We Don’t Want You or Your Kind Around Here Any More.

A preacher who made anti gay remarks has been dumped from the inauguration.  Louie Giglio  was going to give the Invocation, but someone recorded an anti gay tirade he made from the pulpit.  He has been “disinvited”.

Amusing is that now, after bashing gays for years, some Christian pundits are saying, “We are being discriminated against!  We are no longer welcome in the public square!”

I would dare wager few gay-bashing preachers invited a gay speaker, or, anyone supporting gays, to their pulpits.

Anti gay religious pundits have disliked the concept of equality being brought up in the gay marriage debate.  Especially, they dislike comparisons to the fight against racial segregation.

But, the parallel is there.  Probably after the 1950′s, preachers who gave Invocation at inaugurations were checked out for there views on segregation.  Presidents would have avoided preachers who made integration out to be a sin.

I can imagine if this happened back then the reaction in the pro segregation community was the same as anti gay preachers now,  “We real Christians know the Bible condemns interracial marriage.  We who follow these teachings by keeping the races separate are being wrongly discriminated against.”

The anti integration preachers of their time had the same short-term vision as today’s  anti gay  preachers.  They thought because it was popular at the moment to demonize a particular group, it would always be popular.

Anti integration preachers are in the dust bin of history.  We can see who is next.

http://www.edstetzer.com/2013/01/evangelicals-and-44-of-america.html

See us on FaceBook, Red River Freethinkers

 

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to We Don’t Want You or Your Kind Around Here Any More.

  1. Stanta says:

    Try being a conservative African-American and see how much tolerance is given.

  2. Henry says:

    Jon: “They thought because it was popular at the moment to demonize a particular group, it would always be popular.”

    The pedaphilia crowd shares your emotion, Jon. Homosexuality is trying to be normalized. The other deviations will follow. Here is one example of the next normalization of deviancy:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light

    • Henry says:

      The source trying to justify pedaphilia is the politically liberal “Guardian”. No surprise there either.

    • Formerly Fargo Bob says:

      It’s more than a little ironic that for folks like you “freedom” means the freedom to be just like everybody else. It’s interesting that you’re so quick to label simple variations “deviancy.”

      • Henry says:

        FFB: “label simple variations “deviancy.””

        Just following the direction of the DSM before rabblerousers grabbed the APA convention microphone and turned medicine and science into politics.

      • Stanta says:

        To bad the beastility bordellos in Germany have been shut down, after all they were only a variation in human sexual expression.

    • Avatar of Dustin White Dustin White says:

      Henry- Pedophilia was actually normalized in the Biblical times. Mary, the mother of Jesus, most likely would have been around 14, if not younger. In fact, women were often pushed into marriage at very young ages, and it was the norm at that time.

      Also, your claim is false anyway. Even when homosexuality has been more normalized, we never see other “deviations” following. We can just look at the states in which allow same-sex marriages, or countries (or even ancient cultures) that allow such, and there is no suggestion of other “deviations” following. Really then, what you’re saying goes directly against what history would tell us.

      • Henry says:

        Dusty: “Really then, what you’re saying goes directly against what history would tell us.”

        Really, you don’t know what you are talking about. Your words are sophistry and of no substance, seemingly to bring whatever defense you can to your pet cause.

        In recent history, society has correctly placed a taboo on the acts of pedaphilia and any support of it. Perhaps it is a coincidence that a liberal mainstream liberal newsrag has recently come to the defense of pedophilia after much recent advancement of the homosexual cause. I don’t this is coincidence. Defense of pedophilia would have been unthinkable five years ago considering what society considers acceptable. It apparently is no longer taboo. We are in the midst of a sexual revolution, and we are seeing the other vices following on coattails.

        • Avatar of Mac Mac says:

          One of my 2013 resolutions is to no longer take part in the pedophilia and bestiality discussions on this page. The link between those behaviors and homosexuality has been pretty much universally discredited.

          And if that argument doesn’t convince anyone, we need to start working to make straight sex and marriage illegal, because the overwhelming majority of sex crimes are committed by straight men.

          • Henry says:

            Mac: “The link between those behaviors and homosexuality has been pretty much universally discredited.”

            You better write the liberal Guardian on that one. They made the link. It must be frustrating for you.

          • Avatar of Mac Mac says:

            Henry, Proverbs 26:1-11 would pretty much sum up my earlier comment.

          • Henry says:

            Mac, do you love your Lord Jesus Christ?

        • Avatar of Dustin White Dustin White says:

          Henry-I think it speaks volumes when you don’t actually address what is being said.

          As for your Guardian source, I would suggest you reread it. In fact, it quotes a study from 1976, which could be seen as a defense of pedophilia.

          Also, the article isn’t a defense of pedophilia. It is an examination of what pedophilia is, and what it isn’t. It lists the views of a number of different researchers. If you followed up on these individuals, you will see that none of them actually advocate adults sleeping with children. That is why careful reading is needed.

          And yes, it is still considered taboo. However, this taboo is actually a relatively recent change. Even just a 100 years ago, it wasn’t taboo. Marrying children was still legal (even though homosexuality was not even beginning to be seen as normal, or legal in any sense. In fact, laws against homosexuality were getting even more strict at this time). So again, that would show that your argument simply doesn’t make sense.

          • Henry says:

            Dusty: “I think it speaks volumes when you don’t actually address what is being said.”

            Again, you do not know what you are talking about. It seems you are equating pedaphilia to a young couple getting married in your example from one hundred years ago. That is not realistic. In fact, the possibility of a young marriage still is lawful in the United States. It is hardly pedaphilia. Study a little harder.

          • Henry says:

            Dusty: “So again, that would show that your argument simply doesn’t make sense.”

            Your “highbrow” condescending remarks are tiresome.

          • Avatar of Dustin White Dustin White says:

            Henry- The article you posted didn’t even have a set definition of pedophilia. However, legally, what I stated would follow under pedophilia. Especially when you have stated else where that a marriage must be consummated in order to be technically a marriage.

            And yes, young marriages are still allowed (however the age limit is no longer 10 or 12), but under certain definitions of pedophilia, they would still be considered to be such. That is one of the points in which your article was pointing out.

            So yes, I do know what I’m talking about. It appears you don’t know what you’re talking about as you cited a source that didn’t agree with what you were implying, and supports what I have been saying. Also, you seem unaware of the diverse nature of the term pedophilia.

            Also, stating that you argument doesn’t make sense is not a “highbrow” insult. It is a statement of fact. There is a difference.

      • Stanta says:

        There you go, looking at history through modern eyes. The life expectancy at the time of Christ was about 40 years old and infant mortality was about 40%. If you wanted to have enough children to support you through your ” golden years” you had to start early. There was no social security, in many societies if you were old and couldn’t support yourself you simply died. I am sure she was menstrating at the time as most woman do by that age. But as you say, society changes.

        Now it seems many young men don’t become emotionally mature until they are over the age of 25. Choosing to play games on computers instead of learning how to create relationships with others. With illegitimate births at 50% and many young woman having multiple children from more the one baby daddy I AM concerned about morals. You may not correlate poverty with single parent households but I have seen it to often to ignore.

        Could you show me other times besides Imperial Rome where homosexual couples not in the ruling class was considered part of the normal society mix?

        • Avatar of Dustin White Dustin White says:

          Stanta- The average life expectancy may have been 40 years of age, but that isn’t really how long one would have lived. The life expectancy rate at that time is somewhat skewed. The reason being that, as you pointed out, the morality myth is 40%. That will greatly effect life expectancy rates, by lowering them quite considerably. However, if one was able to live into their twenties, life expectancy rates greatly increase. In fact, if a man was able to live until he was 20, he would most likely die then when he was in his 60′s or 70′s.

          With women, it was quite different. If they were able to live until puberty, then their life expectancy would rise to around 60+ years.

          Men generally would work through their “golden age” though, and would not necessarily need their children to support them. By the time a man would even get married, they would be established already, and able to support a family. Not to mention, we are generally talking about more strong community relationships, in which there was some support structure in place.

          More so, if a man only lived until he was 40, he wouldn’t have been dying of old age. In fact, when a man was in his 40′s, he still would have been very capable of providing for himself if need be. And really, we do see that from time to time. Even Paul, who was getting up their in age, was able to continue to support himself.

          So your argument really doesn’t work as it ignores the historical context of the time.

          As for homosexual couples that were not in the ruling class. The Ming Dynasty in China is a great example. The “Two-Spirit” type of relationship in America also showcases this same thing. Then there is the Theodasian Code from 342 C.E. that outlawed same-sex unions. This is significant as one doesn’t make such a law unless there were same-sex unions going about. The fact that a law was created against this means that it was a real issue at that time. There is also Siwa Oasis, where the practice of same-sex marriages survived until recent times.

  3. “Anti integration preachers are in the dust bin of history. We can see who is next.”

    “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God”(Psalm 9:17)

  4. Avatar of Mac Mac says:

    One of the hate groups I keep a close eye on is The National Organization for Marriage; whose only support of straight marriage seems to be preventing gay people from getting married.

    Anyway, over the past couple of years, their tone has changed from righteous warrior to that of discriminated against victim.

    I especially love the irony of people whining about being discriminated against because they’re no longer allowed to discriminate against others.

  5. Jon, the rest of the country is talking about gun control but you can’t seem to get off gay “marriage”. Don’t Freethinkers have a position on guns?

    • Stanta says:

      Interesting question.

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      They would if the position of the gun was between their legs.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Michael 7:03 Gay marriage is more interesting to write about because it is so soaked in religion. Guns, well, I don’t hear opponents, or advocates, of gun control quoting the Bible.

      The only thing related to the gun control debate that might be religious is my perception anti gun control people seem to attribute super natural powers to guns. At least those here who oppose gun control, PK and others, seem to think guns would protect us from oppressive government. To me, guns are just something neighbors have to shoot at each other. Tell me what you think.

      • Henry says:

        Jon: “The only thing related to the gun control debate that might be religious is”

        Religious? Why would an atheist concern themself with religion? I thought atheism was not a religion.

        • entech says:

          What is that bit Ecclesiastes about nothing new? I see you are still being deliberately stupid for the sake of it. Why would an atheist concern themself with religion?
          A bit like saying “Why should a pedestrian concern themself with traffic?”, because you will get run over if you are not careful! You deride Jon, but to my mind if someone doesn’t keep pointing out that your way is not the only way the inevitable result will be the suppression of everything that you consider contrary your idea of your “freedom” in the name of your idea of religion.

          Your 2:18 is a good example, we all agree paedophilia is wrong, your commentary tries to equate “liberal” with everything wrong, it is clear that in your mind any one to the left of Attila the Hun is a liberal as are many to the right.

          Religious? Why would an atheist concern themself with religion?
          Atheists? why would a fundamentalist Christian concern themself with atheism?

          • Henry says:

            I see you are feeling better. Back to the same fiesty attacks. I even get the honors of being your first target.

            I hear your near-death-experience didn’t involve angels. I hear that happens on occasion as well.

            Good to see you are back.

          • entech says:

            Not really an attack just stating the obvious.

      • Perhaps we should start at the beginning, or at least very close to the beginning — in Genesis 4. In this chapter we read about the first murder. Cain had offered an unacceptable sacrifice, and Cain was upset that God insisted that he do the right thing. In other words, Cain was peeved that he could not do his own thing.

        Cain decided to kill his brother rather than get right with God. There were no guns available, although there may well have been a knife. Whether it was a knife or a rock, the Bible does not say. The point is, the evil in Cain’s heart was the cause of the murder, not the availability of the murder weapon.

        God’s response was not to ban rocks or knives, or whatever, but to banish the murderer. Later (see Genesis 9:5-6) God instituted capital punishment, but said not a word about banning weapons.

        What Does the Bible Say About Gun Control?
        by
        Larry Pratt
        Executive Vice-President
        Gun Owners Foundation

        http://gunowners.org/fs9902.htm
        Pratt was interviewed last week on CNN by gun hater Piers Morgan

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Michael 12:13 Thanks for posting that–had never heard it.

          Of course, my reaction would be different. To me, that’s taking an event that never happened and applying it where it doesn’t fit. Just my thinking.

        • Avatar of Grandma Grandma says:

          Just wondering… Who could Cain and Abel have married?

        • entech says:

          Interesting point about Cain and Abel. It is in this connection that the word sin is first found in the Hebrew Bible, no mention in the earlier chapters, in the creation mythology. So it was Cain that did the killing not the rock, just as it is the schoolchild that kills so many of their fellows not the easy access to automatic weapons. Access to technology that has no other purpose that to emit projectiles at great speed. Of course guns don’t kill, but they certainly do make mass murder easy, wonder how you could kill with only a rock to support your rampage?

          Grandma raises a good point. If you discount the notion of a single starting point, an Adam who is cloned as a female version of himself as the progenitor of all humanity you solve a lot of problems (when did incest become a sin? for one).
          Michael 2:18. I think you are going beyond logic here:
          Intermarry with their siblings – incest – a sin.
          Spouse that evolve elsewhere – you always speak as one vehemently opposed to any possibility that evolution is possible.
          Gay marriage? are your being deliberately disingenuous. You cannot possibly be proposing that if same sex unions (marriage is one word) existed then there would be no other kind and hence no human races remaining extant today. There is little detail in Genesis about this sort of thing, there is talk about “the sons of God” taking wives from amongst the daughters of man and having offspring, Wonder what is worse sexual activity between to human beings of the same gender or sexual activity between different species?

Leave a Reply

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

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>