![]() |
|
![]()
November 22, 2008
The Republican Party's New Platform
I just got a comment at one of my blog posts on the attitude Real Republicans™ should take towards homosexuals. I ain't naming names or quoting the rest of the text but here is the gist of it: Leviticus 18:22 [22] You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Romans 1:25-28 [25] For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. [26] For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, [27] and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. [28] And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 [9] Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals , nor sodomites, [10] nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. == Well you get the idea. Not only will them homos not get the Kingdom of God, they are to be persecuted here on earth by a True Christian Government™ which the True Christians™ of the Real Republican Party™ will bring us any day now. As soon as they get elected. Sounds like a winner to me. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 11.22.08 at 01:13 PM
Comments
I'm just quoting the justification used. If you want to find the whole comment you are going to have to root around. I will not dignify it with a link. Simon M. Simon · November 22, 2008 02:52 PM Perhaps you would prefer Islam to Christian? Hugh · November 22, 2008 05:49 PM Hugh, Once you have a religious government in a secular state like the USA it is not difficult to switch religions. All the justifications for religious rule will have already been built in. My thinking is that the Republicans as a party are dead. The "Independent" party is the largest party in the USA and in that lies opportunity. M. Simon · November 22, 2008 06:33 PM The Republicans don't do well in a couple of elections and people start diagnosing death. Since Nixon didn't finish off the GOP I think the rumors might be exaggerated. snaggletoothie · November 23, 2008 12:00 AM If the Republican party is dead, then it's the "Christian" right that has killed it. As a libertarian Republican in the Goldwater tradition, I am utterly disgusted at where the Huckabees and LaHayes would lead my party. melo · November 23, 2008 12:02 AM In a place where people get to vote on the government they want argumentum ad populum in fact works. The social conservatives who dominate the Republican party have said: my way or the highway. Well the highway it is then. Jesus was an enticer, Mohamed was an enforcer. There is a clue there. M. Simon · November 23, 2008 06:34 AM What killed the Republican party was it's insistence on courting the evangelical vote. The evangelicals, by and large, are not "conservative" by any measure a non-religious person would recognize. They really don't seem to care one way or another about fiscal policy, tax policy, or regulation. They are keen on moral regulation -- which would normally make them a better fit on the left -- but they are anti-abortion. And so the Republicans made the case that the anti-abortion position was the stronger obligation. And once the evangelicals got in the door, we get nominees like Huckabee, who is progressive in every way except his position on abortion. And the media now have a template - that all christians are conservative, and all conservatives are christians. And that just ain't so. I have no problem with evangelicals. But if they want to be a part of a conservative party, they have to be for limited government above all else. Clearly, the evangelical movement in this country is not in favor of limited government. They just want to use it differently than the non-evangelical progressives. brian · November 23, 2008 08:45 AM "In a place where people get to vote on the government they want argumentum ad populum in fact works. " You're confusing a procedural question with a question about soundness of reasoning. snaggletoothie · November 23, 2008 10:40 AM Hear hear! It is time to finally abandon economic conservatism and let the country go bankrupt while we argue over what 3% of the population do with their genitals! Eric Scheie · November 23, 2008 11:35 AM snaggletooth, If the Bible determines truth why bother with reason? Some schizophrenic (the kind that hear voices) wrote some stuff down in a book a very long time ago and now in our exalted state we call that the word of God. Well OK. I'd call it the ravings of a lunatic but, to each his own. In any case I wasn't arguing reason I was arguing reality. Some times the two do not conform. Any way how could True Conservatives™ elect such a bad example for President. You know. That Reagan guy. He was an adulterer. He is not going to heaven. And he got married to that fornicating woman after divorcing his first wife. It says so in The Book™. In fact according to the book he is just as bad as those homos. I remember there was a time when divorced people were if not shunned then held in disrepute. Our moral standards are definitely on the decline. I blame the printing press and their spawn from hell the dime novel. M. Simon · November 23, 2008 11:58 AM Silly Simon :-) Books are good. It's the internet that is evil. Especially bloggers! Donna B. · November 23, 2008 12:21 PM How did the Bible, schizophrenia, fornicating women, who might be "just as bad as those homos", and I guess what is supposed to be some kind of moral high ground because you're, "arguing reality?"
snaggletoothie · November 23, 2008 12:45 PM snag, Why just the homos? Isn't that a tad hypocritical? I think you do not argue in good faith. M. Simon · November 23, 2008 03:49 PM Though I don't biblically agree with what the leftist illuminati says about how minorities should be treated better than the mainstream, I do think that the conservatives don't often enough believe in hating the sin, not the sinner EW · November 23, 2008 04:12 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
November 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
November 2008
October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Up with maleness?
A Really Interesting Discussion part of the culture The Republican Party's New Platform Candy-ass goes mainstream Sanctification Help For Aging Brains Looking At The Future Ask not (and tell not) what you can do for your country... A Servant's Heart
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Your point is that gays are being persecuted by some Republicans. Throwing out a few quotes from the Bible is not even in the same ball park as proving that.