October 15, 2012

America’s Endangered Religious Liberty

Same-Sex Marriage protest

By Rick Plasterer

Same-sex marriage and the Health and Human Services contraceptive/abortifacient mandate are emerging as the greatest threats to domestic religious liberty, according to panelists at a half-day conference on legal protection for liberty of conscience, held by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

The September 13 discussion on the effect of same-sex marriage on religious liberty emphasized a grave threat, far graver than the public is generally aware. Kyle Duncan, General Counsel of the Becket Fund, Lawri Windham, Senior Counsel, and Joshua Hardy, Senior Counsel, were featured panelists. As they explained, there are two sources of threats, laws that forbid public accommodations from discrimination, and private lawsuits. Under the first, such cases as use of facilities owned by religious organizations for marriages where such use is open to the public or dating services provided by organizations or persons opposed to homosexuality are subject to lawsuits. Religious organizations could be barred from public social service because they are judged to be not acting in the public good or contrary to public policy, since the emerging public policy is supportive of equality for homosexual relations. Social workers may not be able to receive accreditation without affirming the morality of same sex relationships, and while officials at schools graduating such workers may be sympathetic to liberty of conscience, they may fear loss of accreditation if they protect the conscience of religious students. With private lawsuits, educational institutions housing for married students may face lawsuits from same sex couples. St. Joseph’s Medical Center in New York was cited as facing a lawsuit because it does not provide marital benefits to same sex spouses. The panel noted that religious individuals providing goods and services that might legally require facilitating homosexual behavior are even more legally exposed than religious organizations. The case of Julia Ward, dismissed from a social service educational program because she refused to affirm the morality of same-sex relationships was lost at the trial level, but overturned on appeal. The case of Elaine Photography in New Mexico, where a photographer was sued for refusing to photograph a lesbian ceremony has been so far lost, although it continues to be on appeal.

Read more here.

29 Responses to America’s Endangered Religious Liberty

  1. Dan Trabue says:

    Same-sex marriage and the Health and Human Services contraceptive/abortifacient mandate are emerging as the greatest threats to domestic religious liberty

    Oh, please. Try to have some serious worries, or better yet, give up the fear and doom lifestyle and trust in God a bit.

    Expecting professionals to meet standards is not the end of religious liberty. What you’re suggesting is akin to saying “If social workers who believe that blacks are inferior as part of their religious tenets don’t disavow that belief, then they can’t be accredited as social workers…” well of COURSE such prejudice would have no legitimate place in a professional group like social workers.

    Are you coming out against professional organizations having standards they expect their members to live by?

    We have religious liberty. You are free to marry who you wish. No one will force you to “accept” gay folk. You can hate them if you want.

    But don’t expect the modern marketplace to accept biased, hackneyed positions in the name of liberty. We will continue to reject religious discrimination against whole groups of people – whether that’s fundamentalist Muslims trying to force women into particular roles or fundamentalist Christians trying to enact prejudices in the public square. At home and at your church, you remain to be as biased as hell.

    I encourage giving up your biases and embracing grace, but no one will make you do so.

    These fearmongering sorts of rants just come across as so whiny. Grow up, believers.

  2. Ray Bannister says:

    What a pity. Once any whining group takes on the sacred status as “Victims,” they won’t settle for just tolerance and acceptance, they will silence everyone who dares to disagree with them. It already happens on college campuses, so it was inevitable it would happen in the wider culture. Living as a moral person in an immoral society is no easy task. There are rough times ahead, but on the positive side, the lukewarm Christians will fall away, leaving the church smaller but stronger.

  3. Donnie says:

    I’m thankful the Roman Catholic church has stood by what is right in regards to abortion and gay “marriage.” It’s shameful how most protestant denominations have traded what is right for what is popular.

  4. Dan Trabue says:

    That is your opinion, Donnie. Those of us in support of the “crazy” idea that encouraging faithful, loving, responsible marriage relationships for all people – gay or straight – believe we are the ones who are trading old, hateful biases in favor of what is right.

    Having come from your position, I know for sure that at least in my life, I have traded what is popular (in my former church circles, accepting gay marriage is NOT popular) for what I believe to be obviously good, true, pure, noble, loving… Right and Godly. At least for me, my former position (opposed to marriage equity) is the shameful and immoral one.

  5. Dan Trabue says:

    …to the point of the article, sort of, fortunately, you don’t get to decide for me what God’s opinion is about the moral and the good, and I don’t get to decide for you what God’s opinion is about the moral and the good. We each have the freedom and responsibility to sort that out for ourselves, as best we can, in seeking God and the Good.

    That liberty to do so is not at threat. That you don’t have the freedom to exercise religious biases publicly/institutionally is PART of our freedom of (and from) religion. Thanks be to God.

  6. […] have joined legal challenges to Obamacare’s anti-conscience mandate reached over 100 this week.America’s Endangered Religious Liberty Rick Plasterer, Juicy EcumenismSame-sex marriage and the Health and Human Services […]

  7. Dan Trabue says:

    Actually, I think a good question that this essay raises is, Are you all actually interested in defending religious liberty, OR are you hoping to encouraging the “liberty” for everyone to agree with your opinions about what is right and wrong, and actually denying liberty to those who disagree with you?

    This, of course, is not a defense of religious liberty at all… it is the polar opposite.

    So tell me: DO you all fully support the religious liberty of those who believe that marriage is a moral good for gay folk, just as it is for straight folk? Do you support their religious liberty enough that you will support their right to marriage (and all the perks and responsibilities that come with it), EVEN THOUGH you disagree with their opinions on it?

    OR, are you merely grousing about not having a lock on religious “liberty” for yourselves (ie, the “liberty” to agree with your views alone on what is and isn’t moral…), at the expense of the religious liberties of others?

    You’ll understand, I hope, if we don’t find the “liberty” to agree with you much of a defense of religious liberty in the real world. You’ll understand, I hope, that we will continue to fight for actual religious liberty and ignore those making merely self-serving (and ANTI-religious liberty) arguments.

  8. Tierce says:

    You know I think that some people forget that homosexuality and an authentic Christian presence are totally incompatible. In this I refer not to the terribly confused people who mindlessly defend a lifestyle which violates the laws of God and nature, whether they call themselves Christians or not.

    I think that orthodox Christian forget it as well. We believe the propaganda of the liberals that they are peace-loving and that all they want is freedom. They may even believe that, (though I think these days many in the movement are only interested in power).

    But as Christians we should know that true Christianity stands as a rebuke to ALL other ways of life. That rebuke tells people that the lies they have based their life upon are not good enough, it reminds of them of what they know deep inside: that they are condemned for their sins. Of COURSE they hate that, and they hate the people through whom that rebuke comes.

    That is why homosexuals keep pushing not for tolerance, or even acceptance but for affirmation. They NEED to force everyone in America to AFFIRM their way of life, because they know deep in their hearts how destructive their sin is. Thats why they blame everything on exterior problems, on society’s approbation, on parents and friends that won’t accept them.

    Thats why lawsuits to force people to affirm these lifestyles are inevitable. They must silence any voice which speaks the truth that they know in their hearts, that their is something desperately terribly wrong with the way they have chosen to live.

  9. J P Logan says:

    Ray and Tierce, you are so right about “forced acceptance.” In fact, in another post on Juicy Ecumenism, the gay Episc bishop Gene Robinson is very open about saying that he no longer wants “acceptance,” he wants for people to HAVE to affirm his lifestyle, a sentiment that is neither Christian or American.
    Tierce may be onto something: being in a minority, they may still harbor enough uneasiness about their lifestyle that they can’t help but become shrill when anyone dares question their anti-family anti-church agenda.

    • Dan Trabue says:

      So how about it, JP? Are you truly supportive of religious liberty – including those who disagree with you about gay marriage? OR, are you only wanting the “liberty” for people who agree with you, but those Christians (or others) who seek God and disagree with your hunches, you don’t want to allow freedom for them?

      If so, color me unimpressed.

      • Tierce says:

        Dan, It is obvious that you are free to believe and say whatever you want, no matter how ridiculous or morally bankrupt it may be. You are free to say it, and I am free to say that what you are saying is ridiculous and morally bankrupt.

        And the fact is that gay marriage goes beyond liberty and forces one viewpoint down the throats of millions of Americans. It attempts to grant one group the power to ban public discourse which disagrees with it, to punish those in business who disagree with it, and to use the coercive power of the state to win the argument for one side.
        The irony is that once the state has arrogated to itself such a level of power, it will NEVER give it up. Right now homosexuals enjoy the favor of a relatively small clique of the rich and powerful and that clique is attempting to crush any opposition, in politics, business, and civil society including the church (which was originally granted special protections in this one document called, the Constitution, I think).

        If successful, this move will be a death knell to liberty, because regardless of the specific issue, the State will have set a precedent for using its power to create a tenet of morality out of whole cloth, and impose it on society. Honestly, as a homosexual, (and thus a permanent and viscerally recognized minority) I would be very concerned about living in a country, where a particular political orthodoxy can be put in place and all opposition banned from the public square.

        Liberty is about allowing the most freedom for individuals possible without treading on other’s freedom. Marriage is about the fundamental unit of society, responsible for raising children, caring for the elderly and crippled, and providing the basis of all other relationships. Gay so-called marriage is about forcing society to validate two persons stated desire to have regular sex with each other.

        In a sense, I think that this is only an issue of religious freedom because religion is the last defense of what used to be American society. The special protections afforded to religion in that old document mean that when the whims of government, in both the legislature and the courts attack the fundamentals of understood human society, the people who still follow those tenets (and incidentally form the economic and tax base for the rest) take shelter in religion.

        And Dan, I couldn’t care less if you are impressed or not with me. But the movement you are perverting the scriptures and defaming the name of Christ to support is in direct opposition to my liberty, and that of all those that I am called to protect.

        In a related thought, how do you reconcile Romans 1 with your absurd notion of liberty? Seems to me that you are ashamed of the Gospel

  10. dover1952 says:

    Dan. After reading these comments, the thing I think is amusing here is how Christian fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals have come to believe that Christianity is ALL ABOUT a moral code. This is classic Old Testament legalism, and it comes across as the leaven of the pharisees to any sensitive, reasonable, and sensible person who hears it—especially a person familiar with the red words of Jesus in the New Testament.

    I am not gay—been married to my female wife for 33 years now. When I see gay guys kissing, it is a real turn off to me and not something i would want to do—for myself. However, I have some gay friends and some gay relatives. I believe my gay friends when they say that being gay was not a choice for them—that it was biologically compelled. However, even that is not the real issue.

    The real issue for Christians is not whether someone is gay, The real issue is how we treat gay people. I think it would be safe to say that most conservatives here would approve of harsh social and legal sanctions on gay people—going even so far as to prevent them from having jobs, proper housing, and any sort of real love. “God says they are an abomination and that they should all be killed, so let’s get on with it—you find a tree—and I will get the rope.” I think that pretty well sums it up.

    Business owners complain about the prospects of paying health insurance premiums for an employee who has a covered gay house mate. Apparently, God is going to punish the business owner because providing insurance coverage to the house mate constitutes “approving gayness.” Well, in my mind, providing insurance coverage to someone who may need it is an act of love and caring. Some female wives who get work-based health insurance through their husbands are probably chronic liars, which is also a sin. Should the company refuse to cover them because of this or some other sin? Coverage is a matter of treating people kindly and lovingly regardless of their sin condition. As Jesus says, God causes the rain to fall on the crops of both the just and unjust. If God is willing to be so kind, generous, and equitable to sinful men in general, how can we, who are called to have a similar mind, do any less.

    Bottom Line (and I am dead serious about this):

    Most Christian fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals I know treat Jesus’s words “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” as a filthy rag rather than something to be taken seriously and lived out. In fact, they tend to ignore almost all such Jesus sayings in the Bible.

    • Dan Trabue says:

      First off, Dover, I would have to strongly disagree with you that “most conservatives” – here or elsewhere – would approve of harsh governmental sanctions/punishments for gay folk. Certainly most conservatives today don’t want to kill gay folk (even though that IS the biblical command from God in the OT, according to these conservatives). I was a conservative type myself, and I NEVER had anything but love for gay folk in my heart and mind. I just thought they were way wrong/way sinful (you know, like we ALL are sinful… only worse) and greatly in need of salvation.

      I had no desire to see gay folk punished, stoned, criminalized or killed. I wanted to see them saved and turn away from their natural orientation. I am certain that this is true for all but the more vicious outliers in conservative-dom.

      Unfortunately, even though my GOAL was to love them and see them saved, I DID act towards “the gays” in unloving, unkind, inconsistent ways. I DID want to see them denied religious liberty (although I wouldn’t have put it that way at the time). I did not believe they could seriously strive to follow God and maintain their orientation at the same time, and didn’t trust their freedom of conscience to follow God as best they knew how. I certainly would not have supported them and their faith communities being allowed the freedom of religion to marry.

      I was wrong. Even if I disagreed with their opinions about some behaviors, I was wrong to want to deny them their religious liberty.

      It appears that the same is true here. The writers at this post don’t really support religious liberty, it appears, just the “liberty” to agree with them, which is no liberty at all.

      I do think you have a legitimate point about how are more conservative brothers and sisters treat the bible – more as a holy rule book rather than God’s book of Truth. There IS too much of a pharisaical flavor to the way they approach exegesis.

      And, unfortunately, it seems to me that their Biblical depth is about an inch wide and an 1/8 of an inch deep. They too often do not appear to be prepared to “come, reason together” and think through the implications of their (what seems to me to be) shallow approach to Bible study.

      You’re also right about their approach to gov’t and “the gays” and the Bible. Saying “forcing” Christians to rent to gay folk is a lack of religious liberty is just not a very rational conclusion. If you’re not going to rent to sinners, who ARE you going to rent to? I would say that IF a Christian business owner wanted to be consistent in their rental rules and refuse to rent to ALL sinners, that could make some sense. But saying that you can’t discriminate against a certain group is a legitimate gov’t call, it seems to me.

      To PROTECT religious liberty, not deny it.

      And suggesting that gov’t should outlaw gay folk from adopting children is just blatant religious discrimination and a denying of religious liberty.

      So, once again, it seems clear that the folk here do not truly support religious liberty and this moaning and complaining is a red herring when what they truly mean is they want the “liberty” to do whatever they want and deny that right to others. That is not liberty (religious or otherwise), that is a rather childish road to oppression.

  11. Rick Plasterer says:

    The first argument advanced against my article is the standard one likening opposition to homosexuality to racial discrimination. Racial differences are superficial, sexual differences are profound. It is not clear how the races of mankind should be classifed, with the very concept of race having become so politically incorrect the objective existence of races is commonly denied. Sexual difference runs throughout the entire human species, indeed throughout much of the living world, and particularly its higher forms. It is always the same difference, male and female, which is objective. The difference is a reasonable basis for legal and social standards, and not at all unjust, regardless of how badly anyone is offended.

    What is not noticed with the ever increasing individual and protected group rights is that the more the state guarantees rights, the more it comes to regulate all social relations. “Handicapped status” and “sexual orientation” were not originally protected categories; now they are. Obesity and left-handedness have been proposed as oppressed categories, though they have not gained legal recognition. What is evolving in antidisrimination law and policy is a state doctrine based on hurt feelings, applied independently of religious conscience, reasoned argument, or the public will. It already is being applied to churches and religious organizations in some jurisdictions. Where antidiscrimination law includes sexual orientation, churches may not be free to hire and fire nonclerical employees based on traditional Christian morality (as in the United Kingdom), nor can they provide social services, which is a religious activity, according to their own religious standards. Could Holy Communion according to religious standards be prohibited as discriminatory? This has been attempted in the Netherlands. Freedom only to believe is not, in fact, the free exercise of religion. The line must be drawn at requiring people to perform actions that violate their conscience.

    • Dan Trabue says:


      Racial differences are superficial, sexual differences are profound.

      One is born a certain race. One is born with a certain orientation. Neither is something anyone can reasonably do anything about. It’s an apt comparison. Trying to ask someone to change their orientation is as irrational and immoral as asking someone to change their race.


      Freedom only to believe is not, in fact, the free exercise of religion. The line must be drawn at requiring people to perform actions that violate their conscience.

      So you SUPPORT gay folk who believe God wants them to marry being allowed to marry? That is my point. If you oppose that freedom of religion for them, you can’t reasonably ask people to support your freedom of religion.

      You will retain the right to not marry a gay guy if you don’t want to. Your freedom of religion will not be violated in that way.

      You will retain the right to say, “You know, I think homosexual practices are immoral.” Your freedom of religion will not be violated in that way.

      You will NOT retain the freedom (it’s not a freedom you have right now) to do or say whatever you want with no consequences. If your company has a rule “You can’t talk about people’s race or orientation in a demeaning way,” then you don’t have the freedom to demand that your right to be demeaning trumps your company’s right to have rules. You don’t have that right now.

      But you will retain the right to disagree with gay marriage all you want, however irrational or immoral other people might find your position. The evidence? The horrible folk of Westboro have retained their freedom to be jerks, you will retain that right, also.

      Do you see how you appear to be asking for YOUR freedom of religion at the SAME TIME that you want to deny it to others? Do you see how that comes across as hypocritical and immoral and irrational?

      Your right to practice your religion ends at other people’s right to practice their religion.

      Where am I mistaken?

      • Ray Bannister says:

        Re “born with an orientation”:

        Anne Heche

        • Dan Trabue says:

          Ray said, with no explanation…

          Anne Heche

          I assume the suggestion is that, since she was with a woman and then, with men, that she was not born with a sexual orientation? Or that sexual orientation is not innate?

          I don’t know what the point is, but looking at the observable facts on hand/what science shows us, human sexual orientation is a spectrum. Some people being completely heterosexual, a small minority being completely homosexual and those in between, who have more or less an orientation towards either the same gender or the opposite gender. In that spectrum, the evidence shows us, there is room for a segment whose orientation is more or less equally attracted to same/opposite gender… ie,bisexual.

          That some people have relationships with same gender then later, the opposite gender, is only support for the evidence that our sexual orientation is on a spectrum. That is, we are innately more or less oriented to either the same gender, the opposite gender, or somewhere in between.

          Let the evidence speak for itself, Ray.


  12. Tim Vernon says:

    Rick, you got it right: “state doctrine based on hurt feelings.” I might extend that and say “hurt feelings as measured by whatever ‘victim’ group can complain loudest and hire the most attorneys and get the most people scheduled on The View.” We’ve got a government that largely determines policy according to the Squeakiest Wheels.

    • Dan Trabue says:

      Is that why you the Religious Right whines so much? You all aren’t getting enough attention? “They’re trying to take away our right to deny liberties to gay folk! We’re so oppressed!!”

      Your right to practice your religion ends at other people’s RIGHTS, that has nothing to do with hurt feelings. You can be jerks about other people, no problem, just let folk have their religious liberty and the freedom to live their lives without your “hurt feelings” or fears or religious biases interfere with other people liberty.

    • Eric Lytle says:

      I think it’s pretty much inevitable that the next Squeaky Wheel group will be pedophiles. The liberals have pushed society so far in the direction of accepting any form of vile behavior that soon enough the Jerry Sanduskys of the world will be making a case for what they do – if a 40yo man can legally have sex with an 18yo man (with the full approval of the liberal churches, I might add), why not with a 16yo man – or a 12yo boy? Most of us (or anybody who still has a conscience anyway) were thoroughly nauseated reading about Sandusky’s shower encounter with a kid, but add just a few more years to the kid’s age, and what do you get? – the setup for half the gay porn videos. Sandusky probably meets a lot of fellow pedophiles in his current residence, and I’m guessing the ones who are younger than him are hoping that at some point the prison gates will open as they go out into that New and Tolerant America where what they did is no longer a crime. In this morally upside down world where a fast-food chain gets flack because it calls itself “pro-marriage,” we’re probably headed to the point where criticism of pedophiles will not be tolerated.

      Horrible to think about, but even more horrible that, without a doubt, the Usual Suspects (liberal clergy) will be pushing for it the whole way:
      Reach out in love to your pedophile neighbors!
      Jesus taught love, not hate!
      Don’t bring your children up in hate and fear – teach them that love is God’s gift to be shared!

      • Dan Trabue says:


        The liberals have pushed society so far in the direction of accepting any form of vile behavior that soon enough the Jerry Sanduskys of the world will be making a case for what they do

        This comparison of liberals to those who’d support pedophilia is diabolical, disgusting and childish. I rebuke this sort of slander in the name of Jesus, who stood up against JUST this sort of pharisaical excrement.

        Jesus’ pharisees ended up helping to crucify him. I wonder what the Pharisees/Conservatives of today will do?

        Shame on you, Mr Lytle. Grow up in the faith, repent of this sort of disgusting behavior. It is not of the kingdom of God. False witness and slander never are.


  13. […] My “friends” at the IRD think religious liberty is an endangered species in the United S…. […]

  14. Paul Hoskins says:

    I don’t know the source of this quote, but I like it:

    A man convinced against his will
    Is of the same opinion still.

    Don’t these shrill, adolescent whiners know that when the law FORCES acceptance of them, they haven’t really changed people’s hearts and minds? In fact, it breeds resentment – another boo-hoo coalition that has to be pandered to, everyone tiptoeing around so that, heaven forbid, the hypersensitive little dears won’t get their precious feelings hurt. They sure don’t give a hoot about anyone else’s feelings – like Christians who constantly get slandered as being “haters” because we have morals. The worst thing about identity politics is that it’s all about very selfish groups using their political muscle so that THEIR feelings fall into the protected category while others’ feelings don’t matter at all. Groups like this aren’t even adults, they are peevish brats who know they can manipulate Daddy (the government) if they just throw enough hissyfits. How sad to have government manipulated by people who have the maturity of a three-year-old paired with the promiscuous sex drive of a sixteen-year-old. They must not have a clue how ridiculous they look. The next time someone argues against same-sex “marriage,” maybe he can use this argument: We don’t let children marry.

  15. Ben Welliver says:

    Being critical of pedophiles qualifies as “false witness and slander”? Christians are “Pharisees” if they condemn evil behavior?

    Eric L, I think he pretty much proved your point for you. He’s blatantly pro-gay, and he’s rapping your knuckles for dissing the pedophiles. Never saw a slippery slope argument proven so easily.

    FYI, Mr. Doesn’t Know Jack Squat About the Bible: the Pharisees did not crucify Jesus. The priests and Sadducees condemned Jesus and handed him over to the Romans. The Pharisees played no part in the crucifixon. One of the curiosities of liberaldom is that the less people know about the Bible, the more they pose as experts on it.

    • Dan Trabue says:

      ?! Did you even read my actual words or are you so intent on slander and defending slander than you just presume to pull BS up from your gut?

      I did not criticize those who criticize pedophiles. I pointed out that comparing liberals to those who would defend pedophilia is a sick, twisted lies from the bowels of hades.

      Repent, sinners. Give up this demonization of the Other, give up this attack upon those within the body of Christ. Embrace grace.

      Those who live by the sword, die by the sword. Those who live by twisting the truth and slander, will die by it. Give it up, men. Act like men. Admit the error and apologize and back off.

      In the name of Jesus.

    • Dan Trabue says:

      Ben’s comment is another perfect example of this slime-level demonization tactics too many here engage in.

      Look at this reasonably, setting aside your emotional feelings and knee jerk responses for just a minute.

      I stated…

      Jesus’ pharisees ended up helping to crucify him.

      Ben responded…

      FYI, Mr. Doesn’t Know Jack Squat About the Bible: the Pharisees did not crucify Jesus. The priests and Sadducees condemned Jesus and handed him over to the Romans. The Pharisees played no part in the crucifixon. One of the curiosities of liberaldom is that the less people know about the Bible, the more they pose as experts on it.

      Ben’s response was snarky, arrogant and, as I demonstrated, factually mistaken. My response was to quote the Bible and show where people can reasonably draw a conclusion that the Pharisees had a role to play in crucifying Jesus…

      The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.

      1. This passage is speaking of THE PHARISEES and…
      2. How they worked with THE HERODIANS (ie, the ancient Jewish equivalent of the Religious Right [some might say] associated with the Roman gov’t), to…

      Ultimately, it was the Pharisees, the Sadduccees, the Herodians and the Roman gov’t ALL TOGETHER working together to crucify Jesus on trumped up charges (the very charges that the Pharisees were making against Jesus, along with other charges).

      The organization, Bible-Truth.org agrees with my assessment that the Pharisees played a part in the process. My statement, that the Pharisees had a role in helping to crucify Jesus, is a solid biblical conclusion.

      But Ben, instead of letting it go, instead of saying respectfully, “Actually, it was more the Sadducees and priests who killed Jesus than the Pharisees…,” instead of either of those, Ben twisted what I was saying (as if I was suggesting it was the Pharisees alone who crucified Jesus) and then used that strawman to beat up on me, mocking me for my supposed lack of biblical knowledge and THEN used that strawman to attack liberal Christians in general.

      Now, a REASONABLE and responsible person would see that they’d made a mistake and been called on it. A reasonable and responsible person would back up and apologize. No huge deal, just a simple, “My fault, you’re correct, the Pharisees did help in the process of killing Jesus. I should not have mocked your Bible knowledge nor should I have knocked all liberals. Clearly, I am the wrong mistaken, not Dan or the liberals, at least in this case…”

      No problem. Mistakes happen. I graciously forgive you for that mistake. I certainly make my share of them. No harm, no foul. Perhaps you just misread what I actually said, thinking I was suggesting it was only the Pharisees who played a role in the process of getting Jesus crucified. An honest mistake.

      Just admit it and move on, that is the adult and certainly the Christian thing to do here.

      But instead of doing that, you all continually make up false charges and slander good Christian people. Shame. On. You.

      Repent, my brothers, for your own sake.

      If the IRD were half the Christian organization they claimed to be, someone would come along and clean up this barn.

      • J P Logan says:

        Once in a while a liberal lets his “tolerance” mask slip off and admits she would like to impose censorship. They already do it in the universities, and obviously some wish to do it to the Internet. Guess we better enjoy our freedom of speech while we still have it.

        • Dan Trabue says:


          Once in a while a liberal lets his “tolerance” mask slip off and admits she would like to impose censorship.

          False witness, slander, ad hom attack.

          Do you have any points to make about what I ACTUALLY said or are you just going to pull crap out of your brain and post it here for everyone to see?

          What about the demonstrably false charges I’ve pointed out? Instead of dealing with actual sin, you’re just going to make up stuff that I didn’t say and don’t believe in an effort to slander me?

          Shame on you, little man. Repent. You should be better than this.

          Seriously, does anyone on the Right (in this place, anyway) care about bearing of false witness? About slander? These are listed in the bible as not part of the kingdom, do you not want to clean up this sort of filth on your pages? And, by “clean up” I don’t mean censor, I mean ADDRESS it like adults.

  16. Dan Trabue says:

    Regarding your Pharisees/Bible false charge…

    The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.

    Yes, the Sadducees and priests had their hand in the plot to have Jesus killed, but clearly, so did the Pharisees, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE.

    I am clearly no great biblical scholar, I have no seminary degree, nor am I especially intelligent. Nonetheless, I and my anabaptist/”liberal” crowd – in my experience – have a deeper and more well-read Bible experience than most so-called “conservative” types I encounter on these internets.

    The point remains valid: Modern pharisees (which I would identify as the shallow type of conservatives as I meet in places like this – those who stand ready to crucify those who don’t read the Bible literally enough for their tastes) STILL seek to crucify and demonize rather than embracing grace, love and the family of God.

    I implore you to give up these attacks upon the body of Christ, to repent and to embrace grace, rather than hatred and evil shown here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *