September 26, 2014

DC Lobby Attacks UMC “Heterosexism,” Disrespects Global Church

At their fall 2014 board meeting, held last week, the board of directors of the United Methodist Church’s D.C. lobby office, the General Board of Church and Society (GBCS) directors decided to petition the next General Conference to approve several (technically non-binding) resolutions related to homosexuality, following the recommendations of its Human Welfare Work Area.

In sharp contrast to General Conference debates over such statements, directors in the plenary session seemed to take care to avoid any direct, substantive discussion of the basic questions of whether or not the church should support biblical standards for sexual self-control, or more fundamentally if the church has any dramatically transformative new life to offer to people, including members of the LGBTQIA community, that is far superior to any sort of shallow, secular “I’m okay, you’re okay” gospel of personal affirmation.  It seems that directors on both sides of such questions understand that theologically secularized American directors have such a strong majority that no one wants to get into potentially heated debates when the ultimate outcome is a foregone conclusion.

One of these GBCS-proposed petitions is entitled “Opposition to Sexual Prejudice, Homophobia and Heterosexism.” It would extensively re-write and re-adopt a lamentable, technically eight-year old resolution that was mercifully scheduled for expiration. One could narrowly construe the term “homophobia” to mean unloving fear and hatred of same-sex-attracted persons, which all Christians should indeed oppose. But by additionally denouncing “heterosexism,” the resolution is clearly going much further. Any definition of “heterosexism” would certainly include the UMC’s own official stance that sexual relations are only for the covenant of monogamous, heterosexual marriage, and that homosexual practice is intrinsically sinful. The GBCS would have this resolution continue its earlier call for the GBCS to produce materials to re-educate United Methodists away from “heterosexism.”

Bishop Christian Alsted of the Nordic and Baltic area in Northern Europe asked if the Human Welfare Work Area had dialogued with United Methodists from Africa and Eastern Europe (where homosexuality is culturally taboo) before recommending this resolution. This was followed by some extended and increasingly awkward attempts to avoid a direct answer to the bishop’s question. Finally, Kurt Karandy, a layman from the Upper New York Conference in the Northeastern Jurisdiction, admitted that the Human Welfare Work Area, which he chairs, includes no members from those regions, and indicated that they had not sought to hear what such overseas United Methodists thought about this specific resolution.

Bishop Alsted said that as a Westerner, he understood the resolution’s concerns, but “I am worried that we in the West will impose on the world something without first hearing them. We may wish to still say what this resolution is saying, but we need to respect and hear [non-Western members of our denomination] first.”

He tried to refer to resolution back to its work area with the instructions to seek dialogue with non-Western United Methodists before finalizing their revision and recommendation on the resolution. But the bishop’s motion was overwhelmingly rejected, by a board of directors that purports to represent a global denomination while systematically marginalizing non-Americans into a tiny minority of token slots.

Lonnie Chafin, a lay director from the Northern Illinois Conference in the North Central Jurisdiction, sought to amend the resolution so that the GBCS’s re-education efforts would have “particular emphasis on developing materials relevant to the members of central conferences contexts” in which our denomination is organized overseas. He said that he did not intend to insult anyone, but “[t]here is a continent where people are put in jail for life and even killed” and so he urged fellow directors to “not pretend that that’s not a reality.” Ultimately, the Chafin amendment lost the day to a European director’s protesting the negative implications of non-American United Methodists being insufficiently educated.

The handful of directors who ultimately voted against the anti-heterosexism resolution, in a quick hand vote, appeared to come largely or entirely from the Southern United States and overseas central conferences.

The GBCS directors also decided to petition the next General Conference to adopt their extensively revised version of an already-expired gay-rights resolution misleadingly entitled, “Rights of All Persons.” The broadly worded resolution, especially as the GBCS wants to re-write it, appears at times to conflate simple disapproval of homosexual practice with harsh, targeted persecution of same-sex-attracted individuals. The resolution says that “[i]t is particularly disturbing when religious values are used to justify persecution” of GLBT people and calls upon United Methodists “to refrain from signing petitions and to vote against measures that advocate the denial of basic human and civil rights to anyone,” “to stand against any political or physical acts that deny human and civil rights and the sacred worth of all persons,” “to advocate for initiatives which would prohibit job and housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity throughout the world,” and “to advocate for initiatives which provide for extra penalties for crimes which are expressly committed for the purpose of harming someone based solely on their age race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender, or disability.”

Obviously committing crimes to harm any person, or hatred against any individual or particular category of people, must be forcefully opposed by Christians. But it is striking that the GBCS believes (without any thoughtful reflection that I observed) that even when someone has already been sentenced for a crime committed, governments should set a precedent of going down the road of subjecting the perpetrator to an “extra penalty” for the sole crime of his/her internal thoughts related to “heterosexism.” On what comprehensive, morally consistent basis does the GBCS determine that some internal motivations for already-punished crimes are worthy of additional punishment (like “heterosexism”) while others (like pride, greed, lust, vengeance, or old-fashioned interpersonal hatred) are not? Furthermore, while the GBCS and progressive United Methodists are generally very knee-jerk in decrying any sort of “punishment” or “penalties,” it seems revealing how quickly they abandon their professed commitment to alternative “restorative justice” in their zeal for retribution against “heterosexism.”

Finally, the GBCS is now further petitioning the 2016 General Conference to re-adopt a petition entitled, “Church to Be in Ministry to Persons of All Sexual Orientations.” Among other things, this resolution, as revised by the GBCS, commendably condemns violence against same-sex-attracted people and expresses concern over teenagers “dealing with questions about sexual orientation” being “at a greater risk for suicide and violence perpetrated against them.” However, this resolution, like the other two, says nothing affirming of biblical standards for sexual self-control, and if seen in isolation, could easily be interpreted as indicating that the UMC is unconcerned about teaching such standards.

From the statements and pronouncements of the very Washington office charged with promoting the UMC’s Social Principles, one would never know that “support [for] laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman” has been written into these Social Principles since 2004 by now-IRD President Mark Tooley.

Furthermore, the GBCS now proposes revising this third resolution to rather broadly and vaguely call on the UMC to “advocate for policies that protect the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons.” If past behavior is any indication, the GBCS staff would treat this unlimited clause, along with the aforementioned resolutions, as a sweeping mandate to lobby governments in favor of just about any and every gay-rights cause imaginable. There is little reason to expect the current GBCS to even oppose statutes which result in Christians who do not wish to be compelled to supportively participate in same-sex wedding ceremonies facing threats to their livelihoods, possible jail time, and even being told by a state supreme court justice that “the price of citizenship” is being “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”

At their spring meeting earlier this year, directors approved a statement that claimed that “[l]egislation that denies the human rights of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender is being deliberated and enacted in states of the United States and countries around the world,” and, under the banner of opposing sexual-orientation-based “discrimination,” rather broadly denounced “all legislation that promotes discrimination under the guise of religious freedom.” That statement also commended Bishop Robert Hoshibata of the Desert-Southwest Conference in the Western Jurisdiction, who is also president of the GBCS board of directors, for strongly denouncing a relevant, carefully written, widely misrepresented Arizona bill, and claimed that the elite church’s leader’s adding his un-nuanced “me too” to the agenda of some of the most powerful secular political forces and wealthiest corporations in America was somehow “prophetic.”

Both that earlier statement and what I was able to observe of the discussion preceding its adoption seemed to deliberately conflate harsh laws subjecting same-sex attracted persons to imprisonment or worse penalties in some Global South countries with recently proposed bills in some U.S. states intended to simply protect Christians and other supporters of traditional moral values from the sort of legal harassment noted above.

But under the leadership of Karandy, as chair of the Human Welfare Work Area, and Chris Pierson (a clergy GBCS director from the Northern Illinois Conference) as chair of the work area handling international affairs, the meeting at which that statement was initially developed and most extensively discussed was illegally closed to outside observers other than staff. A GBCS staffer later confirmed that this decision of theirs violated our denomination’s “open meetings” policy. Yet Karandy and Pierson remained unapologetic. They both declined to answer on-the-record questions about what they intended, with this statement, to signify about such cases as those noted above or about whether or not they saw the UMC’s own moral standards as among sexual-orientation-based “discrimination” they were so broadly denouncing. (In any case, Karandy has already made his own perspective rather clear, and it is highly doubtful that Pierson would have such a prominent position as Bishop Sally Dyck’s Director of Connectional Ministries if he was insufficiently enthusiastic for her militantly liberal agenda.) Last week, Karandy even cited the allegedly broad nature of that closed February meeting to rebut Bishop Alsted’s request that his work area should intentionally dialogue with non-Western United Methodists before endorsing another homosexuality-related resolution.

Insofar as they embrace secular American sexual values, progressive United Methodists are claiming to know better thanthe clear teachings of Scripture, 2,000 years of consistent church tradition, and the UMC’s own foundational Doctrinal Standards. In the way some have sought to use the whole denomination’s apportionment-funded GBCS to serve as a pet vehicle for their personal, partisan political agendas, without regard for how needlessly divisive this is and how much this violates the GBCS’s own agreed-upon Disciplinary boundaries, they have demonstrated little concern for going about church life in a way that honors and extends basic Golden-Rule treatment to fellow United Methodists outside of their own narrow political faction. When they cannot even bring themselves to publicly defend orthodox believers against fines, imprisonment, or loss of livelihood simply for “the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives,” it is not clear how such progressive United Methodists see more orthodox believers, even in their same churches, as their brothers and sisters in Christ, in any meaningful way.


58 Responses to DC Lobby Attacks UMC “Heterosexism,” Disrespects Global Church

  1. Norman Lane says:

    Memo to the BCS:
    It’s pretty certain that Jesus’ words “Judge not” apply to people who reduce their fellow human beings to “-ists.”

    I don’t find in the Bible a God who opposes -isms, He opposes sin. His remedy for sin is for individuals to repent and turn to him.

  2. eMatters2 says:

    Opposing “heterosexism” = opposing God. It is sad that the Methodists let these non-Christians in as members, let alone as leaders.

    • MarcoPolo says:

      “Open doors, open hearts, open minds”
      Whatever happened to that campaign theme?
      Oh, right, the Orthodox sect of Methodism decided that LGBT people were less than holy, and didn’t want to welcome them!

      • eMatters2 says:

        No, they still went by the Bible (go figure!) and the Methodist Book of Discipline. If you struggle with same-sex attraction that would be fine. If you want to say that sin isn’t sin and you want to teach the opposite of the Bible and the Book of Discipline then you are in the wrong place. If you do that, of course you aren’t welcome! Would you say that LGBTQX groups weren’t open minded for not agreeing to let authentic Christians join and then disband the organizations or change their missions 180 degrees?

        http://wp.me/p1wGU-3P7 The Bible couldn’t be more clear. Bible-believing Christians and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people* (religious or not) can see these truths:

        – 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.

        – 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.

        – 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).

        – 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions of any kind. There are no exceptions for “committed” relationships.

        – 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to LGBT couples parenting children.

        * The three general types of pro-gay theology people:

        1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it isn’t the word of God.” (Obviously non-Christians

        2. “The Bible says it is wrong but God changed his mind and is only telling the theological Left.” (Only about 10 things wrong with that.)

        3. “The Bible is the word of God but you are just misunderstanding it” (Uh, no, not really.)

        • MarcoPolo says:

          I totally agree with your position for maintaining the Church at it’s current status-quo.
          It’s mission and purpose was, and always will be, to exist in our world as a representation of, and for God’s existence…and quite a bit more!

          That being said, I maintain a respectful reverence for all religions, and in a spiritual perspective, there isn’t any reason to think any single one of them, is “more righteous” than the other.
          Each follower will proclaim his, as THE ONE, and defend it to some ugly ends at times.

          I was raised and baptized a Methodist (notice I didn’t say Christian), and having lived through the Civil Rights Act period,

          I can’t see the LGBT issue any differently on it’s face value.
          Therefore, as it was righteous, to fight for those human rights in the 60’s, it is also righteous to fight for the rights of the LGBT portion of our society, today!

          Whether you see it the same way or not, might depend more upon your religious affiliation, and it’s dictates.

          There are every degree of vagaries among the world’s religions, but if they promote Compassion and Understanding, then you’ll no doubt find me defending those religions every time.

          • eMatters2 says:

            “That being said, I maintain a respectful reverence for all religions, and in a spiritual perspective, there isn’t any reason to think any single one of them, is “more righteous” than the other.”

            Of course one is more righteous than the rest. Christianity represents God as He is, and the rest have false Gods. That breaks the first two commandments! How can they be more righteous?

            Under no circumstance can more than one be true. For example, the “Islam and Christianity worship the same God” lie is so transparently false you can refute it in a single Tweet: Denying Jesus’ deity is a heresy in Christianity. Affirming it is a blasphemy in Islam. #notthesame

            I treat all people with respect, but would never revere another religion.

            “Each follower will proclaim his, as THE ONE, and defend it to some ugly ends at times.”

            That doesn’t mean all are true or all are false.

            “I was raised and baptized a Methodist (notice I didn’t say Christian), and having lived through the Civil Rights Act period,

            I can’t see the LGBT issue any differently on it’s face value.”

            Skin color is morally neutral. Sexual behavior is not. The Bible is explicit about what it says about LGBTQX behavior. There isn’t even a hint that skin color could be a sin.

            “Therefore, as it was righteous, to fight for those human rights in the 60’s, it is also righteous to fight for the rights of the LGBT portion of our society, today!”

            No, LGBTQX behavior is sinful and destructive. If you love your neighbor you would never encourage it.

            “There are every degree of vagaries among the world’s religions, but if they promote Compassion and Understanding, then you’ll no doubt find me defending those religions every time.”

            Islam, for example, is the opposite of compassion and understanding. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

          • MarcoPolo says:

            You may not be required to revere others’ religion, but surely, it wouldn’t be a sin to respect another person’s religion. And that’s my point!

            The first problem in the world today may be unwarranted violence against another, and with your attitude, regarding ‘your’ religion as “more righteous”, then you’re basically begging to incite violence!
            Not to mention being prideful, which is also a sin.

            As Ghandi fought for universal peace and understanding, I too, strive to understand why peoples of differing religions seek to laud their own religion while denouncing all others.

            We CAN all get along, if we don’t take ourselves so seriously. Don’t you think God has a sense of humor too?

            Peace be upon you.

          • eMatters2 says:

            “The first problem in the world today may be unwarranted violence against another, and with your attitude, regarding ‘your’ religion as “more righteous”, then you’re basically begging to incite violence! ”

            That’s just ridiculous. Advocating for Christianity won’t incite violence. It explicitly says to love your neighbor!

            Islam started, spread and continues to terrorize with violence. You’d have to be willfully ignorant of historical facts to deny that. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

            “As Ghandi fought for universal peace and understanding, I too, strive to understand why peoples of differing religions seek to laud their own religion while denouncing all others.”

            First, Gandhi was overrated — http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/was-mahatma-gandhi-really-a-good-person/ .

            Second, people miss the irony of his famous statement about liking Jesus but not his followers. While appearing to be humble, it is actually the height of arrogance. He obviously feels superior to all Christians. And if he didn’t trust in Jesus for his salvation then he hadn’t learned enough about the real Jesus to assess that.

            Jesus was God in flesh, so of course Christians will fall short of the ideal. But Gandhi thought he was good enough to meet God’s standards on his own. Epic fail.

            “We CAN all get along”

            Who isn’t getting along? The number of people I’ve killed for my religion (or even advocated for) is still zero.

            Speaking of violence, please confirm that you are anti-abortion (otherwise you’d be a flaming hypocrite, right?). If this isn’t violent, nothing is — http://tinyurl.com/yzjq4lv http://www.advocatesoflife.com/graphicabortionimages.htm

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I’m almost certain, that trying to converse with you is a non-plus. But I am tolerant enough to continue.

            Please understand that I hear your insistence upon your God being THE only one in the Universe, but that doesn’t give any recognition to the millions of individuals who believe differently, and that is simply rude, if not arrogant.

            Your faith is not going to be diminished by the existence of other religions. If anything, your tolerance of the other religions will display your benevolence and understanding.

            When we all begin taking sides, and rattling our religious sabres…that’s when we ALL lose.

            Peace!

          • eMatters2 says:

            I am the first to admit that people worship other gods. The Bible tells us to expect that, and why they do it!

            Romans 1:18–20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

            I never said my faith was diminished by other religions. I just know that they are on their way to Hell and I want to share the Good News of salvation through Jesus with them.

            You lie if you say I don’t tolerate them.

            To pretend that they don’t also take sides is another lie, and to say that you aren’t taking a side is a lie.

            If you authentically seek God on his terms, you will find him. If you think you get to sit in judgement of the real God, you will not find him. If you “seek” a god of your own making, you will not find him – except in the mirror, and as you know that god has rather limited powers.

            That may sound obvious, but think about how so many people in our culture think that all religions lead to God. Lots of false teachers in churches will tell you such things. People claim that they wouldn’t believe in a God who says that homosexual behavior is a sin or who sends guilty sinners to Hell.

            They don’t recognize the absurdity of thinking something doesn’t exist just because they don’t like it or the idea that they can tell the real God what He must be like.

            Consider if you went to a company for a job and demanded that they hire you on your terms. Hey, go ahead and ask for a million dollar salary and unlimited vacation. Ridiculous, eh? But only a tiny fraction as ridiculous as thinking you are going to tell God how things get done.

            Or tell the cop who pulled you over that you set the speed limits today and that he is wasting your time.

            Or tell your teacher that she has to give you an A+ even though you won’t come to class, do homework or take tests.

            Better yet, go to McDonald’s and tell the cashier to give you your entire meal for $1 and see how that works.

            People can’t even unilaterally dictate the terms and conditions to the person infinitesimally and momentarily higher than them on the cosmic food chain but they think that the one true God reports to them under the divine organization chart.

            I recommend seeking God on his terms. They are unbelievably wonderful and gracious.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Firstly, I apologize for giving you the impression that I don’t believe you.
            I didn’t say you’re lying, I just press anyone to further examine their logic when arguing a position. Abiding by the possibility that “one might be wrong”, is always a healthy start to understanding.

            Rather than contest the tenets of your chosen faith, I merely wish to discuss the reality of a world that needs less conflict between groups of people who claim their religion to be superior to their fellow man’s religion.

            Whether you are a believer in “God”, Muhammed, Allah, Jesus, or Naram-Sinn of Akkad, our small planet Earth, will need more tolerance from EVERY religious follower, so that we don’t destroy ourselves in the name of God.

            Since the beginning of Time, we humans have sought to validate our existence on this plane, and understandably, there have been many unexplainable phenomenon, and consequently, many iterations of a Godhead.

            I appreciate your analogies of human insidiousness (ie: demanding things that are self serving), such behavior is that of narcissists and egoists, and will surely fail to fulfill.

            If I exhibit an interest in understanding WHY humans believe the way they do, it is simply a natural fascination in God’s creation, and the foibles of Humanity.

            If you can’t laugh WITH your God, is it because he didn’t endow Himself with a sense of humor?

            I guess that depends upon which religion you follow. In some cases it’s considered blasphemous to even attempt to portray God in a visual manner, lest you be damned.

            I should warn you though, holding your position that everyone else, who believes differently than you, is bound for Hell, is also an exhibition of ego and pride. And THAT is a sin…. But you know that, right?

            Namaste!

          • eMatters2 says:

            “I just press anyone to further examine their logic when arguing a position. Abiding by the possibility that “one might be wrong”, is always a healthy start to understanding.”

            You are being prideful and presumptuous in assuming I haven’t considered that. I used to be a skeptic and am now a believer, so I’m truly open minded.

            “Whether you are a believer in “God”, Muhammed, Allah, Jesus, or Naram-Sinn of Akkad, our small planet Earth, will need more tolerance from EVERY religious follower, so that we don’t destroy ourselves in the name of God.”

            You need to focus on Islam then. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

            And you need to fight abortion.

            “I should warn you though, holding your position that everyone else, who believes differently than you, is bound for Hell, is also an exhibition of ego and pride. And THAT is a sin…. But you know that, right?”

            No, I don’t know that, because it is a silly statement. I hold that view because I believe the evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and for the reliability of the Bible. If that evidence is all wrong (it isn’t!), then I’m wrong, not prideful. But if I’m right – and the Bible is the word of God! — then that is exactly what will happen to them.

            You need a course in logic.

          • Karmasue says:

            And you need a course in respect.

          • eMatters2 says:

            You should be criticizing MarcoPolo for his repeated disrespectful, illogical and false claims that preaching the Gospel incites violence against others.

          • Karmasue says:

            What someone claims, whether true or only true for them is not disrespectful. Name-calling is uncivil and ill-mannered.

          • eMatters2 says:

            Yeah, so why do you keep calling me disrespectful then? Seems kinda hypocritical. Seriously, if you don’t have anything to say on topic then don’t reply to me.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I thought I apologized to you, Ematters2?
            But then, I can’t recall ever being disrespectful to you.

            If my position offends you, then again, I’m sorry, but I always strive to show respect to ANY person, regardless of whether I agree philosophically, religiously, or politically!

            Please tell me where I’ve mis-stepped?

          • eMatters2 says:

            I was pointing out to Karmasue that his/her argument was silly. It wasn’t so much about you but about his/her passive-aggressive and fallacious position.

          • eMatters2 says:

            Blaming someone for something that happened 1,000 years before he was born is not only disrespectful but stupid (and fallacious, for that matter, since he didn’t know the Crusades were largely a defensive maneuver).

          • Karmasue says:

            I wasn’t talking to him. I was talking to you. Calling someone a liar (or any other name) is disrespectful.

          • eMatters2 says:

            Only if they aren’t lying. Otherwise, it is perfectly legitimate. Otherwise, you calling me disrespectful would be disrespectful of you. Please think more carefully if you are going to be an Internet nanny.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Congratulations! I’m truly happy for your salvation.

            My point regarding pridefullness, was based upon the reasoning, that every believer, of every religion will boast of THEIR God. And by that boastfulness, they’ve displayed an ego.
            Now, maybe pride isn’t something that is going to derail your entrance to Heaven, but as I hear most religious zealots claim, one can’t “cherry-pick” the Bible. One must believe it unilaterally. So, that for me, makes no logical sense, hence my measured reverence to the Bible, and most all ancient texts that espouse lifestyle dictates.

            You know, even if 50% of the Bible were proven false. The remaining 50% would still qualify it as a healthy read! And it wouldn’t, or shouldn’t decrease one’s faith in it, at all.

            As for the abortion issue… I respect the sovereignty of every woman to decide for herself whether to have an abortion.

            The legal and medical procedure that provides women with a safe and private option, when they find themselves pregnant at a time that won’t be good for ALL concerned, is something that has emancipated the female from the overbearing dictates of yesterday’s Patriarchy, and it must remain available.

            By closing every clinic, you wouldn’t eliminate abortions, you would simply endanger many women’s lives, and strip them of their legal rights.

            My position on “personhood”, is that a human becomes a “person” upon birth/delivery, not before. Period.

          • eMatters2 says:

            “My point regarding pridefullness, was based upon the reasoning, that every believer, of every religion will boast of THEIR God. And by that boastfulness, they’ve displayed an ego.”

            That is not true. You are just being judgmental. Just because someone is factually incorrect doesn’t mean they are acting pridefully. Using your logic, you are boasting and displaying your ego because you think you are right. Unless, that is, you think you are wrong, in which case, we agree! :-).

            You have fallen victim to sloppy postmodern thinking, where you criticize others for holding a viewpoint EVEN THOUGH you also hold a view point. You don’t even see your hypocrisy.

            “Now, maybe pride isn’t something that is going to derail your entrance to Heaven, but as I hear most religious zealots claim, one can’t “cherry-pick” the Bible. ”

            No, you shouldn’t cherry-pick the Bible, but I haven’t done that. Your claims of pride in this case were not only false but hypocritical.

            “You know, even if 50% of the Bible were proven false. The remaining 50% would still qualify it as a healthy read! And it wouldn’t, or shouldn’t decrease one’s faith in it, at all.”

            No, that’s silly. It claims to speak for God thousands of times (and in total), so that is either true or blasphemous, pathological lies. http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/should-you-believe-the-authors-of-the-bible-or-the-christians-who-claim-the-writers-were-blasphemous-pathological-liars/

            “As for the abortion issue… I respect the sovereignty of every woman to decide for herself whether to have an abortion.”

            That is very sad that you deny the sovereignty of every human being killed in that barbaric procedure. Why do you hate human beings in the womb so much? http://tinyurl.com/yzjq4lv

            “The legal and medical procedure that provides women with a safe and private option, when they find themselves pregnant at a time that won’t be good for ALL concerned, is something that has emancipated the female from the overbearing dictates of yesterday’s Patriarchy, and it must remain available.”

            That’s bad pro-abortion reasoning. That fact that it is legal is irrelevant when we are debating whether deliberately crushing and dismembering innocent but unwanted human beings should be legal.

            The fact that it is “medical” is also irrelevant. You could kill human beings in a hospital outside the womb in the same way and for the same reasons but that wouldn’t make it moral.

            It is ironic that you capitalized ALL when you deliberately ignored the human being killed in the procedure! You forgot the innocent victim. How convenient!

            Patriarchy? What a tool. Even early feminists knew abortion was evil and anti-women. Only Satan could inspire people to think that having mothers pay to have their unborn children killed would someone demonstrate their equality.

            “By closing every clinic, you wouldn’t eliminate abortions, you would simply endanger many women’s lives, and strip them of their legal rights.”

            You shouldn’t have the right to do this: http://www.advocatesoflife.com/graphicabortionimages.htm

            “My position on “personhood”, is that a human becomes a “person” upon birth/delivery, not before. Period.”

            Your reasoning skills have already been demonstrated to be lacking, and you have done it again. You arbitrarily choose that point, yet others choose earlier or later points — and set new points when it is ok to kill old people! That’s where your anti-scientific reasoning goes.

            Pro-life reasoning is simple and accurate: It is a scientific fact (http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq ) and basic common sense (what else would two human beings produce?) that a new human being is reproduced at fertilization. Seriously, go check out any mainstream embryology textbook. I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice. Based on the settled science, it is then simple moral reasoning that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification, and that is what happens during 99% of abortions.

            The situations surrounding abortions are psychologically complex (pressures on the mother to abort, economic concerns, etc.) but morally simple (you don’t kill unwanted humans outside the womb for those reasons, so you shouldn’t kill them inside the womb for those reasons). Their size, level of development, location and degree of dependency are not reasons to ignore their right to life. Arguments about “bodily autonomy” ignore the body destroyed in the abortion.

            In other words, it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification. Abortion does that. Therefore, abortion is wrong.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            So what is “proper justification for abortion?
            And God forbid your family ever has to wrestle with that decision.

            “Only Satan could inspire people to think that having mothers pay to have
            their unborn children killed would someone demonstrate their equality.”

            —So you must think abortions should be FREE?

            Your concern for defenseless humans is admirable, but your myopia in regards to the mother whose life may not accommodate an unwanted pregnancy, shows no respect for a situation that has nothing to do with YOUR life!

            “You have fallen victim to sloppy postmodern thinking, where you
            criticize others for holding a viewpoint EVEN THOUGH you also hold a
            view point. You don’t even see your hypocrisy.”

            —So apparently, pre-postmodern thinking was different?
            THINKING is the operative word here, and emotions will require tempering.
            If I didn’t hold my position, we wouldn’t have a conversation! No hypocrisy that I recognize. Just differing viewpoints.

            I will always consider the possibility that I might be wrong. I have more respect for God and the Universe to ever think I have all the answers to life’s persistent questions, so you can’t accuse me of claiming to be ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. (absolute being the operative word).

            It’s clear that you and I totally disagree, so rather than “beat a dead horse” I’ll acquiesce, as it isn’t going to change.

            I love you eMatters2. And that’s what this world needs more of!

            Thanks for the exchange.

          • eMatters2 says:

            “So what is “proper justification for abortion?”

            To save the LIFE of the mother. That’s it. That is consistent with the pro-life ethic.

            “And God forbid your family ever has to wrestle with that decision.”

            I don’t care how much you wrestle if your decision is to deliberately crush and dismember an innocent human being like these. http://www.buzzfeed.com/personhoodusa/top-10-mind-blowing-images-of-human-life-in-the-wo-drqv

            “—So you must think abortions should be FREE?”

            Of course not. But Democrats do, which is one reason not to vote for the party of evil. Democrats are officially pro-abortion, not pro-choice. Why? Because they want taxpayer-funded abortions, laws requiring all health care plans to cover abortions, and no restrictions on anything, including “partial-birth abortion” (aka infanticide), late term abortions, gender-selection abortions, parental notification, etc.

            From their platform (http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform ): “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

            “Your concern for defenseless humans is admirable, but your myopia in regards to the mother whose life may not accommodate an unwanted pregnancy, shows no respect for a situation that has nothing to do with YOUR life!”

            If she is one of the less-than-1% who would literally die from having the baby (any Ob-gyn will tell you how unbelievably rare that is), then I would approve of abortion (e.g., ectopic pregnancies).

            But your logic fails: Most murders outside the womb don’t directly impact your life. Hopefully you at least oppose those, though.

            “—So apparently, pre-postmodern thinking was different?”

            Yes.

            “I love you eMatters2. And that’s what this world needs more of!”

            Thanks, and I love you, too. That’s why I pray that you will repent of your sins and trust in Jesus for your salvation. Eternity is a mighty long time to suffer in torment for rebelling against your creator and what He has revealed to you. I encourage you to study the Bible for all it is worth.

            Blessings to you, and thanks for the dialog!

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Rather than complain about whether abortions should EVER be made illegal,
            (which would tragically affect millions of women’s health and well being).
            I think it more humane and caring knowing that clinics around the country that do offer abortions, also are many times the sole health care facility for many women that need general medical service.
            Texas just recently attempted to strip (poor) women of their access to health care centers, by closing them, and that is certainly inhumane!
            Just for the ideology of the religious right?
            That’s a Theocracy, and our Republic doesn’t spin on that axis.

            On taxpayer funded abortions…(We might even agree on this one.) Question:

            What bothers you most? The fact that abortions are available at all, or that your tax dollars are being used to pay for them?
            If I may argue my point to that question even before hearing yours… My taxes are used to fund War, and I am a strident pacifist. So I have as much validity to argue a point which is similarly parallel to yours.
            Neither of us want our tax dollars to be used against our better conscience, regarding certain, moral-based issues that strike close to our hearts.

            So how do we accommodate those differing, yet similar points of view, in a society that is unweildy at best, and chaotic at it’s worst?

            We can do it with Holy reverence for one another, our environment, and humanity.
            And yes, God fits into all of that!

            Peace,
            MarcoPolo

          • eMatters2 says:

            “Rather than complain about whether abortions should EVER be made illegal,
            (which would tragically affect millions of women’s health and well being). ”

            That’s foolish logic. This should always be illegal unless it is saving the LIFE of someone else — http://tinyurl.com/yzjq4lv

            You always ignore the health and well-being of the human being crushed and dismembered in the process. Nearly every pro-abortion argument commits that fallacy.

            “I think it more humane and caring knowing that clinics around the country that do offer abortions, also are many times the sole health care facility for many women that need general medical service. ”

            That’s false, because those services are offered elsewhere AND they could stop doing abortions and still offer those services.

            And the logic is perverse: You dismiss the deliberate killing of unwanted human beings just because they might help someone else. Ugh.

            “Texas just recently attempted to strip (poor) women of their access to health care centers, by closing them, and that is certainly inhumane! ”

            No, this is inumane: http://www.advocatesoflife.com/graphicabortionimages.htm

            You need to expand your media horizons. Texas did a great thing in requiring higher health standards for the women you claim to care about.

            “Just for the ideology of the religious right?”

            No, to make clinic conditions safer AND to save innocent human lives.

            “That’s a Theocracy, and our Republic doesn’t spin on that axis.”

            Nonsense. There is zero religious reasoning there. The theocracy card is so pathetic and hypocritical. Please explain more about your anti-theocracy position and provide examples of how you consistently criticize the pro-abortion “religious” people who insist that God is pro-legalized abortion and pro-taxpayer-funded abortion and pro-“same-sex marriage.”

            After all, if your real concern is having any religious views influence our laws then you would be just as opposed to those people (who have entire organizations such as the “Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice”) as you are against pro-lifers and pro-real marriage people.

            I’m hoping that you are consistent and can point out where you have a record of opposing them equally. If you are, you’ll be the first I’ve ever come across. 100% of the rest just “happen” to oppose what they deem to be religious speech when it disagrees with their views and never criticize religious speech that is in line with their views. Seems kinda hypocritical to me.

            “What bothers you most? The fact that abortions are available at all, or that your tax dollars are being used to pay for them?”

            That this is available at all — http://tinyurl.com/yzjq4lv

            “My taxes are used to fund War, and I am a strident pacifist. So I have as much validity to argue a point which is similarly parallel to yours.”

            Oh my, what a hypocritical moral freak you are! You call yourself a pacifist and support this? That’s insanity. http://www.advocatesoflife.com/graphicabortionimages.htm

            If abortion isn’t violent, nothing is violent.

            The purpose of government is to protect its citizens. That sometimes involves war.

            “We can do it with Holy reverence for one another, our environment, and humanity.
            And yes, God fits into all of that!”

            Don’t blaspheme and pull God into your pro-abortion holocaust.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Well, eMatters2, you’ve got quite a laundry list of concerns, so let’s tackle the biggest one first.

            1) You seem pretty consistent in your exchanges, that during an abortion, the unborn is the victim. Well…uh?! Eliminating the fetus/baby is the objective of the procedure.

            2) If you truly believe that abortion should only be performed to save the mother’s life, then how do you tell a minor child who may have been raped, that she must bear the child?
            Compassion and forethought are required to make any decision of this magnitude, but making the restrictions on abortion as you have espoused, would do more harm to greater numbers of women and their families than you might be aware.

            3) I would be happy to support a campaign that promotes safe sex, and responsible behavior to avoid such things as pregnancy, STDs, etc… thus making abortions a (more) RARE occurrence.
            ~~~

            Your words:
            “Nonsense. There is zero religious reasoning there. The theocracy card
            is so pathetic and hypocritical. Please explain more about your
            anti-theocracy position and provide examples of how you consistently
            criticize the pro-abortion “religious” people who insist that God is
            pro-legalized abortion and pro-taxpayer-funded abortion and
            pro-“same-sex marriage.”
            ~~~

            4) I have never suggested that God approves of anything we’re talking about.
            I maintain, that defending the people who are already born, is deserving of (my) defense. The unborn cannot be my responsibility, because they are the property of each respective mother.

            That would be explicitly THEIR choice.

            I’m sorry your heart is so burdened with what you’ve described as horrific and destructive. I believe you have a very good heart, and I would agree, that if the rate of abortion went to zero, I’d be as happy as you. But reality, and experience demand difficult options. And we may not always agree with other people’s decisions.

            Namaste’

          • eMatters2 says:

            “1) You seem pretty consistent in your exchanges, that during an abortion, the unborn is the victim. Well…uh?! Eliminating the fetus/baby is the objective of the procedure.”

            Yes, and the objective of murder is to kill the victim. Your point proves nothing and reinforces mine.

            But thank you for agreeing that the unborn are victims!

            “2) If you truly believe that abortion should only be performed to save the mother’s life, then how do you tell a minor child who may have been raped, that she must bear the child?”

            I’m glad you brought up the topic of rape and incest. Those are terrible crimes that we should seek to prevent, and we should ensure that the victims aren’t further victimized and that there is justice for the rapists.

            If you propose the death penalty for the rapist I’d consider that, but why is it the first option for the innocent child? It is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings from fertilization. Abortionists like Planned Parenthood help hide the crimes. They have been caught countless times hiding statutory rape, incest (which is another form of rape) and sex trafficking. Abortion doesn’t undo the trauma of rape, it compounds it. Rapes results in less than 1% of abortions. Those abortions are still wrong, but for the record, would you oppose outlawing all abortions, except those in the cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother? If not, then why not admit that you are really just pro-abortion and you use the rape card to advance your cause? Do not exploit rape victims justify abortion. http://tinyurl.com/6krdj4p

            http://www.lifenews.com/2014/02/27/serial-child-rapist-arrested-after-using-abortion-to-cover-his-crimes/

            Unless you can look at an ultrasound and tell if a child was the product of rape or incest, then you shouldn’t let them be killed. If you are so pro-capital punishment that you want to execute the rapist then I’d be willing to listen to your ideas. But don’t kill the innocent child. That doesn’t undo the rape. And abortions for rape and incest often hide the crimes.

            If you really care about rape, then protest Planned Parenthood and how they systematically hide statutory rape and sex trafficking. http://tinyurl.com/6krdj4p

            “Compassion and forethought are required to make any decision of this magnitude, but making the restrictions on abortion as you have espoused, would do more harm to greater numbers of women and their families than you might be aware.”

            No, you are begging the question again and ignoring the humanity of the unborn. This is the opposite of compassion, and it happens over 3,500 times per day in the U.S. – with your blessing! http://tinyurl.com/yzjq4lv http://www.advocatesoflife.com/graphicabortionimages.htm

            “3) I would be happy to support a campaign that promotes safe sex, and responsible behavior to avoid such things as pregnancy, STDs, etc… thus making abortions a (more) RARE occurrence.”

            You apparently would be happy to change the subject from the murder of the unborn as well. You are on the wrong side of the greatest moral issue of our time. Of course you want to sidestep that issue!

            Oh, and those campaigns have been going on for decades as things get worse.

            “4) I have never suggested that God approves of anything we’re talking about.
            I maintain, that defending the people who are already born, is deserving of (my) defense. The unborn cannot be my responsibility, because they are the property of each respective mother.”

            No, they are unique human beings worthy of protection. Two-thirds of our states have fetal homicide laws, so most of the country isn’t pretending it isn’t murder.

            Here’s the specific language:

            CALIFORNIA CODES

            PENAL CODE

            187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a

            fetus, with malice aforethought.

            (b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act

            which results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:

            (1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Chapter 11

            (commencing with Section 25950) of Division 20 of the Health and

            Safety Code.

            (2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician’s and surgeon’s

            certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a

            case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be

            death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,

            although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or

            more likely than not.

            (3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the

            mother of the fetus.

            (c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the

            prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.

            Got that? It is murder unless the mommy consents, then it is no crime at all. Morally benign. A parking violation yields a far greater judgment.

            “That would be explicitly THEIR choice.”

            Using your logic, the born children would still be the property of the mom, so she could kill them at any time.

            “I’m sorry your heart is so burdened with what you’ve described as horrific and destructive. I believe you have a very good heart, and I would agree, that if the rate of abortion went to zero, I’d be as happy as you. But reality, and experience demand difficult options. And we may not always agree with other people’s decisions.”

            I’m grieved that a “pacifist” would support this wide-scale slaughter of innocent human beings. But I’m more grieved for those who get destroyed with the blessing of people like you.

            http://tinyurl.com/yzjq4lv http://www.advocatesoflife.com/graphicabortionimages.htm

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Abortion is legal, and I’ll fight to keep it that way. For the sake of those citizens who are already born.
            Yes, there is a deadly element to it… that’s the outcome of the procedure. Otherwise it wouldn’t be an abortion!

            Planned Parenthood is a vital health care center that provides many people with primary care…and yes, they provide abortions. Somebody’s got to!!

            I’ve yet to hear of them trafficking human beings. Perhaps you’ve just been duped by the hype of the Fox News Fundamentalists, who would rather have our country be dictated by the Religious Right.

            America’s a free country, with choices that won’t always satisfy everyone.
            I would recommend that you continue your crusade, but leave me off your list.

            Sorry, we will never agree on this subject, but I tried!

            God bless you!

          • eMatters2 says:

            “Abortion is legal, and I’ll fight to keep it that way. For the sake of those citizens who are already born.”

            What a hateful and ridiculous thing for a “pacifist” to say, deliberately ignoring the destruction of innocent human beings!

            “Yes, there is a deadly element to it… that’s the outcome of the procedure. Otherwise it wouldn’t be an abortion!”

            So we agree! But you are the self-proclaimed “pacifist” fighting (your word!) to keep the slaughter going. http://tinyurl.com/yzjq4lv http://www.advocatesoflife.com/graphicabortionimages.htm

            “Planned Parenthood is a vital health care center that provides many people with primary care…and yes, they provide abortions. Somebody’s got to!!”

            False. No one has to kill unwanted children, hide statutory rape, commit Medicaid fraud, encourage out of wedlock sex and BDSM to teens, and so much more. Planned Parenthood kills babies for a living, they systematically hide rape, incest and sex trafficking, they encourage kids to have all sorts of out-of-wedlock sex and pretend that it can be done without risks, they would rather destroy a breast cancer charity than part ways amicably, they commit Medicaid fraud, they teach kids the joys of BDSM, and so much more. Their leaders and abortionists get rich off of death and misery, aided by your taxes. They use some of that money to fund propaganda telling women that if they aren’t willing to kill their children that they can’t be equal in value to men. http://tinyurl.com/6krdj4p

            “I’ve yet to hear of them trafficking human beings. Perhaps you’ve just been duped by the hype of the Fox News Fundamentalists, who would rather have our country be dictated by the Religious Right.”

            They have been caught on audio and video hiding statutory rape and sex trafficking. Your problem is that you appear to have very narrow media consumption. I don’t watch Fox (not that there is anything wrong with them). But only a fool would trust the mainstream media.

            http://www.childpredators.com/tape/

            http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/planned-parenthood-still-hiding-statutory-rape/

            “America’s a free country, with choices that won’t always satisfy everyone.
            I would recommend that you continue your crusade, but leave me off your list.”

            That is stupid question-begging. You shouldn’t have the choice to kill innocent but unwanted human beings. But that’s what moral freak oxymoronic pro-abortion “pacifists” claim to fight for!

            “Sorry, we will never agree on this subject, but I tried!”

            No, you didn’t try. That’s a lie. You dug in your murderous heels. But I am grateful for you exposing your ridiculous worldview and cruel heart.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Thanks to our God given liberties, we will each, continue to make our own personal choices regarding these issues. And those like yourself, will be allowed to rail against the majority for as long as you can.

            I don’t hide my opinion, nor apologize for my position, so your name calling isn’t an effective means for making your point.

            By all means, don’t have an abortion!
            But also, don’t make that decision for others. Because It’s not YOUR life!

            Be well, and content my friend.

          • eMatters2 says:

            “Thanks to our God given liberties, we will each, continue to make our own personal choices regarding these issues. ”

            How blasphemous and evil to refer to God given liberties and then literally crush and dismember innocent human beings so they can’t exercise their liberties!

            “I don’t hide my opinion, nor apologize for my position, so your name calling isn’t an effective means for making your point.”

            I choose my words carefully. You are a moral freak and the ultimate hypocrite and oxymoron: A pro-abortion “pacifist.”

            You think name-calling is bad, but not this: http://tinyurl.com/yzjq4lv http://www.advocatesoflife.com/graphicabortionimages.htm

            “By all means, don’t have an abortion!”

            Ugh. What a foolish pro-abortion sound bite. That’s what slave-owners used to say (“Don’t like slavery? Don’t own slaves.”). It was just as fallacious for them as it is for you, as you both ignore the human beings harmed by the “choices” of others.

            “But also, don’t make that decision for others. Because It’s not YOUR life!”

            Wow, how tone-deaf can one be?! I know it isn’t my life, I’m trying to protect the right to life of other human beings. You are the one approving of destroying lives.

            Thanks for putting the evils and fallaciousness of Leftist pro-abortion extremism on display.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Thank you eMatters2, and you’re welcome!
            Lovingly,
            Marco

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I truly thought we had had our last exchange earlier, but I’d be remiss, if I didn’t defend my honor.

            I read the story on the link you shared, and was saddened to hear of yet another young victim of sexual assault by some deviant male. Truly awful !! Who wouldn’t be upset about something like that?!

            Yet I’m suspecting that you might have a way of connecting Medical facilities that offer abortions, with males, like Mr. Ring (and his kind)? You know, the sick part of any society.

            I’m probing too far to ask you to consider thinking about this extrapolation.
            So let’s agree that Mr. Ring (heretofore referred to as Ring, because he doesn’t deserve the term Mister). was the father of all the babies that his “slave” conceived, and subsequently aborted.
            Now consider if she had never gotten any abortions. She would have exposed each of them to that monster in her life!
            That’s not such a good outcome!

            Now we both agree that abortion is traumatic for all concerned. But don’t you wonder what that poor young girl must have wished to have happen, had she not gotten those abortions?

            Her life is forever changed, and no amount of penalty will seem adequate, compared to the devastation heaped upon her soul by an evil person.

            Lastly, I must counsel you on making grand conclusions when comparing human beings and their destiny, against human beings and their diversity.

            “Confuse not, your blessings and your curses.”

            For the record, I don’t keep company with criminals or perverts. So I hope you’re smart enough not to slander someone? I’m responding with good intentions and no malice, because I don’t know you. But I’d still treat you alike any other friend…respectfully.

            Take a few deep breaths……
            Sincerely,
            MarcoPolo

          • eMatters2 says:

            “I truly thought we had had our last exchange earlier, but I’d be remiss, if I didn’t defend my honor.”

            Nothing honorable about oxymoronic pro-abortion “pacifists.”

            “Yet I’m suspecting that you might have a way of connecting Medical facilities that offer abortions, with males, like Mr. Ring (and his kind)? You know, the sick part of any society.”

            Yes, because these “medical facilities” — i.e., abortuaries — hide rape and sex trafficking out of habit. Go listen to these audio tapes and watch these videos.

            http://www.childpredators.com/tape/

            http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/planned-parenthood-still-hiding-statutory-rape/

            “Now consider if she had never gotten any abortions. She would have exposed each of them to that monster in her life! ”

            No, the crimes would have been exposed much earlier! These abortionists protect the rapist, not the victim. But what morals do you expect from people who kill babies for a living?

            “Now we both agree that abortion is traumatic for all concerned.”

            Especially for the children who get their skulls crushed and limbs ripped off.

            And you missed the latest feminist talking points about abortion, where they pretend it is no big deal (see the CEO of PP’s latest comments).

            “But don’t you wonder what that poor young girl must have wished to have happen, had she not gotten those abortions?”

            Her children wouldn’t have been murdered and her rapist would have been caught. Win-win!

            “For the record, I don’t keep company with criminals or perverts.”

            You just fight to keep their crimes hidden and their murders legal.

            I’m just stating facts here.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I’m glad you’ve got a grasp on the facts.
            But you’re losing your grip on the presumptive conclusion that the crime would have been discovered earlier than it did.

            None of us know enough about the whole situation to judge how it ever got to the point that it did. Certainly, the clinic staff look for flags that may reveal problems in their patients lives, and you do know that a patient’s records are private?

            Let’s not get too crazy about how other people decide to treat their pregnancies. that’s none of our business!

            You DO believe in Freedom, don’t you?

          • eMatters2 says:

            “But you’re losing your grip on the presumptive conclusion that the crime would have been discovered earlier than it did.”

            Not at all. It is completely reasonable. I have volunteered and been a board member of a crisis pregnancy center. Unlike the baby killers at Planned Parenthood et al, we actually obey the law and report statutory rapes and other issues.

            And people actually NOTICE when babies are born, and ask questions about parentage. Your support of killing the children hides the crimes and perpetuates the victimization.
            “None of us know enough about the whole situation to judge how it ever got to the point that it did. Certainly, the clinic staff look for flags that may reveal problems in their patients lives, and you do know that a patient’s records are private?”

            The evidence shows that abortionists do no such thing. It is bad for business!

            http://www.childpredators.com/tape/

            http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/planned-parenthood-still-hiding-statutory-rape/

            “Let’s not get too crazy about how other people decide to treat their pregnancies. that’s none of our business!”

            That’s a foolish dodge. Protecting innocent human beings from this is the business of any just society.

            http://tinyurl.com/yzjq4lv http://www.advocatesoflife.com/graphicabortionimages.htm

            “You DO believe in Freedom, don’t you?”

            What a pathetic red herring. I believe in the right to life. Too bad oxymoronic pro-abortion “pacifists” don’t.

          • eMatters2 says:

            Here’s a first hand account from an abortionist — http://www.lifenews.com/2014/10/03/pregnant-abortionist-feels-her-baby-kick-as-she-tears-off-leg-in-an-abortion/

            Hard to believe pro-abortion “pacifists” exist. I suppose their consciences are as seared as this abortionist, who continues to do abortions.

            “I used electrical suction to remove the amniotic fluid, picked up my forceps and began to remove the fetus in parts, as I always did. I felt lucky that this one was already in the breech position – it would make grasping small parts (legs and arms) a little easier.

            With my first pass of the forceps, I grasped an extremity and began to pull it down. I could see a small foot hanging from the teeth of my forceps. With a quick tug, I separated the leg.

            Precisely at that moment, I felt a kick – a fluttery “thump, thump” in my own uterus. It was one of the first times I felt fetal movement.”

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I’m happy to hear that you haven’t killed anybody for your religion. Though you do remember the Crusades, don’t you? That was certainly Christianity on a bad trip!

            Advocating for a religion in the “wrong” place, can incite violence. So who’s being naive here?

            Namaste!

          • eMatters2 says:

            “I’m happy to hear that you haven’t killed anybody for your religion. Though you do remember the Crusades, don’t you? That was certainly Christianity on a bad trip!”

            Using a 1,000 yr. old enterprise that was largely a defensive maneuver against the evil violence of Islam is hardly sound logic. More here — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/what-about-the-crusades-and-the-inquisition-etc-2/

            “Advocating for a religion in the “wrong” place, can incite violence. So who’s being naive here?”

            You are. You have advocated against my religion during this entire thread. What a hypocrite you are!

            And using your ridiculous “inciting violence” argument, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is responsible whenever a drunk gets beaten up.

  3. up2herewithyall says:

    Ethically, it’s a world turned upside down.

  4. Joe M says:

    The last paragraph pretty much sums up the article and the problem. The GBCS speaks, supposedly, for the entire Church, but in truth speaks only for the liberal progressives. I remember when Nancy Pelosi thanked the United Methodist Church for it’s backing of the now infamous Affordable Care Act. When were WE asked how WE felt about it? Now they are trying to shove yet another unpopular, but more importantly, sinful idea down our throats! I don’t want my portion of the apportionments used to fund the GBCS any more than I want my tax dollars used by government to subsidize abortion. The GBCS seems to be more politically inclined than GOD inclined. If the changes they are seeking concerning the LGBT community are ever adopted there will be fewer people in the pews of the U.M. Churches across the country.

  5. Bruce427 says:

    From years of observation, it appears that while the leadership of the Methodist denomination rhetorically affirms the Biblical doctrines and teachings recorded in their Book of Discipline, they largely ignore them in practice (much like our political class ignores and circumvents the Constitution).

    Of course persons with same-sex attraction should not be persecuted. But (since the Bible universally and unambiguously condemns the act), neither should the homosexual life-style be normalized either. But for many advocates of the same-sex life-style, refusing to accept it as normal is synonymous with persecution, bigotry and hatred.

    In their race to embrace politically-correct “tolerance,” the Methodist church is simultaneously casting off Biblical Holiness.

    It is a sad train wreck to watch.

  6. Karmasue says:

    I’m glad to see that at least some Christians have their arms open to all of God’s children…even as others persecute them for being the human being God put here on earth. Thank you, United Methodists. You are truly trying to reflect the unconditional love of Jesus Christ.

    • Jason P Taggart says:

      Unconditional love is not a Christian doctrine. Never mentioned in the Bible, not once.

      • Karmasue says:

        Do you believe the love of Jesus Christ was conditional?

        • Semp says:

          Sure is.
          The word “repent” says it all.
          Left-wingers don’t like that word, which is why they aren’t Christian, they are a just a gang of useful idiots, at the service of the political left.

          • Karmasue says:

            So you believe Jesus does not love “left-wingers” because of their politics.

            I guess the word “hate” says it all. Christians don’t like that word
            because it reflects their own failings, which is why they are not truly
            “of Christ”.

            So far here He hates gays; He hates women who have abortions; He hates
            left- wingers; he hates sinners or anyone who is not a Christian. And in this episode of
            who does Jesus hate now – the United Methodists are added to the list of
            errant, unholy or gay-marrying sects and all non-Christian religions.

            This is why the millenials, and other educated individuals are simply writing off intolerant, self-righteous, evangelist churches.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            At least we’re useful!

      • MarcoPolo says:

        Turning the other cheek seems to me to be an action without conditions.

        • Semp says:

          That has nothing to do with “unconditional love,” which is not taught in the Bible.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            “Unconditional Love”.
            Isn’t that what we are told to avow as parents toward our children?
            How then can something as fundamental as that not be mentioned in the Bible?

  7. ve6 says:

    how is this policy working for the Episcopalians?

  8. bostic says:

    Confused!!!! Did Jesus come out of the tomb or was it social justice? Which one does our church worship the most nowadays?

Leave a Reply

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