe you'd fit in with the Founding Fathers. Besides, I'm not trying to get the secular state to morph into a theocracy. I'm only calling people to stop, turn, repent, and be healed, including of homosexuality, which is a mental, physical, and spiritual illness: error, confusion.
For a self-supposed rational thinker, you're not too bright concerning knowledge. You have no more proof that Socrates lived than I can supply you that Jesus lived, yet you likely believe and trust that Socrates lived and did most if not all of what has been attributed to him. You should study epistemology. Perhaps then you wouldn't be so arrogant.
I can also see that you've swallowed the Theosophical Kool-Aid (have you been watching too many Zeitgeist movies?), likely without knowing it since you're so anti-spirituality in general. If you bother to study the matter, you will discover that you have it backwards. The Christian religion came first. Then came the twisted pagan versions which don't conform with the real versions of the various pagan religions to which the stories have been attributed all in a stupid effort to sway people such as you into falsely thinking exactly what you alleged here. Chris White has done a great job debunking the false narrative you've swallowed.
If you want to believe that Jesus performed no miracles, that's up to you. If you choose to think that the Gospels were made up out of whole cloth to deceive, even though they are so opposed to lying and deception, again, that's up to you. To say that people should be locked up to undergo psychological evaluation because they do believe, well, that's just evil. That's you. You're not for freedom of religion. How's that for being a traitor to the US Constitution? You should spend more time looking in the mirror than attacking Scott.
On October 6, 2013, I resubmitted the comment changing only the following:
...men having anal intercourse with each other as a perfectly wholesome activity. Don't go into how not all homosexuals are males and not all male homosexuals have anal sex with each other.
I did that, because I thought perhaps they set up their commenting system to filter for "sodom" and various iterations thereof. Nevertheless, my second attempted comment also went to moderation, which means to me that they've possibly changed their system so that all comments now go to moderation or they've singled me out.
I've been through this censoring thing on various sites so many times I can't recall. I'm not opposed to censorship. I censor, for instance, when other parties refuse to confront each issue specifically, even when asked to do so, or they appear to be resorting to spam- or troll-type comments. Troll-type commentary is most common.
My comment above meets nothing remotely meriting censorship that I can see. Most of the pro-homosexuality sites that censor me do so simply because the pro-homosexuality side there doesn't even come close to defeating the Christian arguments I put forth all within context. They don't want others seeing that. It's basic dishonesty. They do it to deceive.
Lest you think this happens only concerning homosexuality, I've been censored on many websites, large and small, famous and obscure, for being anti-war, anti-greed, anti-Zionist, and pro-Jesus Christ.
Update: October 9, 2013:
Well, I checked again, and my comment still hadn't been allowed. So, I simply posted a link to this post and tweeted, etc., that comment. "Censored for simply defending Christianity?" http://disq.us/8fjnaq
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)