Sunday, October 11, 2009

Christians are Dangerous Americans, Mudrake Says

The blogger Mudrake wrote in concern about a Catholic email he received as follows:

President Obama has nominated Chai Feldblum to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Deacon Keith Fournier wrote [about her]:

"Ms. Feldblum’s work to, in the words of the announcement, advance “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights”, places marriage and religious freedom in America at grave risk."

Then Mudrake writes:
Founier is essentially saying that Feldbaum's advocacy of basic human rights under the law somehow threatens the very fabric of the nation. We must counter this hysterical nonsense. Hysterical nonsense. Nonsense to the majority of Americans who uphold the Constitution and the 'human rights' articulated in many of the sacred documents upon which this nation was founded. Nonsense to most of the first-world nations on this planet.


How is it "hysterical nonsense," when Mudrake also wrote this:

The IRS ought to investigate and Homeland Security should be notified.
Fundamentalist christians are a threat to the security and functioning of this nation. They openly subvert the Constitution [by putting the Bible's view of homosexuality above the constitution, he thinks] and many openly support a foreign government [Israel]. Therefore, they engage in treasonous activities.


On the one hand, the blogger Mudrake is saying evangelical Christian concerns about the future of marriage and religious freedom in America are hysterical nonsense; on the other hand, he is saying such Christians who oppose gay marriage are committing treason. I'd say such a charge is CERTAINLY a threat to our religious freedom.Hopefuly, he's an aberration, a nut off his rocker --and not representative of growing hostility toward people who DO put the Bible above the Constitution as he said, "Apparently, to the evangelical, fundamentalist Christian, the Bible is a more valid document than the United States Constitution. In other words, these christian bigots 'believe' that they owe more allegiance to the Bible than to the Flag."

Of course we do. That's what religious freedom is about. However, our Bible doesn't give us license to murder, terrorize, deny others their religious freedom, etc --IN fact, we have historically concluded that certain religious liberties ought not be allowed --ought to be criminalized --no matter what a religion or immigrant culture says --like Voodoo, Santeria chicken sacrifices, hallucinegetic drugs, honor killings, female circumcision, and polygamy. (I'm not sure where the law stands on all these religious practices today.)

The Koran says, "Kill the infidel." We Christians have a problem with that!!! Our constitution agrees with the Bible about murder and the right to life--and just as abortion should still be illegal, so is killing the infidel illegal--no matter what their religion says about it. But we don't see homosexual acts as a right like the right to life--anymore than any other sexual perversion or imposition is a "right."

So America historically has had a limit to religious freedom--and sexual freedom -- and limits to any harmful inclinations humans tend to follow. Gambling, e.g., should STILL be illegal.

Interesting that in Mudrake's constitution, there is a right to sodomy and same-sex marriage --but there is no right to speak out against these unhealthy arrangements. Mudrake says, to oppose gay marriage and to support ISrael --are treasonist acts. To us, they are part of our free speech and freedom of religious belief and practice.
I don't think it's at all silly hysteria to see that the Spirit of Mudville is a threat to religious freedom and free speech. Already, he won't let people disagree on his blog--at least not conservative or evangelical women.





"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

17 comments:

Chuck O'Connor said...

Mudrake is absolutely right.

Not only does your perspective violate due process as articulated in the 14th Amendment but the millions of dollars pumped into California by Evangelical and Mormon churches to oppose Proposition 8 violates the Establishment Clause. If your churches want to practice political action then they need to revise their IRS standing and stop being a church and legally register as a lobbying organization. They need to surrender their tax free protections if they want to operate in a politically coercive way.

Your inability to see this is evidence that you don't understand the constitution which provides you the freedom to worship the way you (and conversely others - including those that choose non-worship) choose.

Do you get that Barb? Do you see the inequality and injustice in your slavish devotion to your faith?

I doubt it.

Barb said...

Mudrake's thinking is absolutely dangerous --not right. Calling us treasonists! Hysteria is not just what he accuses evangelicals of --but hysteria is both his reaction to the Right--and the reaction he tries to cause in others with his extreme rhetoric and hyperbole.

Chuck, I think you misunderstand what a church can or cannot do by IRS law. As I understand it, a church or religious charity can participate in advocacy and education regarding issues about which the church has a moral/biblical concern--or a concern for the churches themselves. The church cannot officially support candidates and say, "Vote for so and so," or give money or do fund-drives for a person's campaign or party. (church members can, of course.) Yet, every year, the IRS looks the other way when certain inner city churches bring in the democrat candidates to speak (a form of advocacy when they don't have both sides come) and get out the vote for them. And the Catholic church has held fund-raisers for democrats.

A church can say, "more welfare for the poor --support bill so and so," or "support pro-life bills and candidates." Or "support this bill that allows churches to buy and use old school buses" or "protects the tax exemption of the church." Or "support the traditional and biblical definition of marriage" or
"support a bill that protects rights of Christian and home schools."

They can educate --and put out voter guides that accurately represent all candidates' views on issues of interest to the church--without explicitly advocating for one candidate or party over another.

Church people and their leaders are not COMPLETELY muzzled --as Americans --they have speech rights, too, you know! They don't lose charitable tax exemption in exchange for ALL their constitutional rights as Americans. Though some ministers DID object and challenge last election cycle the IRS muzzle that says they have to be taxed for the privilege of explicitly denouncing candidates or parties they consider to be evil in their issue advocacies.

Especially since the black churches and the formerly democrat Catholics traditionally have gotten away with advocacy of democrats without losing their IRS status. The law has only effectually muzzled the "religious right"--the only churches that have heeded the law, historically.

Planned Parenthood is tax exempt, isn't it? and gets 51% of their support from government --and are VERY politically active regarding abortion. They just say their tax exempt donations support "healthcare" and not policy. And of course, they call abortion "healthcare."

You go after the church's tax exemption for their stands on social issues, and you WILL see a lot of Christian lawyers demanding equal treatment of all charities and pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left and all their many abuses of IRS law.

As long as the Mudrakes don't run the government, we hope to still find a modicum of justice in the courts regarding churches and IRS policy. It's a shame, however, when charity dollars have to go to defend us against our own constitution-violating gov't.

There is a history of understanding by Americans as to what the constitution means --and it never meant that we could do perverse and evil acts in the name of religion. The majority through their reps agreed in the past that abortion and sodomy were evils --and the evidence bears that out in terms of the wreckage of lives destroyed by both.

Barb said...

I see where Mudly responded as he always does --I sent him a short response/comment for his blog which I knew he would not publish --which is also why I brought the topic to my free speech blog. Anyway, as usual, he uncharitably refers to my comments as excrement on his doorstep --and says (in effect) that I just don't get that Americans have this right to sodomy.

Good grief! If a sexual activity causes untold death, misery, grief, expensive disease, there oughtta be a law!!! And there have been anti-sodomy statutes on the books even under our constitution! for the obvious public health reasons.

Everyone has an equal right to try to find a non-related,willing, legally adult mate of the opposite sex and have children.

No one has an explicit or even implied RIGHT to same sex activity --under God's law OR the constitution of the U.S. No more than they have a "right" to adultery, incest, pedophilia, prostitutes, porn, necrophilia or bestiality --though we look the other way legally on the adultery and porn. We've popularized porn accessibility (and adultery and divorce) since Playboy became fashionable--via internet especially --whereas "pandering obscenity" used to be a punishable crime. Porn is a nasty, stinkin' business for those who make it and it ought to be punishable by law.

As the culture goes, so goes the law --and the mudrakes of the world are working hard to make the whole world a cess-pool of licentiousness and perversion and deadly STD's. I can't help but wonder just why, in his case --being such a family man and all.

Jeanette said...

Barb,

Stop being obsessed with what Mudrake says because it only gives him satisfaction and gives you frustration.

Stay away from there is the best advice I could give. He has everything upside down and thinks we are still under the law in Deuteronomy and Leviticus.

He's a two trick pony. Anti-Christianity and Anti-Republican. Why go there when you know what he rants about every day?

As for politics in our church, it is never discussed inside the church or in services. Nothing, zip, zero, nada in order to protect our tax exempt status.

If I were to ask the pastor how he plans to vote on certain candidates he would probably not tell me because he doesn't want to influence my vote.

My job is to pray for discernment to vote for the candidate I think would best serve the principles in which I believe, regardless of party, although I don't vote for many Democrats.

Get him out of your mind and move on to other things.

When you look over your blog, the topic that gets the least amount of participation is your battle with Mudrake.

The other is your constant postings on sex. There are other sins besides sex, but if that's what interests you then continue, but they don't get many comments either. Not from the Christians, whom I assume you want to attract.

Barb said...

For Jeanette --On the contrary, Jeanette, who's frustrated?? It's not me. I really don't take these confrontations as hard as you do. Sadly, it's a fact that Christians grieve me far more than ol' mudrakes do when they turn on each other. And I don't think you're right that my addressing him gives him satisfaction --or he would publish us over there. This is not a man who enjoys opposition. He sticks his fingers in his ears and closes his eyes and grits his teeth and repeats over and over his mantra: "I hate fundamentalists, I hate fundamentalists"! and yes, he DOES hate any who don't share his world view. That's not my emotion toward him.

I post on the topic of homosexuality and gay marriage because it is a Sodom and Gomorrah issue that I fear could be the undoing of this nation as it was in Lot's day--and in Rome. For survival as the shining city on the hill, the US needs to encourage heterosexual identification in its young --and encourage parenting by people who really DO believe in the Constitution and one proper role of gov't to restrain evil and ameliorate its consequences.

Now, the TOPIC is frustrating, because more and more Christians ARE caving and retreating due to the relentless promotion of homosexuality as normal, healthy and a civil right --the more the culture swings left on this issue, the more our young people will be swayed to their own detriment. E.G. every tv drama I've seen lately seems to have its sympathetic gay character --and exposes people to women kissing on the mouth --and grown men acting like love-sick cows over other men.
This is revolting. People can love each other emotionally without it needing to be sexual in imitation of hetero love.

We may soon find ourselves in a nation we don't recognize --and won't like. This may be inevitable, but I think the prophets told the public that sin was sin with dire consequences --and so we must do that, at least. Jesus said, "Repent." We are now a nation that recognizes no sin or need for repentance --apart from rape and murder and what they see as "gaycism"-- even the murder of babes in the womb is called "a right of privacy," ignoring the larger issue of "the right to life."

Barb said...

(had to split for length)

Mudrake and his kind NEED refutation --lest he and those who read his blog forget that there IS an opposing view to his about Christians and the social issues. When he mischaracterizes Christians on the issues, in effect, lying about us, I'm happy to clarify according to my point of view --and someone who is Christian should do it. But it doesn't "upset me," really, because Jesus said we shall have people lying about us if we are doing the right things.

We ought not turn tail and run just because the opposition is waxing strong every day on the gay issue --on targeting Christians and misinterpreting their motives, etc.

I go to Mudrake's blog to see what extreme liberals are fabricating today --and to combat that thinking with good reasoning about reality. I think Christian people need to know what's being said out there and proclaim the truth --

I'm not writing for any particular target audience -- I write as I would write letters to the editor --for a general audience --to say what, in my opinion, needs to be said to refute the other side that isn't the least bit hesitant in their libel.

Granted, the social/sexual issue IS a spiritual issue, but we gain nothing by retreating behind the walls of the church as they want us to do. Instead, by ignoring the issues that are paramount to them, we lose a battle that needs to be waged with reason, common sense and the Word.

You and I and other Christians all have differing philosophies on this and on blogging --you do your thing; I'll do mine.

I think Christians do well to address the culture, analyze it, promote solutions, defend the Biblical view and the love of God and Christians for the lost --instead of targeting each other.

I also think I have a very clear understanding about homosexuality and its causes and consequences --which I don't hear others articulate on the blogs.

(You know you're being bossy, Mom? ; ) And you think it's for my good --or the good of the Church as you see it --but I think the church needs to be vocal in opposition to the sin sweeping over our culture--for the good of the children--and our collective souls' sake --not to mention, public physical, mental and public health.

Barb said...

Last sentence should've been "....public physical, mental, and economic health."

No babies? No taxes. No social security. And plenty of STD's --because you just cannot make homosexual orientation and acts "safe." Your child enters that doorway and he's entering a life of misery and high risk for health problems, emotional and physical --and the nation does have to pick up the price tag of the disease and the childlessness. Getting society to approve and applaud will not take away the guilt for sinning against a God who made us to be heterosexuals.

Barb said...

One more observation, Jeanette, subject matter may affect topics you comment on --but I've had MANY topics without comments --and they are not about sex or Mud.

People are rightly hesitant to comment on him --he's been a scary blogger--the most hateful and unhappy I've encountered.

But I'm a risk-taker, admittedly. I've even picked up hitch-hikers with very unusual, interesting results. That's no routine for me --but I have done it.

mud_rake said...

Your OCD is showing!

Jeanette said...

Barb,

You misunderstand me if you think I condone the homosexual lifestyle of people anywhere on earth. Mudrake likes to say it's in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, but the apostle Paul also said a man should not sleep with another man the way he would a woman and a woman should not sleep with another woman the way she would a man.

Clearly, when God speaks He means it then and forever. Homosexuality is a sin and I do not shrink from calling it so.

We have other sins in this world too and one sin is no worse than another.

We have pre-marital or extramarital sex, both sins.

People murder and that's a sin. People lie, even "little white lies" and that's a sin. People steal for the fun of it, to get money for drugs or to feed their families. It's all a sin.

People envy another's lifestyle and possessions. That's a sin. That's where I think the government is wrong. They have created such a class war that everyone envies what others have so the government solution is to make everyone equal. But that means equally poor since government does not produce anything of value to the public.

How you blog is of course your business, but I was just saying if we aren't visitors to his site, why invite us to read his latest rantings? It caused me to go to his blog and I haven't been there in a long time. Of course he said lies about the comment I made that he wouldn't publish, so where does that get any of us? We have no voice there.

Sorry for offending you.

Barb said...

No, Jeanette, I didn't misunderstand you--I know you have a Christian world view regarding good and evil --but no one has to read when I say in the title that I'm referring to Mudrake's writing. And no one can "cause you" to go to any blog you wish to avoid. If you aren't interested in what Mudrake writes, by all means, ignore him. And when I don't interest people, they can ignore me, too. As many do! That's OK. I write what I write because I think I should --and because the topics are of concern to me.

Yes, all sin is sin--but homosexuality is one of very few that we are asked by politicians and liberal thinkers to celebrate, condone, and appreciate. They're very busy saying it is a good way to be --someone needs to speak to the contrary in dark places. Because youth are being fooled and not hearing any of the negative --except as hate speech. I am not speaking hatred about homosexuals --I'm saying this is not a good way to go in life --and we need to HELP people avoid this path.

say, Mudrake, nice restraint there!

matthew said...

This idea that all sins are equally bad is one of the dumbest urban legends of our day. It's easily refuted with Scripture and common sense.

Barb said...

I would guess we would all agree that All sin is equal ONLY in its innate ability to separate us from God when we are unrepentant in our attitude --defending our sin as good.

And we may not all agree in our convictions --but as you said, certain sins were particularly detested by God in scripture--but disobeying God in general is why mankind became mortal.

Any theories on what blaspheming the Holy Spirit is that it should be the unpardonable sin? Can one nevertheless truly repent and be saved even after that sin?

matthew said...

True, any and all sin separates us from God. Even the smallest ones need Christ's atonement.

That doesn't mean they're all equal, though. It seems we're on the same page with this one, Barb. Glad to be dwelling in Christian unity. :)

By the way, I'm getting a good laugh today reading Mudrake call you a Calvinist. If only he knew...

Barb said...

Me, too. I wrote about it.

Jeanette said...

Matthew,

If I steal a dollar instead of a million dollars will God say it was a "minor" sin, or will He say it was the sin of stealing?

If I murder someone will God punish me more than if I just beat that someone to within an inch of his life?

If I say I tithe and don't will God think that's just a little white lie and let me get away with it?

What is the punishment for sin if one does not ask Jesus to forgive them and wash them in His blood?

"For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God". Sin is sin in God's eyes.

Hitler was a mass murderer, but is he more guilty than someone who is a serial murderer and killed six people instead of the six million Jews and the millions of Gypsies, gays, Russians etc?

Killing is killing. You break one commandment and you might as well break all of them because it is all sin.

God doesn't give us a pass because we think it's a little sin.

Yes, He points out homosexuality as an abomination, but it is not the only sin. What about prostitution, fornication, adultery? All in the same family, so is one less than the other?

If all sin is not equal in God's eyes then we can pick and choose which sins we want to commit and stay away from the "worse" ones. I was always told when I was a child that to steal a penny was the same as stealing a million dollars. I didn't understand it at the time, but I do now.

Then again, I have been told there will be "degrees" of hell, so if you are going to sin don't do "bad" sins. I think I'll live as the Holy Spirit guides me within my human nature and let God sort it out in the end. ;)

Barb, I have heard that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is to give credit to the Holy Spirit works that are of Satan or to give credit to Satan works that are of God.

Many people blame God for natural tragedies such as hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis etc. I don't know who caused it but I'm not going to speculate either.

And, I also believe if a believer is about to commit that one unpardonable sin God will take him before he does it or he would lose his salvation, and we cannot lose our salvation.

Barb said...

I bet we all really do agree, J, that any sin separates us from God --and as such, there are no "small" sins.

I think where matt and I are in agreement-and you may be, also --is that it is NOT as BAD in consequences and harm to wife and family for a man to lapse and commit adultery in the heart with a lustful look --as it is to lapse and actually jump in bed with the other woman. Jesus said it IS adultery to lust --and thus ALL adultery must be confessed and covered by Christ's blood --even the lustful look. He was saying to the pharisees who were typically non-adulterous that even THEY had commited adultery with their eyes and hearts --and thus were no better in God's sight than those who actually do the act. So even THEY needed to humble themselves and repent for falling short of God's holiness. Even THEY needed a Savior!

And so it is that you and I don't think we are better than Mudrake in God's sight --but we are trusting Christ for our salvation and forgiveness --and we don't despise Mudrake as he despises us. If he doesn't change attitude, I'm afraid --literally afraid --that he will be lost for eternity.

I could ignore him--but I don't think that will help him any more than we think paying attention to him is helping him. At least, by responding to what he says, my effort is to EXPLAIN how he's wrong in his perceptions and his blanket condemnation of all those he calls fundamentalists and evangelicals, the religious right, etc.