Secular extremism is killing Christianity in America

[daws101]

America has always been trailblazer of the future, not custodian of the past. So opposing same-sex marriage on grounds of tradition is a chancy proposition.

But this approach has another major flaw: What conservatives regard as traditional marriage is not very traditional at all. It's radically different from what prevailed a century or two centuries ago. And if you want to talk about "thousands of years," you'll find that almost everything about marriage has changed.

The biblical King Solomon, after all, was a dedicated polygamist, with 700 wives. Monogamy has always been the norm in Christianity, but not as part of a marriage of equals.

The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone explained, "By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law; that is, the very being or legal existence of a woman is suspended, or at least incorporated or consolidated into that of the husband, under whose wing, protection, or cover she performs everything."

Women generally couldn't enter into contracts without permission from their husbands. In legal status, they were a notch above sheep and goats. In America, it was not until well into the 19th century that states began to grant married women something resembling full property rights.

Even then, marriage had attributes that traditionalists would like to forget. Husbands who forced themselves on their wives were not guilty of rape, since they were legally entitled to sexual access. Contraception was forbidden in many states. Only in 1965 did the Supreme Court decide that such laws "violate the right of marital privacy."

The ideal of marriage enshrined in the 1950s reflects a myopic nostalgia for a phase that didn't last. The 1960s brought no-fault divorce, which allowed wives as well as husbands to dissolve their bonds without proving some terrible transgression by the spouse.

This was an earthquake, causing unprecedented numbers of unions to collapse. A writer for the conservative Family Research Council said that under no-fault divorce laws, marriage became "nothing more than notarized dating." Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage said their effect was nothing less than "the abolition of marriage."

In a sense, she's right. But you don't see many conservatives trying to repeal no-fault laws in the name of "traditional marriage." Gallagher misses the more fundamental point: This institution is not something passed down unaltered from generation to generation, like the family silver. It is continually in flux, taking forms that would surprise our forebears.



Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/09/the_myth_of_traditional_marriage_121514.html#ixzz45GZ2Iaaj
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

America has been a trailblazer in many ways but not in the matter of faux marriage......the Euros are way ahead of us....and their imposition of a secular driven multicultural society is the driving force of their demise....

total paranoid extremist bullshit .

nope.....facts are facts.....

that's true if they were facts but there're not. Thanks for playing.

Europe is dying.....

when the Muslims take over you will have to forego your Euro vacation....unless you LIKE being thrown from a rooftop....

even more paranoid reactionary bullshit... fucking hilarious,

 

[daws101]

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, I've seen several churches here in Amarillo move to bigger facilities because their congregation expanded so much.

There have also been several churches built here in the past few years.

If churches are growing, as well as new ones are being built, how is Christianity being "killed"?

it's under attack from the secular leftist cultists......if they had their way Christianity would be corralled exclusively inside the churches....

But it's not only in the churches. Over the past 12 years or so, preachers have become more and more vocal about their political stance and have been encouraging their parish to follow their lead politically.

Besides.................I thought there was SUPPOSED to be a separation between Church and State.

Tell that to the State that is telling the Church what they can and what they can't do.

The government (i.e. the state) runs the country. The churches don't. Besides, if you believe that the Church should run the country, which sect of which religion should be the dominant one?

The Churches are not trying to run the country.

Really? Then why is it that almost every GOP candidate has made some kind of regular reference to their faith? They are obviously pandering to the Christian voters, as well as are promising Christian voters that they will return this country to it's original Christian ideals?

What about the Taoists? Buddhists? Hindus? Are they going to have to abide by Christian ideals as well? We already know that the Muslims do, or else they can't stay.

 

[JakeStarkey]

church marriages are as faux as it gets .
religious belief does not give it adherents the right to impose their belief on the public .

that goes double for cultish secular beliefs......

false !
your belief is just as cultish as what you are falsely accusing me of being .
what gay people are seeking is parity
par·i·ty1
[ˈperədē]
equality · equivalence · uniformity · consistency
nothing more .
equality for all is a basic American right.

'parity'....? you've got to be kidding....

first it was 'tolerance'........and you got that

now it's 'parity'......meaning total acceptance and normalization of faux marriage?......sorry buddy.....

let your homophobia/bigotry flag fly!

is that what i'm doing.....flying an anti-fag flag.....?

i'd say rather i was defending Christianity's freedom to practice freely in this country.....

Don't confuse free speech with freedom of expression everywhere particularity within the religious establishment cause.

No one is coming into your churches and telling you what you have to do.

You have to follow the laws that apply to all of us outside your church property.

 

[JakeStarkey]

From Picara's link. Pincara thinks it is Alinskyist. It seems common sense framing to me. If I were a Christiam missionary in Saudi Arabia, I would keep the advice in mind.

THE OVERHAULING OF STRAIGHT AMERICA
By Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill

The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.

At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect a full "appreciation" or "understanding" of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won. And to get to shoulder-shrug stage, gays as a class must cease to appear mysterious, alien, loathsome and contrary. A large-scale media campaign will be required in order to change the image of gays in America. And any campaign to accomplish this turnaround should do six things.

 

[bendog]

From Picara's link. Pincara thinks it is Alinskyist. It seems common sense framing to me. If I were a Christiam missionary in Saudi Arabia, I would keep the advice in mind.

THE OVERHAULING OF STRAIGHT AMERICA
By Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill

The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.

At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect a full "appreciation" or "understanding" of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won. And to get to shoulder-shrug stage, gays as a class must cease to appear mysterious, alien, loathsome and contrary. A large-scale media campaign will be required in order to change the image of gays in America. And any campaign to accomplish this turnaround should do six things.

OMG I've been brainwashed. I'm gonna be turned into salt!

 

[Sunni Man]

If I were a Christiam missionary in Saudi Arabia, I would keep the advice in mind.

There are no Christian missionary's in Saudi Arabia.......and never will be any. ......

 

[daws101]

From Picara's link. Pincara thinks it is Alinskyist. It seems common sense framing to me. If I were a Christiam missionary in Saudi Arabia, I would keep the advice in mind.

THE OVERHAULING OF STRAIGHT AMERICA
By Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill

The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.

At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect a full "appreciation" or "understanding" of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won. And to get to shoulder-shrug stage, gays as a class must cease to appear mysterious, alien, loathsome and contrary. A large-scale media campaign will be required in order to change the image of gays in America. And any campaign to accomplish this turnaround should do six things.

OMG I've been brainwashed. I'm gonna be turned into salt!

sea salt I hope

 

[bendog]

From Picara's link. Pincara thinks it is Alinskyist. It seems common sense framing to me. If I were a Christiam missionary in Saudi Arabia, I would keep the advice in mind.

THE OVERHAULING OF STRAIGHT AMERICA
By Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill

The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.

At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect a full "appreciation" or "understanding" of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won. And to get to shoulder-shrug stage, gays as a class must cease to appear mysterious, alien, loathsome and contrary. A large-scale media campaign will be required in order to change the image of gays in America. And any campaign to accomplish this turnaround should do six things.

OMG I've been brainwashed. I'm gonna be turned into salt!

sea salt I hope

Thank God I'm old fat and need Viagra to get it up cause otherwise these nefarious gays might be trying to turn me to sin and eternal damnation.

 

[daws101]

If I were a Christiam missionary in Saudi Arabia, I would keep the advice in mind.

There are no Christian missionary's in Saudi Arabia.......and never will be any. ......

not that you would admit to anyway.
I believe that about as much as I believe there are no gays there either.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

(actually it's the national motto...)

 

[daws101]

From Picara's link. Pincara thinks it is Alinskyist. It seems common sense framing to me. If I were a Christiam missionary in Saudi Arabia, I would keep the advice in mind.

THE OVERHAULING OF STRAIGHT AMERICA
By Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill

The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.

At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect a full "appreciation" or "understanding" of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won. And to get to shoulder-shrug stage, gays as a class must cease to appear mysterious, alien, loathsome and contrary. A large-scale media campaign will be required in order to change the image of gays in America. And any campaign to accomplish this turnaround should do six things.

OMG I've been brainwashed. I'm gonna be turned into salt!

sea salt I hope

Thank God I'm old fat and need Viagra to get it up cause otherwise these nefarious gays might be trying to turn me to sin and eternal damnation.

the little blue pill is your friend .
I tried the stuff where you have to haul that cast iron tub around , could hardly walk ,to say nothing of getting hard.

 

[Sunni Man]

If I were a Christiam missionary in Saudi Arabia, I would keep the advice in mind.

There are no Christian missionary's in Saudi Arabia.......and never will be any. ......

not that you would admit to anyway.
I believe that about as much as I believe there are no gays there either.

Can it retard.

Being either will land you in prison.....and even executed. .....

 

[daws101]

false the constitution never mentions god

In God We Trust" is the official motto of the United States. It was adopted as the nation's motto in 1956 as an alternative or replacement to the unofficial motto of E pluribus unum, which was adopted when the Great Seal of the United States was created and adopted in 1782.[1][2] Many people have expressed objections to its use, and have sought to have the religious reference removed from the currency, claiming that it violates the First Amendment.[3]

It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts. This lack of any these words does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, any more than the use of the word Lord means that they were. What this lack of these words is expositive of is not a love for or disdain for religion, but the feeling that the new government should not involve itself in matters of religion. In fact, the original Constitution bars any religious test to hold any federal office in the United States. For more information, see the Religion Topic Page.
Thanks to James MacDonald for the idea.

 

[Picaro]

You know, I've seen several churches here in Amarillo move to bigger facilities because their congregation expanded so much.

There have also been several churches built here in the past few years.

If churches are growing, as well as new ones are being built, how is Christianity being "killed"?

it's under attack from the secular leftist cultists......if they had their way Christianity would be corralled exclusively inside the churches....

But it's not only in the churches. Over the past 12 years or so, preachers have become more and more vocal about their political stance and have been encouraging their parish to follow their lead politically.

Besides.................I thought there was SUPPOSED to be a separation between Church and State.

who said....?

Thomas Jefferson said it.

No, Thomas Helwys said it, and the Constitution only prohibits the Federal Government from favoring one sect over another; the states remained free to favor the sects that founded them, until demographics superseded their majorities of the populations and they followed with state constitutional changes, Massachusetts I think was the last, in 1833 or so.

And, it didn't ban 'Christianity' or its symbols or displays from public buildings or anywhere else, either, despite current mythology. Church services were routinely held in Federal buildings in Washington, D.C. until long after Jefferson's last term in office as President, actually.

 

[ABikerSailor]

(actually it's the national motto...)

"In God we trust" was originally the state motto of Florida, but then was later adopted by the nation and eventually ended up on the money we use.

It was never in the Constitution.

In God we trust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Checkmate, moron.

 

[daws101]

If I were a Christiam missionary in Saudi Arabia, I would keep the advice in mind.

There are no Christian missionary's in Saudi Arabia.......and never will be any. ......

not that you would admit to anyway.
I believe that about as much as I believe there are no gays there either.

Can it retard.

Being either will land you in prison.....and even executed. .....

neither has anything to do with the truth of my statement .
so who's the retard?

 

[Sunni Man]

.
so who's the retard?

You.......

 

[daws101]

.
so who's the retard?

You.......

wrong as always and not man enough to admit it..

 

[ScreamingEagle]

that goes double for cultish secular beliefs......

false !
your belief is just as cultish as what you are falsely accusing me of being .
what gay people are seeking is parity
par·i·ty1
[ˈperədē]
equality · equivalence · uniformity · consistency
nothing more .
equality for all is a basic American right.

'parity'....? you've got to be kidding....

first it was 'tolerance'........and you got that

now it's 'parity'......meaning total acceptance and normalization of faux marriage?......sorry buddy.....

let your homophobia/bigotry flag fly!

is that what i'm doing.....flying an anti-fag flag.....?

i'd say rather i was defending Christianity's freedom to practice freely in this country.....

Don't confuse free speech with freedom of expression everywhere particularity within the religious establishment cause.

No one is coming into your churches and telling you what you have to do.

You have to follow the laws that apply to all of us outside your church property.

here it is folks.....a secularist leftie who pushes the anti-Christian agenda who thinks the practice of religion belongs only inside the churches....and that the practice of the LBGT cult supercedes all other beliefs.....