Now That You’re A Political Figure, Pastor Dennis, Let’s Have A Debate

I see that Pastor Jay Dennis, R-First Baptist Church at the Mall, has written a letter to his congregation urging them to vote that the state consider monogamous, committed homosexual relationships as worthless. This, of course, comes after he helped kick off the whole amendment drive.

That’s fine. Pastor Dennis is certainly not the first preacher of any political stripe to forget the rule about rendering unto Caesar and take a shot at collecting more earthly power and influence. But why stop at your captive congregation, pastor? Surely you’re able to defend your positions and moral authority in public, in a healthy back and forth with little ‘ol Godless me, right here on Lakeland Local.

Let the spirit of political influence fill you up and let’s talk this out for our readers to see.

Here’s a handful of questions for getting things started:

1) Will you come with me to meet my friends and tell them to their face why the state calling their relationship a civil union or a marriage is a threat to your marriage or anybody else’s?

2) When can we expect you to show the same level of moral leadership you’re showing now and kick off that anti-heterosexual-divorce amendment in keeping with the biblical teaching of marriage? Surely, you didn’t decide to jump into politics just to pick on the least politically powerful minority group in our society. Surely, you also mean to bring your considerable moral authority to bear in combatting heterosexual divorce through the voting booth. I can’t wait to see your letter to the congregation on that one.

3) What do you and your church offer homosexuals? Do you think the state should encourage committed, monogamous relationships among gays. If so, how? Or do you care? Is it all just one big pot of sodomy for you? And while we’re at it, when can we expect the anti-heterosexual sodomy amendment?

Welcome to the public political realm, pastor. It can be quite a bit of fun. You want to whip up your congregants to insult my friends, go for it. But there are those of us not in the congregation who have some ability to talk back and point out what your actions make you now – a politician. Al Sharpton with better hair. Nothing more, nothing less.

I know some of our readers must either attend FBCaM or know somebody who does. Please pass on this friendly debate challenge to the pastor. My email address is bitown1@gmail.com. Drop me a line, pastor, and we’ll set it up.

In the meantime, vote No on 2.

44 thoughts on “Now That You’re A Political Figure, Pastor Dennis, Let’s Have A Debate

  1. I am writing this comment neither to support nor oppose gay marriage, but I have some questions and thoughts that I would love for you to consider and respond to:

    You make it clear that you don’t think government should be involved in telling people who they can marry. So if government shouldn’t be able to tell gays whether they can marry, shouldn’t government also stay out of people’s private lives when two consenting first cousins choose to marry?

    Shouldn’t a father be able to marry his daughter if they are two mutally consenting adults?

    What about a brother and sister? Shouldn’t that be OK? Are you willing to stand in their front yard and tell them to their faces that their love and commitment is a threat to someone else’s marriage?

    What about being married to multiple spouses? Shouldn’t that be ok? I mean, it doesn’t threaten MY marriage, as long as my husband isn’t one who wants to take on a few more wives.

    And while we’re at it, why do men get to do all the choosing? Let’s be truly equal-opportunity and let women marry five men if they want to.

    Now, what about a really intelligent, mature-acting 15-year-old daughter? We can even use your daughter, for instance. You like to use her as an example in cases of rape, so what if she comes to you and is head-over-heels in love with her 18-year-old boyfriend? Shouldn’t she be able to get married in the state of Florida if she really wants to?

  2. I am writing this comment neither to support nor oppose gay marriage, but I have some questions and thoughts that I would love for you to consider and respond to:

    You make it clear that you don’t think government should be involved in telling people who they can marry. So if government shouldn’t be able to tell gays whether they can marry, shouldn’t government also stay out of people’s private lives when two consenting first cousins choose to marry?

    Shouldn’t a father be able to marry his daughter if they are two mutally consenting adults?

    What about a brother and sister? Shouldn’t that be OK? Are you willing to stand in their front yard and tell them to their faces that their love and commitment is a threat to someone else’s marriage?

    What about being married to multiple spouses? Shouldn’t that be ok? I mean, it doesn’t threaten MY marriage, as long as my husband isn’t one who wants to take on a few more wives.

    And while we’re at it, why do men get to do all the choosing? Let’s be truly equal-opportunity and let women marry five men if they want to.

    Now, what about a really intelligent, mature-acting 15-year-old daughter? We can even use your daughter, for instance. You like to use her as an example in cases of rape, so what if she comes to you and is head-over-heels in love with her 18-year-old boyfriend? Shouldn’t she be able to get married in the state of Florida if she really wants to?

  3. To answer, publicly:

    1)No

    2)No

    3)No and Yes.

    4)No, but that probably requires more explanation than the others, given the prevalence of polygamy in society in the past. I don’t have time right now.

    5) I’m not completely clear on the law, but it’s my impression she could legally do that without my consent given the right set of circumstances. The question is so incredibly hypothetical as to lend itself unasnwerable. I would certainly approach it with as much love and care as I could and hope we could help her make the right decision. Believe it or not, I am humble enough to say I don’t have the answer to that question

    Now, if you want to extend everything to its absurd logical extreme, why do we have civil marriage at all? We can reproduce without it. Every single question you asked can be asked in response to the existence of basic heterosexual marriage if you want to get completely absurd.

    Society makes judgements. I make the judgement that my friends have families and relationships worthy of honoring. I will fight and advocate until my dying breath to convince you or anybody else that judgement is correct.

    I find it curious those relationships cause you to think about incest.

  4. To answer, publicly:

    1)No

    2)No

    3)No and Yes.

    4)No, but that probably requires more explanation than the others, given the prevalence of polygamy in society in the past. I don’t have time right now.

    5) I’m not completely clear on the law, but it’s my impression she could legally do that without my consent given the right set of circumstances. The question is so incredibly hypothetical as to lend itself unasnwerable. I would certainly approach it with as much love and care as I could and hope we could help her make the right decision. Believe it or not, I am humble enough to say I don’t have the answer to that question

    Now, if you want to extend everything to its absurd logical extreme, why do we have civil marriage at all? We can reproduce without it. Every single question you asked can be asked in response to the existence of basic heterosexual marriage if you want to get completely absurd.

    Society makes judgements. I make the judgement that my friends have families and relationships worthy of honoring. I will fight and advocate until my dying breath to convince you or anybody else that judgement is correct.

    I find it curious those relationships cause you to think about incest.

  5. You make a good point, Billy. Consenting adults are consenting adults.

  6. You make a good point, Billy. Consenting adults are consenting adults.

  7. Lorrie, your questions are disingenuous, offensive, sound like the very arguments that people used not too long ago to oppose interracial marriage.

    How sad that when Billy talks about marriage equality and civil rights, you think of incest and underage sexual relationships. What about committed gay relationships makes you think of these things?

    I’d suggest you pick up Evan Wolfson’s brilliant book “Why Marriage Matters.”

  8. Lorrie, your questions are disingenuous, offensive, sound like the very arguments that people used not too long ago to oppose interracial marriage.

    How sad that when Billy talks about marriage equality and civil rights, you think of incest and underage sexual relationships. What about committed gay relationships makes you think of these things?

    I’d suggest you pick up Evan Wolfson’s brilliant book “Why Marriage Matters.”

  9. In the interest of forestalling a flame war, let me say a couple of quick things to people who may think like I do on this (And Dave, I do not consider your comment flamewarrish. This is just kind of a pre-emptive strike):

    1) The nature of blogs are such that there’s a lot of prior context involved in Lorrie’s comments above that people may not be aware of. I have engaged her very directly and uncomfortably at times during this election season. It’s important to have that in mind when considering all this. She didn’t just write that out of nowhere.

    2) You all know my take on the incest line. But give her credit for engaging this publicly in a place where we can discuss forcefully. I know, from personal experience, that she’ll listen to us in good faith. And that’s all we can really ask.

  10. In the interest of forestalling a flame war, let me say a couple of quick things to people who may think like I do on this (And Dave, I do not consider your comment flamewarrish. This is just kind of a pre-emptive strike):

    1) The nature of blogs are such that there’s a lot of prior context involved in Lorrie’s comments above that people may not be aware of. I have engaged her very directly and uncomfortably at times during this election season. It’s important to have that in mind when considering all this. She didn’t just write that out of nowhere.

    2) You all know my take on the incest line. But give her credit for engaging this publicly in a place where we can discuss forcefully. I know, from personal experience, that she’ll listen to us in good faith. And that’s all we can really ask.

  11. Dave, Lorrie’s questions are not disingenuous. Your relativism leads us to ask those. To you, either the Bible is not true, or you only paraphrase parts of it to make a point like Billy – both ways you deny what I view as the foundation for our morals. I’d suggest you pick it up and read it, it is Brilliant.

    As Billy points out there is no amendment for the condemnation of divorce. It’s not because Jay Dennis would lose his job or income or earthly influence (he wouldn’t, and if he did, several book deals would follow and he’d find a new congregation). It’s because we (Christians) are fighting where the culture is going, not where it has gone. Once we win this one, maybe divorce would be next, or the ignoring of the sanctity of life in Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, or abortion.

    It may sound offensive to you now, but I (and I’m guessing Lorrie too) see your foundationless sliding morals moving toward legalizing pedophilia. Have you ever explored ethics? How about logic? I have successfully debated FOR immoral issues. Here’s what it takes: subtle logical fallacies AND dismissal in part or whole of the Bible – you will always win. It does not make you right. Your individual judgement can not withstand the evil of the world.

    Billy, humanize them all you want (and I agree they are beautiful human beings) – that does not make certain choices they make right or wrong. We do not debase your gay friends, rather we honor them with our belief that they were made, male and female, in the image of God. As bearers of that image, we believe they were not meant to find that relational fulfillment in a monogomous relationship with the same sex.

    1. What pleasures would you deny a hard working, contributing citizen with a nicely manicured lawn and home? Why?

    2. Is it not obvious that Jay Dennis’ interpretation of the Bible, which he believes is the actual word of God, drives what he does and believes about homosexuality?

    3. You accuse Jay Dennis of assuming himself to be a moral authority (with sarcastic undertones). What logic have you used that got you from being a journalist to being a moral authority?

    I believe the Bible is the inerrant actual word of God. Jay Dennis is doing his job by attempting to reshape the culture.

    Vote Yes on 2.

  12. Dave, Lorrie’s questions are not disingenuous. Your relativism leads us to ask those. To you, either the Bible is not true, or you only paraphrase parts of it to make a point like Billy – both ways you deny what I view as the foundation for our morals. I’d suggest you pick it up and read it, it is Brilliant.

    As Billy points out there is no amendment for the condemnation of divorce. It’s not because Jay Dennis would lose his job or income or earthly influence (he wouldn’t, and if he did, several book deals would follow and he’d find a new congregation). It’s because we (Christians) are fighting where the culture is going, not where it has gone. Once we win this one, maybe divorce would be next, or the ignoring of the sanctity of life in Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, or abortion.

    It may sound offensive to you now, but I (and I’m guessing Lorrie too) see your foundationless sliding morals moving toward legalizing pedophilia. Have you ever explored ethics? How about logic? I have successfully debated FOR immoral issues. Here’s what it takes: subtle logical fallacies AND dismissal in part or whole of the Bible – you will always win. It does not make you right. Your individual judgement can not withstand the evil of the world.

    Billy, humanize them all you want (and I agree they are beautiful human beings) – that does not make certain choices they make right or wrong. We do not debase your gay friends, rather we honor them with our belief that they were made, male and female, in the image of God. As bearers of that image, we believe they were not meant to find that relational fulfillment in a monogomous relationship with the same sex.

    1. What pleasures would you deny a hard working, contributing citizen with a nicely manicured lawn and home? Why?

    2. Is it not obvious that Jay Dennis’ interpretation of the Bible, which he believes is the actual word of God, drives what he does and believes about homosexuality?

    3. You accuse Jay Dennis of assuming himself to be a moral authority (with sarcastic undertones). What logic have you used that got you from being a journalist to being a moral authority?

    I believe the Bible is the inerrant actual word of God. Jay Dennis is doing his job by attempting to reshape the culture.

    Vote Yes on 2.

  13. Frank:

    What’s a comparatively brief cultural trend – permissive divorce – in the face of inerrant Biblical truth? Why don’t you have enough moral courage to tackle the tough moral problems? Pick on the few, first, right? That’s what Jesus would have done.

    I ask you only to have the moral courage and intellectual honesty to own what you say you believe. Let’s examine a couple of those inerrant Biblical truths, that “inerrant actual word of God.”

    Leviticus is particularly fun:

    “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Lev 20:13) Is that truth? You believe it? It’s the inerrant word of God.

    “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.” (Lev 20:10) It’s the inerrant word of God. Own it.

    “If a man lies with a woman having her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has laid bare her flow of blood; both of them shall be cut off from their people.” (Lev 20:18) Ditto on the inerrant truth.

    And my favorite, “A man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall be put to death.” That’s just a bonus.

    Believe me, they go on: I do read the Bible, so be careful of your assumptions.

    If you believe in the inerrant truth of the Bible, you most certainly do not agree that my friends are beautiful human beings. So spare us all that fake garbage; it’s unbecoming. I just want you to man up and own what you say you believe. Call for the execution of gays. Call for the execution of adulterers. Own it. If you can’t, then stop lying and saying you believe in the inerrant truth of the Bible. And most of all, stop lecturing anybody else on the planet about relativism.

  14. Frank:

    What’s a comparatively brief cultural trend – permissive divorce – in the face of inerrant Biblical truth? Why don’t you have enough moral courage to tackle the tough moral problems? Pick on the few, first, right? That’s what Jesus would have done.

    I ask you only to have the moral courage and intellectual honesty to own what you say you believe. Let’s examine a couple of those inerrant Biblical truths, that “inerrant actual word of God.”

    Leviticus is particularly fun:

    “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Lev 20:13) Is that truth? You believe it? It’s the inerrant word of God.

    “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.” (Lev 20:10) It’s the inerrant word of God. Own it.

    “If a man lies with a woman having her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has laid bare her flow of blood; both of them shall be cut off from their people.” (Lev 20:18) Ditto on the inerrant truth.

    And my favorite, “A man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall be put to death.” That’s just a bonus.

    Believe me, they go on: I do read the Bible, so be careful of your assumptions.

    If you believe in the inerrant truth of the Bible, you most certainly do not agree that my friends are beautiful human beings. So spare us all that fake garbage; it’s unbecoming. I just want you to man up and own what you say you believe. Call for the execution of gays. Call for the execution of adulterers. Own it. If you can’t, then stop lying and saying you believe in the inerrant truth of the Bible. And most of all, stop lecturing anybody else on the planet about relativism.

  15. Billy, you are referring to Old Testament scripture. The Israelites were a wandering people and there weren’t imprisonment and rehabilitation opportunities, for the most part. People were executed for what we would consider minor infractions today.

    But then came the New Testament. According to the New Testament, Christians were lifted from the harsh constraints of OT law and punishment became secondary to the notion that Jesus gave His life so that ours might be saved. He gave us the opportunity to repent and be saved.

    What I’ve just written is literally all I know about the difference between OT and NT, and perhaps I’m even wrong about it, but I believe I’ve made an accurate statement. Hopefully Frank or someone else out there can correct me if I’m mistaken, or add to what I’ve just shared.

    Based on this, I also believe you are incorrect in your assumption that Frank cannot believe your friends are not beautiful human beings. Jesus loved everyone. Christians are called to act accordingly. Christians are not perfect and we all fail miserably from time to time, but it doesn’t mean we give up and quit trying.

  16. Billy, you are referring to Old Testament scripture. The Israelites were a wandering people and there weren’t imprisonment and rehabilitation opportunities, for the most part. People were executed for what we would consider minor infractions today.

    But then came the New Testament. According to the New Testament, Christians were lifted from the harsh constraints of OT law and punishment became secondary to the notion that Jesus gave His life so that ours might be saved. He gave us the opportunity to repent and be saved.

    What I’ve just written is literally all I know about the difference between OT and NT, and perhaps I’m even wrong about it, but I believe I’ve made an accurate statement. Hopefully Frank or someone else out there can correct me if I’m mistaken, or add to what I’ve just shared.

    Based on this, I also believe you are incorrect in your assumption that Frank cannot believe your friends are not beautiful human beings. Jesus loved everyone. Christians are called to act accordingly. Christians are not perfect and we all fail miserably from time to time, but it doesn’t mean we give up and quit trying.

  17. I’m going to step away from biblical interpretations and ask the readers to consider the enormity of this proposal in our state’s government.

    Let’s start by getting back to the generation of this amendment. Some people are arguing that this amendment will stop the slippery slope if moral degradation. Maybe it will, probably it won’t. Incest and pedophilia (and bestiality, and polygamy, and prostitution, and ___ insert sin here…) are terms employed to state the case for a need for Amendment 2. Let’s call a spade a spade and recognize that it functions to take civil liberties away from homosexuals. Just as with incest, and other questionable actions referenced above, there are already laws in place making homosexuality illegal in the state of Florida. Why do we need a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to do what the laws are already in place to prohibit?

    Think about this… In Section 2 of the Florida Constitution’s Declaration of Rights it states that, “All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness….” To amend the constitution would be like ending that excerpt with, “except homosexuals.”

    If heterosexual marriage is so fragile that we need to amend our state’s constitution then let’s start with making divorce less accessible. If we can tackle that one I would feel much better about our ability to collectively deal with abortion or any national or international atrocity. Of course that will never fly because too many have enjoyed and are dependant on that civil liberty.

    We do not need this, or any declaration that limits a person’s civil liberties, in our state’s constitution.

  18. I’m going to step away from biblical interpretations and ask the readers to consider the enormity of this proposal in our state’s government.

    Let’s start by getting back to the generation of this amendment. Some people are arguing that this amendment will stop the slippery slope if moral degradation. Maybe it will, probably it won’t. Incest and pedophilia (and bestiality, and polygamy, and prostitution, and ___ insert sin here…) are terms employed to state the case for a need for Amendment 2. Let’s call a spade a spade and recognize that it functions to take civil liberties away from homosexuals. Just as with incest, and other questionable actions referenced above, there are already laws in place making homosexuality illegal in the state of Florida. Why do we need a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to do what the laws are already in place to prohibit?

    Think about this… In Section 2 of the Florida Constitution’s Declaration of Rights it states that, “All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness….” To amend the constitution would be like ending that excerpt with, “except homosexuals.”

    If heterosexual marriage is so fragile that we need to amend our state’s constitution then let’s start with making divorce less accessible. If we can tackle that one I would feel much better about our ability to collectively deal with abortion or any national or international atrocity. Of course that will never fly because too many have enjoyed and are dependant on that civil liberty.

    We do not need this, or any declaration that limits a person’s civil liberties, in our state’s constitution.

  19. Billy,

    Stop acting as if you understand the Bible. You obviously don’t. Your right, but not only do gays and adulterers deserve execution, we ALL do. Hello! That’s the good news of the gospel, Jesus, the spotless lamb of God, was executed for us!

    Stop acting as if you understand what I’m saying. You obviously don’t. Talk about unbecoming. I said that your friends, made in the image of God, were beautiful people. They can’t help it, nothing they’ve done earns it, they reflect their maker. Add that to the good things they are doing: redeeming creation by mowing their lawn, caring for the broken/sick/poor and needy, etc. and they really are beautiful. The sin in the body of your friends, THAT IS ALSO IN ME, is intertwined with all of the good and the beautiful. It is just like cancer – your body cannot tell what’s good and what’s bad.

    Defining beauty by God, considering all humans were made in His image, all humans have some beauty, that is not fake garbage. At the same time we are horribly ugly, in desperate need of a Savior. This is kind of the idea of the Bible, cover to cover (creation, fall and redemption), that’s what I own. If you’re going to mock my consistency/faith, at least know what you’re talking about.

    I didn’t assume you hadn’t read it. I was simply playing off of Dave’s comment that Lorrie could learn something about his perspective by reading a book.

    I’m not lecturing you, I’m not qualified. I’m engaging. Unless you write only for those that laud and praise you, answer the questions in my first post. Otherwise, the next time I disagree with you and read comments that say “I agree” and “I agree”, I’ll leave it at that and know that you’re happy with yourself.

  20. Billy,

    Stop acting as if you understand the Bible. You obviously don’t. Your right, but not only do gays and adulterers deserve execution, we ALL do. Hello! That’s the good news of the gospel, Jesus, the spotless lamb of God, was executed for us!

    Stop acting as if you understand what I’m saying. You obviously don’t. Talk about unbecoming. I said that your friends, made in the image of God, were beautiful people. They can’t help it, nothing they’ve done earns it, they reflect their maker. Add that to the good things they are doing: redeeming creation by mowing their lawn, caring for the broken/sick/poor and needy, etc. and they really are beautiful. The sin in the body of your friends, THAT IS ALSO IN ME, is intertwined with all of the good and the beautiful. It is just like cancer – your body cannot tell what’s good and what’s bad.

    Defining beauty by God, considering all humans were made in His image, all humans have some beauty, that is not fake garbage. At the same time we are horribly ugly, in desperate need of a Savior. This is kind of the idea of the Bible, cover to cover (creation, fall and redemption), that’s what I own. If you’re going to mock my consistency/faith, at least know what you’re talking about.

    I didn’t assume you hadn’t read it. I was simply playing off of Dave’s comment that Lorrie could learn something about his perspective by reading a book.

    I’m not lecturing you, I’m not qualified. I’m engaging. Unless you write only for those that laud and praise you, answer the questions in my first post. Otherwise, the next time I disagree with you and read comments that say “I agree” and “I agree”, I’ll leave it at that and know that you’re happy with yourself.

  21. Shakespeare had it right: The Devil can cite Scripture to his purpose. The Bible has no place in public policy decisions. Its humanistic values are important, but anyone can find passages that support racism, sexism and any other prejudice you might harbor. It’s time to stop that nonsense.

  22. Shakespeare had it right: The Devil can cite Scripture to his purpose. The Bible has no place in public policy decisions. Its humanistic values are important, but anyone can find passages that support racism, sexism and any other prejudice you might harbor. It’s time to stop that nonsense.

  23. After hearing disturbing stats on “7 European countries with existing same sex marriage laws” quoted in a church sermon Sunday morning, I did a little research myself. These echoed the stats used by the (non-Catholic) minister:

    From
    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html

    “Far higher rates of promiscuity are observed even within ‘committed’ gay relationships than in heterosexual marriage: In Holland, male homosexual relationships last, on average, 1.5 years, and gay men have an average of eight partners a year outside of their supposedly “committed” relationships. (Xiridou M, et al. The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS. 2003; 17: 1029-38.) Gay men have sex with someone other than their primary partner in 66% of relationships within the first year, rising to 90% of relationships after five years. (Harry J. Gay Couples. New York. 1984)

    In an online survey among nearly 8,000 homosexuals, 71% of same-sex relationships lasted less than eight years. Only 9% of all same-sex relationships lasted longer than 16 years. (2003-2004 Gay & Lesbian Consumer Online Census; http://www.glcensus.org)

    Wow, sounds like a Florida Constitutional Amendment (which would have to be changed or repealed by another referendum, should we decide “oops, we didn’t get it right this time”) will really fix all that negative stuff, huh?

    I used to enjoy Lakeland Local; still do about stuff like CSX news (thank you again today, Chuck), great photos, good info, and “fluff.”

    You have a couple folks who seem to love to incite folks to anger. Then, when crossed or challenged, you get mean-spirited. I thought you people who started this thing were friends. Thank you to the couple of folks who, correctly, pointed out the differences between Old Testament law, and the New Testament where a loving Christ who redeemed us of our sins, and taught us to love the sinner and hate the sin.

    Think I have enough drama in my everyday work and life to have to put up with reading Billy anymore.

    Goodnight Y’all. Worth just what it cost ya.

  24. After hearing disturbing stats on “7 European countries with existing same sex marriage laws” quoted in a church sermon Sunday morning, I did a little research myself. These echoed the stats used by the (non-Catholic) minister:

    From
    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html

    “Far higher rates of promiscuity are observed even within ‘committed’ gay relationships than in heterosexual marriage: In Holland, male homosexual relationships last, on average, 1.5 years, and gay men have an average of eight partners a year outside of their supposedly “committed” relationships. (Xiridou M, et al. The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS. 2003; 17: 1029-38.) Gay men have sex with someone other than their primary partner in 66% of relationships within the first year, rising to 90% of relationships after five years. (Harry J. Gay Couples. New York. 1984)

    In an online survey among nearly 8,000 homosexuals, 71% of same-sex relationships lasted less than eight years. Only 9% of all same-sex relationships lasted longer than 16 years. (2003-2004 Gay & Lesbian Consumer Online Census; http://www.glcensus.org)

    Wow, sounds like a Florida Constitutional Amendment (which would have to be changed or repealed by another referendum, should we decide “oops, we didn’t get it right this time”) will really fix all that negative stuff, huh?

    I used to enjoy Lakeland Local; still do about stuff like CSX news (thank you again today, Chuck), great photos, good info, and “fluff.”

    You have a couple folks who seem to love to incite folks to anger. Then, when crossed or challenged, you get mean-spirited. I thought you people who started this thing were friends. Thank you to the couple of folks who, correctly, pointed out the differences between Old Testament law, and the New Testament where a loving Christ who redeemed us of our sins, and taught us to love the sinner and hate the sin.

    Think I have enough drama in my everyday work and life to have to put up with reading Billy anymore.

    Goodnight Y’all. Worth just what it cost ya.

  25. I believe this post asked a question of Pastor Dennis. I’d like to hear him speak for himself. Since it doesn’t seem to be forthcoming…

    I am all for religions following their Word. Inside their churches and their other meeting places. Inside their followers homes for sure.

    But when a philosophy argues it must force others to their standards and practices, I draw a line. If I let you do it. I am a leaf on the wind of Biblical interpretation.

    Frank said, “I believe the Bible is the inerrant actual word of God.”

    Inerrant. Such a beautiful word when one wants wiggle room when interpreting their Bible. Now some define it as “infallible.” Others have used a definition similar to what is currently on Wikipedia: “Inerrancy is distinguished from Biblical infallibility (or limited inerrancy), which holds that the Bible is inerrant on issues of faith and practice but not history or science.”

    So, who is cherry picking what they want from the translated Bible?

    I’d love a moral code that said I could interpret it as I wish, where I wish, and as I wish. But force others to accept it as law.

    But I don’t want your interpretation. I don’t want the interpretation of any human. After all, humans are not perfect.

    That said, I’ll answer all your questions. You may take them as the words from a fallible human, but be assured I have explored Ethics and Logic. And I returned from hacking through that dense forest. Older, wiser, and with scars.

    On to the answers to your questions:

    1) I would deny them the pleasure of extra water as they must be wasting it to have a nicely manicured lawn. Why can’t they grow local plants that can survive without watering?

    2) It is obvious that everyone who reads the Bible is interpreting it. Especially all of us who didn’t receive a First Edition hand delivered by the Author.

    3) We are all moral authorities. However, when we partake to influence others on matters of voting we are asking others to believe in our legal authority.

    Now, I have some questions for our loyal reader Frank:

    1) What makes you belittle the discipline of journalist? Have you been a journalist? Have you studied journalism?

    2) Is your edition of the Bible the actual Word of God without a single error? Or a translation through a human conduit?

    3) Is there any phrase in your Bible that you believe is less than perfect? Any phrase that would make you uncomfortable if we added to the state constitution? With proper consequence given if all Floridians failed to follow it?

    Looking forward to you responses.

  26. I believe this post asked a question of Pastor Dennis. I’d like to hear him speak for himself. Since it doesn’t seem to be forthcoming…

    I am all for religions following their Word. Inside their churches and their other meeting places. Inside their followers homes for sure.

    But when a philosophy argues it must force others to their standards and practices, I draw a line. If I let you do it. I am a leaf on the wind of Biblical interpretation.

    Frank said, “I believe the Bible is the inerrant actual word of God.”

    Inerrant. Such a beautiful word when one wants wiggle room when interpreting their Bible. Now some define it as “infallible.” Others have used a definition similar to what is currently on Wikipedia: “Inerrancy is distinguished from Biblical infallibility (or limited inerrancy), which holds that the Bible is inerrant on issues of faith and practice but not history or science.”

    So, who is cherry picking what they want from the translated Bible?

    I’d love a moral code that said I could interpret it as I wish, where I wish, and as I wish. But force others to accept it as law.

    But I don’t want your interpretation. I don’t want the interpretation of any human. After all, humans are not perfect.

    That said, I’ll answer all your questions. You may take them as the words from a fallible human, but be assured I have explored Ethics and Logic. And I returned from hacking through that dense forest. Older, wiser, and with scars.

    On to the answers to your questions:

    1) I would deny them the pleasure of extra water as they must be wasting it to have a nicely manicured lawn. Why can’t they grow local plants that can survive without watering?

    2) It is obvious that everyone who reads the Bible is interpreting it. Especially all of us who didn’t receive a First Edition hand delivered by the Author.

    3) We are all moral authorities. However, when we partake to influence others on matters of voting we are asking others to believe in our legal authority.

    Now, I have some questions for our loyal reader Frank:

    1) What makes you belittle the discipline of journalist? Have you been a journalist? Have you studied journalism?

    2) Is your edition of the Bible the actual Word of God without a single error? Or a translation through a human conduit?

    3) Is there any phrase in your Bible that you believe is less than perfect? Any phrase that would make you uncomfortable if we added to the state constitution? With proper consequence given if all Floridians failed to follow it?

    Looking forward to you responses.

  27. Mr. Welch,

    On you answers to my questions:

    1) This question was a little more complicated than your answer. The point is that you have no moral compass to deny anyone any pleasure.

    2) Billy is questioning a pastor leading his flock. I was, by way of a question, asking him if he understood that Jay is doing his job as the Bible lays it out.

    3)This question was again going at Billy’s point that Jay is doing something that doesn’t befit a pastor, but more a politician. I think our culture rightly looks to preachers of the word for guidance/moral direction. If that is in question, then surely whether or not journalists are the go to people for this is as well.

    On to your questions:

    1) I didn’t belittle journalists. Sorry. After pointing out that Billy is upset with a pastor advising on a moral issue, I asked what logic led him to the expectation that he (the pastor) should not (or is a power hungry politician if he does) and that he (the journalist) should.

    2) My Bible, and millions more, are the actual Word of God, still error free after many translations.

    3) None of it is less than perfect. It is the word of God. I don’t think it should all be in the state constitution though. Billy’s quotes from Leviticus are laws (and consequences) for Israel. (and that is interpretation in that I learned to interpret the English language in elementary school) Behind them are moral principals that should be followed by all humans.

    Now on to your insinuation:

    “But when a philosophy argues it must force others to their standards and practices, I draw a line. If I let you do it. I am a leaf on the wind of Biblical interpretation.”

    and Bob Ross’ assertion:

    “The Bible has no place in public policy decisions.”

    A few more questions:

    1) So you guys are ok with your free speech and political activism (based on I don’t know what), but not with mine (based on the Bible)?

    2) You assert that my want to restrict a certain behavior in society is somehow more dangerous than your want to restrict a certain behavior in society?

    3) My moral judgement is inferior because I’m a Chrisitan?

    4) You said, “I’d love a moral code that said I could interpret it as I wish, where I wish, and as I wish. But force others to accept it as law. But I don’t want your interpretation. I don’t want the interpretation of any human. After all, humans are not perfect.” How then Mr. Welch, without human rule, do you propose we live?

    5) Are not all of our laws forcing some restriction of some liberty (I mean like the liberty to kill here, not water my lawn)?

  28. Mr. Welch,

    On you answers to my questions:

    1) This question was a little more complicated than your answer. The point is that you have no moral compass to deny anyone any pleasure.

    2) Billy is questioning a pastor leading his flock. I was, by way of a question, asking him if he understood that Jay is doing his job as the Bible lays it out.

    3)This question was again going at Billy’s point that Jay is doing something that doesn’t befit a pastor, but more a politician. I think our culture rightly looks to preachers of the word for guidance/moral direction. If that is in question, then surely whether or not journalists are the go to people for this is as well.

    On to your questions:

    1) I didn’t belittle journalists. Sorry. After pointing out that Billy is upset with a pastor advising on a moral issue, I asked what logic led him to the expectation that he (the pastor) should not (or is a power hungry politician if he does) and that he (the journalist) should.

    2) My Bible, and millions more, are the actual Word of God, still error free after many translations.

    3) None of it is less than perfect. It is the word of God. I don’t think it should all be in the state constitution though. Billy’s quotes from Leviticus are laws (and consequences) for Israel. (and that is interpretation in that I learned to interpret the English language in elementary school) Behind them are moral principals that should be followed by all humans.

    Now on to your insinuation:

    “But when a philosophy argues it must force others to their standards and practices, I draw a line. If I let you do it. I am a leaf on the wind of Biblical interpretation.”

    and Bob Ross’ assertion:

    “The Bible has no place in public policy decisions.”

    A few more questions:

    1) So you guys are ok with your free speech and political activism (based on I don’t know what), but not with mine (based on the Bible)?

    2) You assert that my want to restrict a certain behavior in society is somehow more dangerous than your want to restrict a certain behavior in society?

    3) My moral judgement is inferior because I’m a Chrisitan?

    4) You said, “I’d love a moral code that said I could interpret it as I wish, where I wish, and as I wish. But force others to accept it as law. But I don’t want your interpretation. I don’t want the interpretation of any human. After all, humans are not perfect.” How then Mr. Welch, without human rule, do you propose we live?

    5) Are not all of our laws forcing some restriction of some liberty (I mean like the liberty to kill here, not water my lawn)?

  29. Self-described gentle reader,

    Might I gently suggest that you consider the source. The Catholic Education Resource Center is probably not an unbiased voice. It has an agenda to push, don’t you think, and it is probably none too gentle about it.

    And speaking of gentle, let’s raise a gentle glass to all of the gentle religious fundamentalists and right-wing government leaders who have spoken so eloquently about the menace of gays and lesbians in our society?

    Where would be today without the moral leadership and upright leadership of people like Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Tim Haggard, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, David Vitter, Mark Livingston, Newt Gingrich, and all those unnamed priests that were shuffled around from parish to parish instead of being turned over to authorities.

    These people know all about values, so we should definitely listen to them and do what they say without question. Why seek out facts and truths when we can turn to the Catholic Education Resource Center and such upstanding individuals to tell us what to think!

  30. Self-described gentle reader,

    Might I gently suggest that you consider the source. The Catholic Education Resource Center is probably not an unbiased voice. It has an agenda to push, don’t you think, and it is probably none too gentle about it.

    And speaking of gentle, let’s raise a gentle glass to all of the gentle religious fundamentalists and right-wing government leaders who have spoken so eloquently about the menace of gays and lesbians in our society?

    Where would be today without the moral leadership and upright leadership of people like Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Tim Haggard, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, David Vitter, Mark Livingston, Newt Gingrich, and all those unnamed priests that were shuffled around from parish to parish instead of being turned over to authorities.

    These people know all about values, so we should definitely listen to them and do what they say without question. Why seek out facts and truths when we can turn to the Catholic Education Resource Center and such upstanding individuals to tell us what to think!

  31. Mr. McCaulley,

    Please, call me Chuck.

    On your responses to my answers:

    1) I don’t need that compass as I know where I am currently located and where I am headed. But, following your logic, if I procured your moral compass, I could deny someone pleasure?

    2) I won’t speak for Billy, but the obvious interpretation of the post was that Billy was welcoming a political leader with the greatest honor possible to such a person: a challenge to expand and defend his political decisions in a well-respected and level forum.

    3) If you speak out about a proposed law from a position of authority, you’re playing in the political forum. You can call yourself anything, but you’re playing politics. As for “Billy’s point that Jay is doing something that doesn’t befit a pastor”…I don’t see that. In my case, I certainly don’t believe a pastor, priest, or shaman shouldn’t be political. On the other hand, heaven help those who follow the Journalist for he will lead them down a path of questions without answers and answers where none asked questions.

    On to your responses to my questions. I shall respond to each in the form of a question:

    1) So you say neither a political pastor nor political journalist be?

    2) OK, if your Bible, “and millions more”, are error free after many translations…which are the ones that contain errors?

    3) I agree that the state constitution is messy enough not to also include the Word of God. You mentioned that the Leviticus laws are laws (and consequences) for Israel. Why didn’t the Bible include laws and consequences for Australia or Norway? Why hasn’t it been updated with laws and consequences for new nations? If you don’t have an answer, that’s fine. Consider it extra credit.

    Now onto your final remarks:

    Insinuation? Surely you jest. Insinuation? From in-sinuāre, (to curve)? I’m afraid you’ve swung too early and too high. I lofted a slow arcing eepheus pitch. Let’s watch the replay:

    “But when a philosophy argues it must force others to their standards and practices, I draw a line. If I let you do it. I am a leaf on the wind of Biblical interpretation.”

    No insinuation there. Appears clear.

    And since no game can have two pitchers throwing at the same time, we’ll ignore your attempt to put Mr. Ross on my pitcher’s mound. That’s a worse rule change than the DH. You can play him in the second half of the double header.

    And now to your “A few more questions.”

    1) You guys? I feel like I’m back North. We’re just speaking of me as I answer for no other. (Except that time in home room I answered for a friend with laryngitis.) I’m OK with all political activism based on anything you like. And by OK, I believe it should not suffer from government censorship.

    On a personal note, I think all political activism, based on anything you choose, should be proud to stand against the rigors of questioning and intense public scrutiny. For a man, or woman, who chooses to be political active, and yet refrains from the difficult public forum, is untested and dull from cutting the easy path.

    2) What amendment did I propose to cause restriction on someone? I’m sorry. I must have been sleep-campaigning. Did it make the ballot? Could you forward the link to the text?

    3) That ended like a question, but used the tone of a statement reflecting a quote. Are you quoting someone?

    4) In lives of quiet splendor, peace, and tranquility.

    5) No.

    There, that was enjoyable and enlightening.

    And, please, call me Chuck.

  32. Mr. McCaulley,

    Please, call me Chuck.

    On your responses to my answers:

    1) I don’t need that compass as I know where I am currently located and where I am headed. But, following your logic, if I procured your moral compass, I could deny someone pleasure?

    2) I won’t speak for Billy, but the obvious interpretation of the post was that Billy was welcoming a political leader with the greatest honor possible to such a person: a challenge to expand and defend his political decisions in a well-respected and level forum.

    3) If you speak out about a proposed law from a position of authority, you’re playing in the political forum. You can call yourself anything, but you’re playing politics. As for “Billy’s point that Jay is doing something that doesn’t befit a pastor”…I don’t see that. In my case, I certainly don’t believe a pastor, priest, or shaman shouldn’t be political. On the other hand, heaven help those who follow the Journalist for he will lead them down a path of questions without answers and answers where none asked questions.

    On to your responses to my questions. I shall respond to each in the form of a question:

    1) So you say neither a political pastor nor political journalist be?

    2) OK, if your Bible, “and millions more”, are error free after many translations…which are the ones that contain errors?

    3) I agree that the state constitution is messy enough not to also include the Word of God. You mentioned that the Leviticus laws are laws (and consequences) for Israel. Why didn’t the Bible include laws and consequences for Australia or Norway? Why hasn’t it been updated with laws and consequences for new nations? If you don’t have an answer, that’s fine. Consider it extra credit.

    Now onto your final remarks:

    Insinuation? Surely you jest. Insinuation? From in-sinuāre, (to curve)? I’m afraid you’ve swung too early and too high. I lofted a slow arcing eepheus pitch. Let’s watch the replay:

    “But when a philosophy argues it must force others to their standards and practices, I draw a line. If I let you do it. I am a leaf on the wind of Biblical interpretation.”

    No insinuation there. Appears clear.

    And since no game can have two pitchers throwing at the same time, we’ll ignore your attempt to put Mr. Ross on my pitcher’s mound. That’s a worse rule change than the DH. You can play him in the second half of the double header.

    And now to your “A few more questions.”

    1) You guys? I feel like I’m back North. We’re just speaking of me as I answer for no other. (Except that time in home room I answered for a friend with laryngitis.) I’m OK with all political activism based on anything you like. And by OK, I believe it should not suffer from government censorship.

    On a personal note, I think all political activism, based on anything you choose, should be proud to stand against the rigors of questioning and intense public scrutiny. For a man, or woman, who chooses to be political active, and yet refrains from the difficult public forum, is untested and dull from cutting the easy path.

    2) What amendment did I propose to cause restriction on someone? I’m sorry. I must have been sleep-campaigning. Did it make the ballot? Could you forward the link to the text?

    3) That ended like a question, but used the tone of a statement reflecting a quote. Are you quoting someone?

    4) In lives of quiet splendor, peace, and tranquility.

    5) No.

    There, that was enjoyable and enlightening.

    And, please, call me Chuck.

  33. Chuck,

    You have lost me.

    This is my last post on this topic. Here are some of the reasons:

    You have gotten way off topic (I was defending a pastor of a Christian church, using the Bible to shape our morality and our involvement in the political process). Your last response was needless bickering – you did not sincerely answer my questions to further the discussion. I do not have the time to redefine a dozen or so plain English words for you. When you actually want to engage on this issue, let me know.

    And don’t accuse me of not “manning up”. You’re the one whose playing word games and not answering the actual questions. Go ahead, put another spin on all of this post that makes you feel enlightened – that’s not manning up.

  34. Chuck,

    You have lost me.

    This is my last post on this topic. Here are some of the reasons:

    You have gotten way off topic (I was defending a pastor of a Christian church, using the Bible to shape our morality and our involvement in the political process). Your last response was needless bickering – you did not sincerely answer my questions to further the discussion. I do not have the time to redefine a dozen or so plain English words for you. When you actually want to engage on this issue, let me know.

    And don’t accuse me of not “manning up”. You’re the one whose playing word games and not answering the actual questions. Go ahead, put another spin on all of this post that makes you feel enlightened – that’s not manning up.

  35. Mr. Ross said:

    “Shakespeare had it right: The Devil can cite Scripture to his purpose. The Bible has no place in public policy decisions. Its humanistic values are important, but anyone can find passages that support racism, sexism and any other prejudice you might harbor. It’s time to stop that nonsense.”

    This makes some sense, I will agree.

    But I’m intrigued by this part: “The Bible has no place in public policy decisions.”

    Tell me, Mr. Ross, what would our founding fathers say to that?

  36. Mr. Ross said:

    “Shakespeare had it right: The Devil can cite Scripture to his purpose. The Bible has no place in public policy decisions. Its humanistic values are important, but anyone can find passages that support racism, sexism and any other prejudice you might harbor. It’s time to stop that nonsense.”

    This makes some sense, I will agree.

    But I’m intrigued by this part: “The Bible has no place in public policy decisions.”

    Tell me, Mr. Ross, what would our founding fathers say to that?

  37. Frank,

    If you can point to where I lost you, I am sure I can guide you back to the path.

    It may or may be your last post of the topic, but seriously, do you have to announce it then go ahead make accusations you won’t defend?

    Seriously? Really? Seriously?

    The issue here isn’t that I’ve gone off topic. The issue is you’ve found it is impossible discuss a topic where the answers are less precise than Pi.

    Defending a pastor? I will tell you — I can’t discuss it since you won’t respond — that you were doing no such thing. You were chiding others for not having your belief system. You asked questions and chided if the answer wasn’t what you sought. You attempt to manipulate the conversation by tying together the answers of different people. Sloppy work in my opinion.

    I bickered not once, for I responded to each and every point you made. In addition, I simply added questions of my own for further understanding and discussion. “Bickering” that is not.

    Point to the questions I failed to answer. I believe “bickering” is your code word for “You have lost me.”

    There’s no need to redefine any English words for me. I am well versed in the language. My vocabulary is strong enough to handle any Internet discussion we’ll have here. And, if you pull a William Harper Littlejohn to use words less common, I have the ability to consult a dictionary, and lack the vanity to refrain from doing so.

    Pray tell, if the shoe is on the other foot, and you don’t understand any of my responses, ask for enlightenment. For I am all about leaving you satisfied that you understand my answers. Which ones left you confused and confounded? If need be, I shall translate them into French, back to English, and pay special attention to using none of the words that put them maddeningly out of your reach.

    Just name the section where you found yourself perplexed.

    And, finally, accuse you of “manning up?” Jumping the gun aren’t you?

    I don’t play word games. I use words as they’re intended — to inform, persuade, and entertain. Words are magical tools. They have connotations and denotations. They change meaning with tone. They change tone with meaning.

    The beauty of words is that they cost you nothing. Free for the taking. You can pick one up just anywhere and make it your own. While at the same time sharing them with all.

    But there are words that I must admit I find so charged with misunderstanding, so tired in practice, or so ringing hollow that I strive to refrain from using them.

    “Manning up” is a two word phrase that falls in the last category. The faux masculinity, the unsubtle power play, the lack of a decent definition — all combine to make the phrase tired, weak, and lacking in punch.

    So, “manning up” you won’t see. Instead, I’ll end with a quote from one of my favorite movies*. A film I could have appeared in — had I known I’d soon be bald anyway. But that’s a story for another day. I’ll end with:

    Lighten up, Francis.

    *Extra points to who first names the film.

  38. Frank,

    If you can point to where I lost you, I am sure I can guide you back to the path.

    It may or may be your last post of the topic, but seriously, do you have to announce it then go ahead make accusations you won’t defend?

    Seriously? Really? Seriously?

    The issue here isn’t that I’ve gone off topic. The issue is you’ve found it is impossible discuss a topic where the answers are less precise than Pi.

    Defending a pastor? I will tell you — I can’t discuss it since you won’t respond — that you were doing no such thing. You were chiding others for not having your belief system. You asked questions and chided if the answer wasn’t what you sought. You attempt to manipulate the conversation by tying together the answers of different people. Sloppy work in my opinion.

    I bickered not once, for I responded to each and every point you made. In addition, I simply added questions of my own for further understanding and discussion. “Bickering” that is not.

    Point to the questions I failed to answer. I believe “bickering” is your code word for “You have lost me.”

    There’s no need to redefine any English words for me. I am well versed in the language. My vocabulary is strong enough to handle any Internet discussion we’ll have here. And, if you pull a William Harper Littlejohn to use words less common, I have the ability to consult a dictionary, and lack the vanity to refrain from doing so.

    Pray tell, if the shoe is on the other foot, and you don’t understand any of my responses, ask for enlightenment. For I am all about leaving you satisfied that you understand my answers. Which ones left you confused and confounded? If need be, I shall translate them into French, back to English, and pay special attention to using none of the words that put them maddeningly out of your reach.

    Just name the section where you found yourself perplexed.

    And, finally, accuse you of “manning up?” Jumping the gun aren’t you?

    I don’t play word games. I use words as they’re intended — to inform, persuade, and entertain. Words are magical tools. They have connotations and denotations. They change meaning with tone. They change tone with meaning.

    The beauty of words is that they cost you nothing. Free for the taking. You can pick one up just anywhere and make it your own. While at the same time sharing them with all.

    But there are words that I must admit I find so charged with misunderstanding, so tired in practice, or so ringing hollow that I strive to refrain from using them.

    “Manning up” is a two word phrase that falls in the last category. The faux masculinity, the unsubtle power play, the lack of a decent definition — all combine to make the phrase tired, weak, and lacking in punch.

    So, “manning up” you won’t see. Instead, I’ll end with a quote from one of my favorite movies*. A film I could have appeared in — had I known I’d soon be bald anyway. But that’s a story for another day. I’ll end with:

    Lighten up, Francis.

    *Extra points to who first names the film.

  39. Kudos to Chuck for using the eephus pitch as a metaphor.

    Bill “Spaceman” Lee, only major league baseball player to have a song written about him by Warren Zevon, used a version he called the Leephus pitch. He tried to sneak one past Tony Perez in game 7 of the 1975 World Series, but Perez blasted it over the Green Monster and halyway to Maine. After the game Lee shrugged off the pitch, and the series loss, saying, “Perez is going to the Hall of Fame. I’m going to the Elliot Lounge.”

  40. Kudos to Chuck for using the eephus pitch as a metaphor.

    Bill “Spaceman” Lee, only major league baseball player to have a song written about him by Warren Zevon, used a version he called the Leephus pitch. He tried to sneak one past Tony Perez in game 7 of the 1975 World Series, but Perez blasted it over the Green Monster and halyway to Maine. After the game Lee shrugged off the pitch, and the series loss, saying, “Perez is going to the Hall of Fame. I’m going to the Elliot Lounge.”

  41. So where do the people that don’t worship your God get their say. In this country you don’t have to believe in God anymore than you do Peter Pan. But your religious beliefs are supposed to govern peoples lives that do not share your faith. I think not…If so …then America truly is lost and no longer free.

  42. So where do the people that don’t worship your God get their say. In this country you don’t have to believe in God anymore than you do Peter Pan. But your religious beliefs are supposed to govern peoples lives that do not share your faith. I think not…If so …then America truly is lost and no longer free.

Comments are closed.