‘Pastor Protection Act’ Unanimously Passes Georgia House

Pulpit Credit Terri Heisele-compressed
Photo Credit: Terri Heisele

ATLANTA, Ga. — The Georgia House of Representatives unanimously approved a bill this week that protects clergy from punishment if they decline to perform same-sex “weddings.”

H.B. 757 was introduced last summer by Rep. Kevin Tanner, R-Dawsonville, and found support from Democrats and Republicans alike.

“No minister of the gospel or cleric or religious practitioner ordained or authorized to solemnize marriages, perform rites, or administer sacraments according to the usages of the denomination, when acting in his or her official religious capacity, shall be required to solemnize any marriage, perform any rite or administer any sacrament in violation of his or her right to free exercise of religion under the Constitution of this state or the United States,” the bill reads in part.

In addition to churches, the bill also applies to religious schools, missionary societies and denominational conventions.

“The Pastor Protection Act is a simple reaffirmation of our bedrock principle of separation of church and state,” Tanner told reporters. “It makes clear that Georgia respects and honors the sacred oaths taken by our pastors, priests, rabbis and other clergy and that government has no intention of asking them to violate those oaths.”

Homosexual advocacy groups decried the move, opining that it grants a “license to discriminate.”

“It allows faith-based organizations to withhold services if they choose to do so,” Jeff Graham, the executive director of Georgia Equality, said in testimony before the Senate Rules Committee, which is considering a similar combined bill. “I am especially concerned that this bill will have a chilling effect on the state’s LGBT families.”

  • Connect with Christian News

As previously reported, a homosexual activist has been calling for clergy nationwide to stop calling homosexuality sinful. According to the New York Times, Mitchell Gold of Faith in America told the publication last May that “church leaders must be made ‘to take homosexuality off the sin list.’”

During an appearance at a Alexander County, North Carolina Commissioner’s meeting last month, he stated that his New Year’s resolution for 2016 is to put an end to such teaching.

“It’s outdated. It’s misguided. It’s ill-informed. But worse, it is unbelievably harmful,” Gold stated.

Gold recently also penned a letter to the editor of the Taylorsville Times, stating that “The overriding reason … LGBT people suffer deep depression and are driven to suicide is because they feel they are broken—that they are sinners. I’ve come to the conclusion this religious teaching is one of the most harmful in our society today.”

The Pastor Protection Act passed 161-0 on Thursday.

“There’s a global threat to religious liberty occurring,” said Dr. Daniel Ausbun, pastor of First Baptist Church in Moreland in a column published in the Newnan Times-Herald on Saturday. “Religious liberty is the freedom to believe and practice your faith apart from government interference.”

“We don’t want a government that imposes penalties for religious opinions of any kind,” he said. “The sad fact is, throughout Georgia, people of faith have had their right of free exercise of religion trampled, ignored and restricted.”

A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Emmanuel

    I agree. All states need to pass a similar law.

    • gizmo23


      • Emmanuel

        to protect the church and pastors

    • Ambulance Chaser

      To protect against what?

      • Josey

        So a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ is protected against being forced into lawsuits and christian bakers, florists, etc. protects their beliefs in Christ and God’s commandments. God set up the laws and to obey Him above man which is utmost to a believer in Christ and comes first and forcing one to go against the laws God has put in a new creations heart, a born again believer whether you agree with it or not is destructive, evil and from the pit of hell. If you as a homosexual are set on breaking God’s laws go to someone who is in line with your thinking and God will judge in the end, but that doesn’t seem to be good enough for you homo’s, no, you want everyone to think evil as you do, if that offends you so be it, the truth offends those who don’t follow it.
        1 Peter 2:4-10 vs4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. 9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Except churches are not public accommodations.

        • acontraryview

          “So a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ is protected against being forced into lawsuits”

          That protection already existed. This law provides no additional layer of protection regarding individual ministers.

          “and christian bakers, florists, etc. protects their beliefs in Christ and God’s commandments.”

          People are free to believe as they like regardless of what laws may be in place regarding public accommodations. The law does not change that. Further, this law does not apply to “christian bakers, florists, etc.”.

      • afchief

        It’s only a matter of time before two homo men join a church and lie that they are straight. Over time they come out and say they are homo and ask the pastor to marry them. The pastors says no and the homos take him to court.

        Only a matter of time.

        • SSGT_Randolph

          I notice you didn’t say anything about “homo” women. Very telling.

          • acontraryview

            His focus, interestingly, is entirely on homosexual men.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            He never does.

        • The Skeptical Chymist

          Anyone can sue about anything. That is allowed under our system, and the existence of a lawsuit doesn’t prove anything about whether protections for the religious rights of the pastors exist or not. I just saw recently that one of the Oregon refuge occupiers is suing the federal government for $666,666,666,666.66, for their Satan-inspired activities. Further proof that anyone can sue anyone for anything. Idiotic lawsuits abound in the U.S.

          However, if there are no grounds for a suit, the lawsuit will be dismissed. This is exactly what would happen in your scenario. The right of the religion to control who qualifies for their religious rituals (or sacraments) is absolute. This is why you never see a church being sued (at least not successfully) for refusing to marry two people of different races, or two people of different faiths (if the church prohibits that), or two people who lack a “temple recommend” in the Mormon church, etc. We have an extremely strong prohibition on state intervention in the internal dealings of the church in this country, and that will remain. I’ll join you on the front lines of that battle, if it ever comes to pass.

          • afchief

            It is already happening in Europe.

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            That’s because they don’t have strict separation of church and state like we do. Many European countries have state churches, which means they need to be responsive to the citizens of the state as a whole. Here we have a strict separation of church and state, and the state cannot tell a church what they can and cannot do, within a very wide latitude.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I certainly don’t expect afchief to be able to grasp the nuance that almost nothing can stop a lawsuit from being filed. However, some southern Representatives have tried, twice, to pass a law that would take away the rights of federal courts to hear certain kinds of cases. The types of cases were all conservative hard-on issues, like abortion and separation of church and state. The law would have been called the “We the People Act.” (Presumably, the sponsors refer to themselves as the Ministry of Truth.)

          • Balerion

            I wouldn’t expect someone as simple-minded as afchief to understand the legal concept of “standing”.

          • Luke Sulla

            “afchief” is no more? I have the sadz about this revolting development!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            That’s nice. So what?

          • afchief

            It will happen here!


          • Guest

            Cite please. Not Denmark or the UK, those were about citizens able to use publicly funded buildings, not about any particular person performing a ceremony.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          And they’d lose. With or without this law.

          • afchief

            Your high!!!! Not in today’s liberal godless courts. The rule of law does not matter anymore.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Then why pass a law?

          • afchief

            For the very reason I said.

          • acontraryview

            If the rule of law “does not matter anymore”, then what would be the point of passing a new law?

          • afchief

            When your dealing with homos the rule of law does not matter anymore.

            Proof……Prop 8 and the SCOTUS opinion on marriage. Both a violation of the Constitution.

          • acontraryview

            “When your dealing with homos the rule of law does not matter anymore.”

            Then I’ll ask again: What is point of passing the law?

            “Prop 8 and the SCOTUS opinion on marriage. Both a violation of the Constitution.”

            How so?

          • afchief

            The “vote” (prop 8) of millions of people was overturned by one federal judge. TOTALLY unconstitutional!!!!

            Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution which is why states have a marriage clause in their respective Constitutions. For the SCOTUS to rule on homo marriage is TOTALLY unconstitutional!!!

          • acontraryview

            “The “vote” (prop 8) of millions of people was overturned by one federal judge. TOTALLY unconstitutional!!!!”

            Please cite what portion of the Constitution was violated.

            “Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution…..For the SCOTUS to rule on homo marriage is TOTALLY unconstitutional!!!”

            So then you are suggesting that the SCOTUS is only allowed to rule on laws that deal with things that are specifically mentioned in Constitution. Is that correct? If so, then you are also saying that it was unconstitutional for the SCOTUS to rule on the constitutionality of laws banning interracial marriage, correct? Oh, and unconstitutional for them to rule on whether Hobby Lobby is required to provide health care coverage for contraceptive use, since contraception is not mentioned in the Constitution, nor is health insurance, correct?

            What portion of the Constitution was violated when the SCOTUS ruled on the constitutionality of state marriage laws?

          • afchief

            The 10th amendment both times.

          • Bob Johnson

            The Supreme Court never ruled on Prop 8 marriage, they ruled 5-4 that the Prop 8 proponents did not have standing and returned the case to the lower court with instructions to dismiss for lack of standing.

          • acontraryview

            Agreed. The specifics of law are not a strong suit for Russ.

          • afchief

            Then show me where the people of California violated the law?

            And I will show you where the federal government did!!!!


          • acontraryview

            The rulings on Prop 8, by two levels of the Federal judiciary, not just a single judge – did not state that the people of California violated the law, nor did the case suggest that they did.

            Now, please show where the Federal judiciary violated the law by ruling on a case before the court.

          • afchief

            Not only are you a liar you are quite deceived!!!! As I have said, there are two ways to make laws in our country…by an act of the Legislative Branch, or by a citizen’s initiative through a direct vote of the people. When the people of California voted for marriage to be one man and one woman that became the law of that state in accordance with the 10th amendment. A federal judge has NO right to overrule the “will” of the people. NONE!!!!

            It called Judicial Tyranny!!!

            And yes YOU are a liar!!!

          • acontraryview

            “A federal judge has NO right to overrule the “will” of the people. NONE!!!!”

            You are incorrect. The 14th Amendment provides for the ability of the judiciary to rule on the constitutionality of any state law. If the Federal Judiciary were not allowed to rule on the Constitutionality of laws, how would the protections provided by the 14th Amendment be secured?

            Prop 8 was not the “will of the people”. It was the will of SOME of the people. There are approximately 17 million registered voters in California. Of those, approximately 7 million (41%) voted in favor of Prop 8, while approximately 6.4 million (37%) voted against. So, 4% of voters made the difference in the passage of Prop 8. 4% is hardly “the will of the people”.

            “And yes YOU are a liar!!!”

            A claim that you make continuously, but have yet been unable to back up. How do you square your non-stop bearing of false witness with your supposed faith in Christianity?

          • afchief

            Oh my gosh, why am I wasting my time?!?!?!?!?!?

            BYE YOU ARE A LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “Oh my gosh, why am I wasting my time?!?!?!?!?!?”

            That’s a great question, Russ. Why do you waste your time calling me a liar when you are unable to cite one thing I have said that is a lie?

          • afchief

            It should had NEVER went go to court. The poor homos got in an uproar because the people have spoken. A federal judge has NO authority to overturn the will (vote) of the people. NONE

            It’s called Judicial Tyranny!!!!

          • Hastur

            did flunk high school? cause that would explain your stupidity

        • acontraryview

          “The pastors says no and the homos take him to court.”

          In order for a citizen to file a lawsuit, their must be a law in place which the citizen is challenging. Since there is no law which requires pastors to perform marriages, there would be no law to challenge and thus no basis for taking the pastor to court.

      • Emmanuel

        Pastors being forced to do something they don’t want to do. Or a church to open it’s door to a couple that do not believe the same.

        • Angel Withan A


          • Peter Leh



        • Hastur

          they already have that protection you idiot

          • Emmanuel

            Are you a pastor? You might want to sit down with one and have this talk. The pastors are worried.

          • Hastur

            because they’re idiots, religious institution are exempt form anti-discrimination laws

          • Emmanuel

            I’m assuming you don’t attend church so why bother? Let them be and you do you.

          • Hastur

            why bother with what?

          • Emmanuel

            Why do you care about the pastors and the churches? Move on and no worries, we will fight regardless.

          • Hastur

            fight what? no one is making you do anything.

          • Emmanuel

            Ok, have a great life

        • Peter Leh

          has this ever happened?

          • Emmanuel


          • Peter Leh


      • Luke Sulla

        Against all those kids who keep getting on my lawn!

    • afchief

      A marriage is no mere contract. It is a covenant between the man and woman and God, with witnesses. It is a sacramentum of the relationship between Christ and the Church (which is why SSM is blasphemy). It is pre-political, being both historically and ontologically prior to any civil government, and in fact, the existence of more than one family is the reason for the existence of the civil government and the other spheres of society. A civil government which does not protect and uphold genuine marriage has no legitimacy. And homosexual marriage is NOT marriage!!!

      • Emmanuel

        I agree with you. I’m for traditional marriage and protection of the church. A gay couple can go get a license but their union is not blessed by God. Churches should not lie to them. They think it is but we know the truth. A Pastor or church should not be force to marry a couple that does not meet the biblical standard. They can’t be denied a license but they can be denied a church.

    • Hastur


  • Michael C

    Being that these protections already existed for clergy, pastors, ministers, rabbis, imams, etc., what was the point?

    Let’s take interracial marriage as an example, shall we? Bans on interracial marriage were ruled to be unconstitutional in 1967. Today, almost fifty years later, churches, pastors, ministers, etc. are still free to refuse to perform weddings for interracial couples. …or any other couple for whatever reason.

    A few years ago, a Mississippi church refused to host a wedding because the couple was black. Totally legal.

    • bowie1

      Perhaps this is just to ensure it doubly so.

      • Michael C

        Passing the same law twice doesn’t make it any more of a law.

        That would be like saying that it’s okay to break a law that only exists on the books once.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Listen, I’ve been thinking. I think my state needs to pass another law against murder. I mean, murder is already illegal, but murder is really REALLY bad. I mean, certainly not as bad as having to marry two people whose lifestyle you disapprove of but never have to see or speak to again, but still, I think murder should be doubly illegal too.

          • Bob Johnson

            And since you can not try a person a second time on the same charge, if he gets off on the first murder charge you can always try him against the “other” murder law.

      • Ambulance Chaser

        What is “doubly” illegal? Do you think laws get worn out if you use them too much?

    • Josey

      Removing the wording doesn’t matter, we are all still sinners and the only one who was worthy and sinless took those sins upon Himself so faith in the work on the cross and in Jesus is our only salvation. We could take out the word drunkenness, adulterer, fornicator, liar, etc. but that doesn’t change the truth that the person is still a sinner bound with those issues unless they receive Christ and deliverance, I’m thankful Georgia sees how ridiculous this is and no minister should be forced to go against his God given conscience, let the homosexuals get married by someone who supports their agenda even tho in God’s eyes it’s not a legitimate marriage to begin with and in the end God will judge all those who rejected His way of salvation through Christ Jesus.

      • Michael C

        There was zero threat of a minister being required to officiate a ceremony that they disagree with.

        • afchief

          There will soon be a case where a homosexual duo will request a “marriage” ceremony from a Catholic priest, Protestant Pastor and be denied, and there will be a law suit instigated by a liberal judge or some other liberal to tear down what’s left of canon law. Marxist hate churches as much as they hate conservatives for a lot of the same reasons. I suspect they don’t like the idea of there being a “God” above them, as the left is humanist in nature, “God” just doesn’t fit in very well with those that think they can control the world and that they’re smarter than everyone else. They don’t like the competition.

          • Michael C

            You’re making stuff up.

            There’s no basis to your claims.

            Look up Charles and Te’Andrea Wilson.

    • Guest

      There is more to it than that – it also allows religious organizations that advertise venues to the general public to religiously discriminate against the customers responding.

    • afchief

      Wrong! Just 15 years ago who was discussing homo marriage? It is only a matter of time before homos come after pastors to marry them. It is happening in Europe already.

      Good for Georgia!!!

      • The Skeptical Chymist

        The US has stronger protections for pastors and churches than Europe does, particularly because we have separation of church and state. As a result, here no one can claim that the state is discriminating against gay couples if a church refuses to marry them. In Europe, if the state church refuses to marry gay couples, then there may be grounds to sue the state. The bans of state interference in the sacraments of a church are very strong in the U.S., and this legislation was unneeded. If it makes you feel better, though, I’m glad it passed. I would have voted for it.

        • afchief

          There is NO separation of church and state. That is a lie. It is only a matter of time before it happens. I know of pastors who are turning in their licences to marry people. They will do a private ceremony but tell the couple to get married by a justice of peace. It will happen.

          Homos do not care about marriage. They want to destroy marriage. It is all about sex to them. They will tell you otherwise, but we Christians know better. The true church is the last ground satan has not conquered yet.
          We Christians know we do not found against flesh and blood (Eph 6:12).
          We know what is behind homosexuality. We know what they are after.

          Why do you think there is so many homos lingering around Christian sites? There is a reason. We know.

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            You speak as if you know, but how many gay people do you actually know who have gotten married? Have you asked them why they want to be married? The two couples I know got married because they wanted to publicly affirm their commitment to each other, and they wanted the benefits that are automatically given by the government to married heterosexual couples when they marry. Therefore, from my personal knowledge of these couples, I can say that your generalization about these people is wrong. My gay and lesbian friends who are married certainly did care about marriage.

            There is nothing about same-sex marriage that in any way is destructive to opposite sex marriage. If your marriage is somehow damaged by the knowledge that two people of the same sex are marrying, then your marriage must not be very strong to begin with.

          • afchief

            You do not know the spiritual side. I do!!! I know what is behind homosexuality. It is NOT from God. Inside these people are screaming for freedom. Oh sure you and they will say otherwise, but as a Christian I know better. When one has been given over to a reprobate mind…..they lie. And that is exactly what homosexuals do when confronted with truth.

            As Christians, we now know what it is that the homosexuals were after: they wanted “dignity. There is no dignity in sodomy! No judge can make male-on-male sodomy “worthy of honor and respect.” Honor and respect come from within. No man can ever feel dignified as another man violates his anus. It is the ultimate desecration of manhood.

            Homosexuals hate themselves. And sure you and they will say otherwise. But, I know what is behind this behavior and what spirit is behind homosexuality. Homosexuality destroys the soul of a man. It reduces him to an animal. It is evil!!!

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Okay, almost wet my pants, laughed so hard. Oh and I actually know gay couples who never had anal sex.

          • Ken M

            As if you knew.

          • John N

            I guess you got your knowledge about what homosexuals actually think firsthand, afchief?

            Or are you performing divine mindreading again?

            Anyway, you are flat wrong. Maybe you should get out, talk with some gay people and ask them what they are after, before you judge and condemn them.

          • afchief

            Homosexuality is sin. When people are enslaved by sin they cannot see the truth. Their heart has become callous. They want out, but the pull of the sin is so great. Overtime, they become hateful. They know what they are doing is wrong, but they do not want to change. So they lash out at the ones who tell them their lifestyle is sin…….Christians. This is why we see a lot of homosexuals on Christian websites. Some are searching for truth. Some are wanting us to affirm their lifestyle. Some are militant and want us dead. I see it ALL the time.

            We Christians know the truth. We see what sin does to a person. Homosexuality is no different then drunkenness, murder or lying. They are all sin. And they are all on the same path. The path of death.

          • John N

            More divine mindreading. I wonder what your god would think of you taking his place.

            I would rather be anywhere else than on a Christian website. Maybe one day, when Christian fundamentalists stop trying to intervene in other people’s lives, that might become reality.

          • afchief

            You are proof of one enslaved to sin. You cannot see the truth.

            Maybe one day your eyes will be open and you will see the sin of homosexuality. It is killing you although you cannot see it. The end result of this lifestyle is death in more ways than one.

          • John N

            Who says I am a homosexual? Your mindreading capabilities fail you again, afchief. You realy should start looking for something else to fill your days.

            ‘Maybe one day …’ you will appear before Baal and have some serious questions to answer him. I so love Pascal’s wager.

          • afchief

            More proof that you ARE enslaved to sin!

          • John N

            Whatever. Sin has no meaning outside your little Christian fundamentalistic world, I’m afraid. So your threats and insults are merely annoying.

          • afchief

            Sin is what separates you from God. Either you confess your sins during this lifetime and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior or pay a price with your soul for eternity.

            This life is but a vapor that appears for a little while and then is gone. After that judgement.

          • John N

            ‘Do as I tell you, or my big brother is going to beat you up after school!’

            Now why do you think this kind of argument would convince anybody of your all loving god?

          • afchief

            Our loving God came to this earth to be tortured and die a horrible death on a Cross. He did not have to. But He did just for you. That is the type of love God has for you.

          • John N

            So supposedly an innocent man, who was actually a god, got tortured and killed to pay a ransom to his father, who was actually himself, for a sin I unwillingly inherited from some mythical ancestors, unknowingly commited against the same god.

            Now being an unbeliever I probably didn’t understand it correctly, so feel free to correct me.

            But even if this crazy story has anything to teach us, it would not be a moral lesson. If you ask me, nobody should ever let somebody else be punished for his or her mistakes.

          • afchief

            That is how much God loves us. He set before us life and death. Life is choosing the free gift that God has to offer and that is the sacrifice He made on the Cross for our sins. All you have to do is ask Him into your life. Sin is what separates us from God. We are ALL sinners.

            Romans 6:23 (NASB) For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

          • John N

            Afchief, simply repeating your nonsensical story does not make it any better. Do you not realize how silly the story of a god murdering himself for crimes committed against himself actually sounds?

            And what kind of moral values would tell you it is a good thing to let others take the punishment for your mistakes?

          • afchief

            That is one of God’s gift to us….our free will. You do not have to accept what Jesus did for you. But, it is my job as a Christian to warn of the consequences if you don’t. This lifetime last but a vapor compared to eternity. Once you leave this earth, there is no second chances. You have made your decision on earth and it will stand for eternity. I guarantee it.

            Hebrews 9:27 (NASB) And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,

        • Jolanda Tiellemans

          Oh not all nations in Europe have seperation of church and state? Here in the Netherlands we do and it’s a good thing.

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            In many places in Europe, I think (you may be better informed, since you live there), there is an official state church (like the Church of England). Since it is the official state church, it is in essense an arm of the government, which means it can be required to be non-discriminatory in the same way that the government is required by law to be non-discriminatory. Here in the U.S., no church is an arm of the government, and all are free to set up whatever restrictions they wish on who can or cannot be a member, receive sacraments, etc.

          • John N

            Most European countries are secular. Only England, Schotland, Norway, Finland, Danmark, Greece and a few small states have an official state church.

            But this makes little difference in the recognition of same-sex marriage, which is widespread in Western Europe.

            I do know some state churches have been forced to perform ssm, but as far as I can see no pastor has ever been obliged to perform one.

            So no relief for afchief in Europe, I’m afraid.

      • Michael C

        What part of my comment was wrong. Please be specific and explain why it is wrong.

        • acontraryview

          And his responses end. That always seems to be his tipping point – when asked to prove his lies.

      • Ambulance Chaser

        “It’s happening in another country” is hardly an argument to support the idea that something may also happen in the U.S. Our laws are subject to our Constitution. Other countries’ laws are governed by their constitutions, which are not identical to ours.

        There are mandatory burqa laws in Saudi Arabia. Are you afraid those are coming to the United States also?

        • afchief

          This is how deaf, dumb and blind liberals are. Since the god of this world has blinded your eyes to see, you cannot see what is happening around you. Look back over the last 50 years and try and see the evil that has crept into our country. Over 50 years ago we had Christian prayer in schools for close to 200 years. Since then we have taken Christian prayer out of schools. We have passed laws to kill the unborn. Homosexuals have come out of the closet, can marry is some states, and have weakened the military and have gained inroads into every organization within our country. We elected a lawless, lying, anti-American, anti-Christian Muslim to be president who is destroying our country. Who has left our borders wide open and is allowing terrorists into our country.

          I could list dozens of other things that show our moral decay over the last 50 years but they all have one thing in common………..godlessness!!! This is what liberalism/progressiveism/socialism is…….godlessness. It is a cancer that is slowly killing out country and it is only a matter of time before it does.

          And you think homos coming after pastors to marry them will not happen? Yes, you cannot see what is happening without the Spirit of Christ!!!!

          • ThEcOnFuSed

            Romans 6:5 invalidates your biblical argument for prayer in schools.

            And furthermore Romans 13:1-7 clearly states God has put leaders in thier positions, who are you to question God’s plan?

          • afchief

            Silly liberal who has NO understanding of the Word of God. What do our elected officials take an oath to uphold, defend and obey? The Constitution, state Constitutions and local laws!!! This means that in America the “higher powers” are not the men who occupy elected office, they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans:

            “Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God’s minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.”

            The above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, as per the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.

          • ThEcOnFuSed

            Romans 6:5 says that christians should not use prayer in public spaces, it should be reserved for our private time with God.
            Also Romans 13:1-7 clearly states that the leaders of this earth wether good or bad have been put there by God Himself, so unless you are rebelling against God’s plan, there is no reason to question why Obama is in power.

          • afchief

            Stop with your lies. You have NO idea what you are talking about. NONE!

            Romans 6:5 (NASB) For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,

            What do our elected officials take an oath to uphold, defend and obey? The Constitution, state Constitutions and local laws!!! This means that in America the “higher powers” are not the men who occupy elected office, they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans:

            “Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God’s minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.”

            The above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, as per the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.

          • Elie Challita

            I don’t know about you, Chief, but I think that our nation was up to some truly fucked up shit for centuries before we removed prayers from schools: Slavery, the indian removal act, and segregation were just a few examples of that.

            Considering that you consider this nation to have been much more religious and godly in those days, do you approve of slavery, genocide, and segregation?

          • afchief

            This is the distorted view of liberals, homos and atheists of our history. People who hate America and want to turn it into a socialist hell hole.

            Judeo-Christian values are a major part of the intrinsic foundation of Western culture, as they were at the Founding of our nation. Christian values, especially, have contributed disproportionately to the legal protection and respect for the Individual Person, rather than the collective state or a tyrannical leader

          • Elie Challita

            Chief, I’m going to type this very slowly so that you can understand it:

            Your supposedly Judeo-Christian America committed mass slavery and genocide for a large part of its history, which are worst crimes than anything that’s been committed in this country since we’ve stopped imposing prayer in schools.

            Do you support slavery and genocide?

          • afchief

            Let’s get the facts straight first! Since I know liberals and our indoctrination centers we call public schools do not teach truth and facts when it comes to American history.

            The Founding Fathers and Slavery

            Even though the issue of slavery is often raised as a discrediting charge against the Founding Fathers, the historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by, the Founding Fathers; slavery had been introduced to America nearly two centuries before the Founders. As President of Congress Henry Laurens explained:

            I abhor slavery. I was born in a country where slavery had been established by British Kings and Parliaments as well as by the laws of the country ages before my existence. . . . In former days there was no combating the prejudices of men supported by interest; the day, I hope, is approaching when, from principles of gratitude as well as justice, every man will strive to be foremost in showing his readiness to comply with the Golden Rule [“do unto others as you would have them do unto you” Matthew 7:12]. 1

            Prior to the time of the Founding Fathers, there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery. John Jay identified the point at which the change in attitude toward slavery began:

            Prior to the great Revolution, the great majority . . . of our people had been so long accustomed to the practice and convenience of having slaves that very few among them even doubted the propriety and rectitude of it. 2

            The Revolution was the turning point in the national attitude–and it was the Founding Fathers who contributed greatly to that change. In fact, many of the Founders vigorously complained against the fact that Great Britain had forcefully imposed upon the Colonies the evil of slavery. For example, Thomas Jefferson heavily criticized that British policy:

            He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. . . . Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [that is, he has opposed efforts to prohibit the slave trade]. 3

            Benjamin Franklin, in a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, confirmed that whenever the Americans had attempted to end slavery, the British government had indeed thwarted those attempts. Franklin explained that . . .

            . . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed. 4

            Further confirmation that even the Virginia Founders were not responsible for slavery, but actually tried to dismantle the institution, was provided by John Quincy Adams (known as the “hell-hound of abolition” for his extensive efforts against that evil). Adams explained:

            The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself [Jefferson]. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country [Great Britain] and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. 5

            While Jefferson himself had introduced a bill designed to end slavery, 6 not all of the southern Founders were opposed to slavery. According to the testimony of Virginians James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Rutledge, it was the Founders from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia who most strongly favored slavery. 7

            Yet, despite the support for slavery in those States, the clear majority of the Founders opposed this evil. For instance, when some of the southern pro-slavery advocates invoked the Bible in support of slavery, Elias Boudinot, President of the Continental Congress, responded:

            [E]ven the sacred Scriptures had been quoted to justify this iniquitous traffic. It is true that the Egyptians held the Israelites in bondage for four hundred years, . . . but . . . gentlemen cannot forget the consequences that followed: they were delivered by a strong hand and stretched-out arm and it ought to be remembered that the Almighty Power that accomplished their deliverance is the same yesterday, today, and for ever. 8

            Many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves as British citizens released them in the years following America’s separation from Great Britain (e.g., George Washington, John Dickinson, Caesar Rodney, William Livingston, George Wythe, John Randolph of Roanoke, and others). Furthermore, many of the Founders had never owned any slaves. For example, John Adams proclaimed, “[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known . . . [N]ever in my life did I own a slave.” 9

            Notice a few additional examples of the strong anti-slavery sentiments held by great numbers of the Founders:

            [N]ever in my life did I own a slave. 10 John Adams, Signer of the Declaration, one of only two signers of the Bill of Rights, U. S. President

            But to the eye of reason, what can be more clear than that all men have an equal right to happiness? Nature made no other distinction than that of higher or lower degrees of power of mind and body. . . . Were the talents and virtues which Heaven has bestowed on men given merely to make them more obedient drudges? . . . No! In the judgment of heaven there is no other superiority among men than a superiority of wisdom and virtue. 11 Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration, “Father of the American Revolution”

            [W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil. 12 Charles Carroll, Signer of the Declaration

            As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they may build up the system of the government on the broad, strong, and sound principles of freedom. Curse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery].13 John Dickinson, Signer of the Constitution; Governor of Pennsylvania

            I am glad to hear that the disposition against keeping negroes grows more general in North America. Several pieces have been lately printed here against the practice, and I hope in time it will be taken into consideration and suppressed by the legislature. 14 Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration, Signer of the Constitution, President of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society

            That mankind are all formed by the same Almighty Being, alike objects of his care, and equally designed for the enjoyment of happiness, the Christian religion teaches us to believe, and the political creed of Americans fully coincides with the position. . . . [We] earnestly entreat your serious attention to the subject of slavery – that you will be pleased to countenance the restoration of liberty to those unhappy men who alone in this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage and who . . . are groaning in servile subjection. 15 Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration, Signer of the Constitution, President of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society

            That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent, as well as unjust and perhaps impious, part. 16 John Jay, President of Continental Congress, Original Chief Justice U. S. Supreme Court

            The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. . . . And with what execration [curse] should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other. . . . And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. 17 Thomas Jefferson

            Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts . . . by agreeing to this duty. 18 Richard Henry Lee, President of Continental Congress; Signer of the Declaration

            I have seen it observed by a great writer that Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us, who profess the same religion practice its precepts, and by agreeing to this duty convince the world that we know and practice our truest interests, and that we pay a proper regard to the dictates of justice and humanity! 19 Richard Henry Lee, Signer of the Declaration, Framer of the Bill of Rights

            I hope we shall at last, and if it so please God I hope it may be during my life time, see this cursed thing [slavery] taken out. . . . For my part, whether in a public station or a private capacity, I shall always be prompt to contribute my assistance towards effecting so desirable an event. 20 William Livingston, Signer of the Constitution; Governor of New Jersey

            [I]t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave-trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master. 21 Luther Martin, Delegate at Constitution Convention

            As much as I value a union of all the States, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade [slavery]. 22 George Mason, Delegate at Constitutional Convention

            Honored will that State be in the annals of history which shall first abolish this violation of the rights of mankind. 23 Joseph Reed, Revolutionary Officer; Governor of Pennsylvania

            Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. . . . It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men. 24 Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration

            The commerce in African slaves has breathed its last in Pennsylvania. I shall send you a copy of our late law respecting that trade as soon as it is published. I am encouraged by the success that has finally attended the exertions of the friends of universal freedom and justice. 25 Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration, Founder of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, President of the National Abolition Movement

            Justice and humanity require it [the end of slavery]–Christianity commands it. Let every benevolent . . . pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right. 26 Noah Webster, Responsible for Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution

            Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over the life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law. . . . The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all. 27 James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice

            [I]t is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others . . . and take away their liberty by no better means than superior power. 28 John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration

            For many of the Founders, their feelings against slavery went beyond words. For example, in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America’s first anti-slavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. In fact, when signer of the Constitution William Livingston heard of the New York society, he, as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering:

            I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and . . . I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity. . . . May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke. 29

            Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more. In fact, based in part on the efforts of these Founders, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts began abolishing slavery in 1780; 30 Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; 31 Vermont in 1786; 32 New Hampshire in 1792; 33 New York in 1799; 34 and New Jersey did so in 1804. 35

            Additionally, the reason that Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a Congressional act, authored by Constitution signer Rufus King 36 and signed into law by President George Washington, 37 which prohibited slavery in those territories. 38 It is not surprising that Washington would sign such a law, for it was he who had declared:

            I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery]. 39

            The truth is that it was the Founding Fathers who were responsible for planting and nurturing the first seeds for the recognition of black equality and for the eventual end of slavery. This was a fact made clear by Richard Allen.

            Allen had been a slave in Pennsylvania but was freed after he converted his master to Christianity. Allen, a close friend of Benjamin Rush and several other Founding Fathers, went on to become the founder of the A.M.E. Church in America. In an early address “To the People of Color,” he explained:

            Many of the white people have been instruments in the hands of God for our good, even such as have held us in captivity, [and] are now pleading our cause with earnestness and zeal. 40

            While much progress was made by the Founders to end the institution of slavery, unfortunately what they began was not fully achieved until generations later. Yet, despite the strenuous effort of many Founders to recognize in practice that “all men are created equal,” charges persist to the opposite. In fact, revisionists even claim that the Constitution demonstrates that the Founders considered one who was black to be only three-fifths of a person. This charge is yet another falsehood. The three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth; rather, it was an anti-slavery provision to limit the political power of slavery’s proponents. By including only three-fifths of the total number of slaves in the congressional calculations, Southern States were actually being denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress.

            Based on the clear records of the Constitutional Convention, two prominent professors explain the meaning of the three-fifths clause:

            [T]he Constitution allowed Southern States to count three-fifths of their slaves toward the population that would determine numbers of representatives in the federal legislature. This clause is often singled out today as a sign of black dehumanization: they are only three-fifths human. But the provision applied to slaves, not blacks. That meant that free blacks–and there were many, North as well as South–counted the same as whites. More important, the fact that slaves were counted at all was a concession to slave owners. Southerners would have been glad to count their slaves as whole persons. It was the Northerners who did not want them counted, for why should the South be rewarded with more representatives, the more slaves they held? 41 Thomas West

            It was slavery’s opponents who succeeded in restricting the political power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their slave population in determining the number of congressional representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South. 42 Walter Williams

            Why do revisionists so often abuse and misportray the three-fifths clause? Professor Walter Williams (himself an African-American) suggested:

            Politicians, news media, college professors and leftists of other stripes are selling us lies and propaganda. To lay the groundwork for their increasingly successful attack on our Constitution, they must demean and criticize its authors. As Senator Joe Biden demonstrated during the Clarence Thomas hearings, the framers’ ideas about natural law must be trivialized or they must be seen as racists. 43

            While this has been only a cursory examination of the Founders and slavery, it is nonetheless sufficient to demonstrate the absurdity of the insinuation that the Founders were a collective group of racists.

            http://www.wallbuilders. com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=122

          • afchief

            That American Indians suffered horribly is indisputable. But whether their suffering amounted to a”holocaust,” or to genocide, is another matter.

            It is a firmly established fact that a mere 250,000 native Americans were still alive in the territory of the United States at the end of the 19th century. Still in scholarly contention, however, is the number of Indians alive at the time of first contact with Europeans. Some students of the subject speak of an inflated”numbers game”; others charge that the size of the aboriginal population has been deliberately minimized in order to make the decline seem less severe than it was.

            The disparity in estimates is enormous. In 1928, the ethnologist James Mooney proposed a total count of 1,152,950 Indians in all tribal areas north of Mexico at the time of the European arrival. By 1987, in American Indian Holocaust and Survival, Russell Thornton was giving a figure of well over 5 million, nearly five times as high as Mooney’s, while Lenore Stiffarm and Phil Lane, Jr. suggested a total of 12 million. That figure rested in turn on the work of the anthropologist Henry Dobyns, who in 1983 had estimated the aboriginal population of North America as a whole at 18 million and of the present territory of the United States at about 10 million.

            From one perspective, these differences, however startling, may seem beside the point: there is ample evidence, after all, that the arrival of the white man triggered a drastic reduction in the number of native Americans. Nevertheless, even if the higher figures are credited, they alone do not prove the occurrence of genocide.

            To address this issue properly we must begin with the most important reason for the Indians’ catastrophic decline—namely, the spread of highly contagious diseases to which they had no immunity. This phenomenon is known by scholars as a”virgin-soil epidemic”; in North America, it was the norm.

            The most lethal of the pathogens introduced by the Europeans was smallpox, which sometimes incapacitated so many adults at once that deaths from hunger and starvation ran as high as deaths from disease; in several cases, entire tribes were rendered extinct. Other killers included measles, influenza, whooping cough, diphtheria, typhus, bubonic plague, cholera, and scarlet fever. Although syphilis was apparently native to parts of the Western hemisphere, it, too, was probably introduced into North America by Europeans.

            About all this there is no essential disagreement. The most hideous enemy of native Americans was not the white man and his weaponry, concludes Alfred Crosby,”but the invisible killers which those men brought in their blood and breath.” It is thought that between 75 to 90 percent of all Indian deaths resulted from these killers.

            To some, however, this is enough in itself to warrant the term genocide. David Stannard, for instance, states that just as Jews who died of disease and starvation in the ghettos are counted among the victims of the Holocaust, Indians who died of introduced diseases”were as much the victims of the Euro-American genocidal war as were those burned or stabbed or hacked or shot to death, or devoured by hungry dogs.” As an example of actual genocidal conditions, Stannard points to Franciscan missions in California as”furnaces of death.”

            But right away we are in highly debatable territory. It is true that the cramped quarters of the missions, with their poor ventilation and bad sanitation, encouraged the spread of disease. But it is demonstrably untrue that, like the Nazis, the missionaries were unconcerned with the welfare of their native converts. No matter how difficult the conditions under which the Indians labored—obligatory work, often inadequate food and medical care, corporal punishment—their experience bore no comparison with the fate of the Jews in the ghettos. The missionaries had a poor understanding of the causes of the diseases that afflicted their charges, and medically there was little they could do for them. By contrast, the Nazis knew exactly what was happening in the ghettos, and quite deliberately deprived the inmates of both food and medicine; unlike in Stannard’s”furnaces of death,” the deaths that occurred there were meant to occur.

            The larger picture also does not conform to Stannard’s idea of disease as an expression of”genocidal war.” True, the forced relocations of Indian tribes were often accompanied by great hardship and harsh treatment; the removal of the Cherokee from their homelands to territories west of the Mississippi in 1838 took the lives of thousands and has entered history as the Trail of Tears. But the largest loss of life occurred well before this time, and sometimes after only minimal contact with European traders. True, too, some colonists later welcomed the high mortality among Indians, seeing it as a sign of divine providence; that, however, does not alter the basic fact that Europeans did not come to the New World in order to infect the natives with deadly diseases.

            Or did they? Ward Churchill, taking the argument a step further than Stannard, asserts that there was nothing unwitting or unintentional about the way the great bulk of North America’s native population disappeared:”it was precisely malice, not nature, that did the deed.” In brief, the Europeans were engaged in biological warfare.

            Unfortunately for this thesis, we know of but a single instance of such warfare, and the documentary evidence is inconclusive. In 1763, a particularly serious uprising threatened the British garrisons west of the Allegheny mountains. Worried about his limited resources, and disgusted by what he saw as the Indians’ treacherous and savage modes of warfare, Sir Jeffrey Amherst, commander-in-chief of British forces in North America, wrote as follows to Colonel Henry Bouquet at Fort Pitt:”You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians [with smallpox] by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method, that can serve to extirpate this execrable race.”

            Bouquet clearly approved of Amherst’s suggestion, but whether he himself carried it out is uncertain. On or around June 24, two traders at Fort Pitt did give blankets and a handkerchief from the fort’s quarantined hospital to two visiting Delaware Indians, and one of the traders noted in his journal:”I hope it will have the desired effect.” Smallpox was already present among the tribes of Ohio; at some point after this episode, there was another outbreak in which hundreds died.

            A second, even less substantiated instance of alleged biological warfare concerns an incident that occurred on June 20, 1837. On that day, Churchill writes, the U.S. Army began to dispense”‘trade blankets’ to Mandans and other Indians gathered at Fort Clark on the Missouri River in present-day North Dakota.” He continues: Far from being trade goods, the blankets had been taken from a military infirmary in St. Louis quarantined for smallpox, and brought upriver aboard the steamboat St. Peter’s. When the first Indians showed symptoms of the disease on July 14, the post surgeon advised those camped near the post to scatter and seek”sanctuary” in the villages of healthy relatives.

            In this way the disease was spread, the Mandans were”virtually exterminated,” and other tribes suffered similarly devastating losses. Citing a figure of”100,000 or more fatalities” caused by the U.S. Army in the 1836-40 smallpox pandemic (elsewhere he speaks of a toll”several times that number”), Churchill refers the reader to Thornton’s American Indian Holocaust and Survival.

            Supporting Churchill here are Stiffarm and Lane, who write that”the distribution of smallpox- infected blankets by the U.S. Army to Mandans at Fort Clark . . . was the causative factor in the pandemic of 1836-40.” In evidence, they cite the journal of a contemporary at Fort Clark, Francis A. Chardon.

            But Chardon’s journal manifestly does not suggest that the U.S. Army distributed infected blankets, instead blaming the epidemic on the inadvertent spread of disease by a ship’s passenger. And as for the”100,000 fatalities,” not only does Thornton fail to allege such obviously absurd numbers, but he too points to infected passengers on the steamboat St. Peter’s as the cause. Another scholar, drawing on newly discovered source material, has also refuted the idea of a conspiracy to harm the Indians.

            Similarly at odds with any such idea is the effort of the United States government at this time to vaccinate the native population. Smallpox vaccination, a procedure developed by the English country doctor Edward Jenner in 1796, was first ordered in 1801 by President Jefferson; the program continued in force for three decades, though its implementation was slowed both by the resistance of the Indians, who suspected a trick, and by lack of interest on the part of some officials. Still, as Thornton writes:”Vaccination of American Indians did eventually succeed in reducing mortality from smallpox.”

            To sum up, European settlers came to the New World for a variety of reasons, but the thought of infecting the Indians with deadly pathogens was not one of them. As for the charge that the U.S. government should itself be held responsible for the demographic disaster that overtook the American-Indian population, it is unsupported by evidence or legitimate argument. The United States did not wage biological warfare against the Indians; neither can the large number of deaths as a result of disease be considered the result of a genocidal design.

            – See more at: http://historynewsnetwork. org/article/7302#sthash.zN2SeXoL.dpuf

          • Elie Challita

            Your entire copypasta is immaterial and frankly useless, chief.

            The Indian Removal Act occurred long after the founding of this nation. Slavery was kept in place for a very long time as well. Segregation and the Jim Crow era only officially ended fifty years ago, although its consequences are still felt today.

            All of that happened in the period in which you consider the United States to have been at its most Christian and godly. That necessarily means that, either your supposedly moral Christians view slavery, theft, and mass murder (whether you call it genocide or not is immaterial) as moral and desirable actions, or that you personally approve of them. Which one is it?

          • afchief

            Sorry, but I know history and yes there was slavery and yes there was killing of Indians. But you leftest try to condemn Christians that this was their fault. I know where you are going with this and it is a lie. And I refuse to entertain it. This is what is being taught in our schools now. How bad America was. There is always bad people doing bad things. But America is the greatest country ever created on the face of this earth.

            Take you liberal garbage elsewhere!!!!!

          • Elie Challita

            I never said that America was bad, you leapt to that conclusion yourself.
            All I said was that the United States had performed some very reprehensible acts during the periods where you claim that it was at its most godly and Christian.

            So which is it: Are slavery, segregation, and genocide morally correct according to godly Christians, or were you wrong when you stated that the country was a better place when it was supposedly more godly?

          • afchief

            Slowly over the last 50 years or so, liberalism/socialism has slowly crept into our country. It is a cancer that is slowly killing everything moral and just in our country. Written in the 60s was a book or article on the 45 steps of Communism. Two steps of the 45 steps of Communism. Remove religion, insert Homosexuals. We have embraced open homosexuality and the homos, liberals and atheists are trying to destroy Christianity. We Christians KNOW what is happening and see it. Jesus said this would happen before His second return.

            We’re seeing the reversal of a three century trend toward greater individual freedom and liberty in the Western democratic nations. The spirit of the American Revolution has given way to a mentality where the “common good” trumps individual liberty. Widespread acceptance of such intrusive governmental authority sets a dangerous precedent. Before long nothing is beyond the scope of governmental power. And the Bible reveals that in the end times, governmental power over the people will be absolute.

            There is no compromise with Socialism. It cannot coexist with Christianity.

          • Elie Challita

            So two consenting adults getting married is worse than slavery or genocide?

          • afchief

            Equally bad!

          • Elie Challita

            So the US was never all that godly and Christian, since it tolerated the latter back then even as it tolerates the former now?

            PS: I’m glad you finally admit that equivalence. I’m sure your beliefs on the matter are in no way irrational, misguided, or positively idiotic…

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “But you leftest try to condemn Christians that this was their fault”

            Considering it was mostly Christians doing all this stuff…

          • Elie Challita

            Chief, your copy-pasted walls of text are frankly asinine and dodging the question.

            The Indian Removal act and the trail of tears happened long after the initial colonization of this country. They were a deliberate effort to erase a people and its identity.

            Similarly, slavery and segregation continued for a very long time after the founding of this country. The Founding Fathers might not have created the system, but your godly Christians were perfectly fine with the system until a little over fifty years ago.

            So we’re back to the same point: Since your godly and Christian America supported slavery, segregation, and the forced removal and eradication of native americans, does that mean that you support those actions? Are they moral according to godly Christians? Are they lesser evils than two consenting adults getting married?

          • HelenaConstantine

            Lt’s see, 50 years racial discrimination was legal; antisemitism was still wide-spread (if you can’t recall, google “New York Athletic club antisemitism”), homosexuality (not just gay marriage) was illegal, and it’s better not to go into the position of women. Are you sure that’s not what you want back? Your public right to hate? You’ve lied in the post (calling Obama a Muslim), so don;t bother to answer, it will just be another lie.

            Oh… I see its achief–he’s just crazy.

    • Cady555

      What was the point? To scare the sheep and by so doing keep them voting and donating as desired.

    • JeffreyRo55

      Then don’t attend that church.

  • SSGT_Randolph

    I haven’t heard of any clergy who were punished for refusing to conduct a same-sex wedding ceremony.

    • hytre64

      In Couer d’Alene Idaho, two ministers had their chapel threatened with a lawsuit by the city for refusing to perform a same-sex wedding. Eventual negotiation with the city counsel and threatened lawsuits by the ministers resulted in the city recognizing them as exempt from the non-discrimination, public accommodation laws.

      Up until a few years ago, you had never heard of bakers/photographers/flourists/etc. being persecuted for being unwilling to be part of a same-sex wedding.

      • RWH

        The chapel wasn’t a church. It was a venue for holding weddings, no questions asked. For all practical purposes, it was a secular business as anyone could get married there, regardless of faith or lack of faith.

        • hytre64

          But it was for the *ministers* to be marrying them. To force the ministers to marry a couple (even though they had rented the chapel), would have been a violation of their religious liberty.

          • RWH

            They were so-called “ministers.” Who ordained them? And why were they not assigned to a church? Anyone can open a wedding chapel–and that’s what it was–and call themselves a minister. If this was a church, where was the congregation, and how come they didn’t have regularly scheduled services? Was this building registered as a church, or did they pay taxes?

            Lots of people buy credentials off of a diploma mill. This wasn’t a church, and to claim that it was a church was patently dishonest. The courts saw right through that as there have been a lot of cases dealing with people who buy their credentials and then try to declare their homes churches so that they can get out of paying taxes.

          • hytre64

            Who are you to say who is or who is not a minister? Billy Graham never was the “minister” of a church, but I defy anyone to prove that he wasn’t a minister of the Gospel.

            They were recognized by the state as ministers and allowed to perform recognized marriage ceremonies.

          • Michael C

            They were not a religious organization. They were a for-profit, open-to-the-public, public accommodation just like Applebee’s or Lowes. Their product was civil weddings. Being that they were a public accommodation (a store, in essence), they offered the service of civil weddings to all legally eligible parties.

            Discriminating against gay people in housing, employment, and public accommodations is 100% legal according to Idaho state law. The City of Coeur d’Alene, however, prohibits such discrimination.

            Once gay couples were eligible to legally marry, they would have to be served by a public accommodation in Coeur d’Alene just like any other customer. The law doesn’t require that an individual serve all customers equally, it just requires that the business itself not discriminate. Nobody ever said that either of them (specifically) were required to officiate weddings for gay couples.

            Before that happened, The Hitching Post restructured their business to become a religious corporation and they stopped offering civil ceremonies. There was no “negotiation” with the city council.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Oh, come on. It’s not hard to distinguish a thinly-disguised pseudo-church from a real one. This was a wedding chapel. It had no congregation, no membership, no weekly services, no ministries, no activity clubs, and sold a product, for profit, to any passerby who was willing to pay. They were not tax exempt (and if nothing else answers your question, this alone should).

            To try and pretend this was a church just like any other is to be deliberately obtuse and intellectually dishonest.

          • hytre64

            I never said it was a church . I said that they were ministers. Ministers of the Gospel do not necessarily have to have a church. Only one of the five-fold ministry gifts (Pastor, Prophet, Teacher, Evangelist, and Apostle) necessarily have their own congregation/church.

            The question is whether or not ministers could potentially be forced to officiate over SSM ceremonies, especially if it is based on some “Public Accommodation” law.

            As good as this law is in Georgia, I can foresee a time coming when courts overreach what I perceive to be their authority and strike down this and similar statutes. That, or perhaps the IRS will pass a ruling such that churches that “discriminate” by not officiating over SSMs will not be accorded tax-exempt status.

          • Michael C

            Discrimination on the basis of race has been illegal for over half a century. Interracial marriage bans have been illegal for nearly half a century.

            No church or minister or rabbi or priest has been obligated to officiate a religious ceremony for anyone they dislike.

            Churches can refuse to officiate a marriage just because the couple is black. It’s totally legal. It has happened. They weren’t sued. They didn’t lose their tax-exempt status.

            You’re making stuff up.

          • gogo0

            so then that is the solution. churches are legally allowed to be intolerant, public businesses are not. if you are a minister and want to discriminate against people, operate a church and not a for-profit business.

          • hytre64

            How about the solution that people cannot be forced to perform a marriage ceremony regardless.

          • gogo0

            how would you feel about separate seating menus and areas for blacks in restaurants? people shouldn’t be *forced* to serve blacks the same as whites, right?
            if someone wants to run a business, they ought to understand that they will be forced to treat everyone equally. yes, I get it that being fair is unfair, but the easy out is for pastors to run churches and not businesses.

          • hytre64

            I personally don’t care if they got their credentials from the inside of a box of Cracker Jack. First of all, the government should not be in the business of determining who is a “valid” minister, and who is not. If they want to determine which “churches” qualify for tax-exempt status, then look at what the church does to see if it qualifies. Please note that these people never claimed that their chapel was a church

            Definition Chapel – a small building for Christian worship, typically one attached to an institution or private house.

            Not every minister has a church. Some are called to have a teaching ministry. Some are called to be evangelists without a home church. Others have been called to be Apostles – planting churches, building up pastors and overseeing them. I guess that these people thought that they were called to marry people.

          • Guest

            The business had been performing purely civil ceremonies for years, in fact the business was originally created for that purpose.

            Civil ceremonies are not religious ceremonies, they are just validating the civil contract of marriage the couple licensed.

            And, of course, they were never threatened with a lawsuit at all, rather the city attorney stated an opinion that civil contract solemnization wasn’t a religious ceremony and not protected. They rebranded the business as a ‘for-profit’ religious organization which may not be legal according to Idaho law, but that’s isn’t the city attorney’s concern.

          • acontraryview

            “To force the ministers to marry a couple (even though they had rented the chapel), would have been a violation of their religious liberty.”

            They weren’t forced. They didn’t perform the ceremony.

          • Cady555

            Yes. And they won. They are allowed to discriminate. They are located across the street from the courthouse and perform dozens of weddings a day knowing absolutely nothing about the people they marry, and caring less. Mass murderer with multiple divorces. No problem. Because they are religious they can use their for profit business to disriminate.

    • acontraryview

      Nor will you, because members of the clergy are not required to perform any wedding ceremonies they do not care to. That is nothing more than a false scare tactic put forth by those who do not like that two citizens of the same gender are allowed to enter into civil marriage.

  • Josey

    Got news for this guy advocating taking homosexuality off of the “sin list”, we all are born sinners after the fall of Adam and is why we needed a Savior to take our sins upon HImself on the cross and removing the words doesn’t change that truth.

    • Cady555

      Then why do you freak about government recognition of gay marriage, yet have no problem with the marriages of those with multiple divorces, a history of adultery, a history of child physical abuse, a history of child sexual abuse, a history of domestic violence, felony murder convictions, felony rape convictions, perpetual gossiping, unfettered greed, gluttony or tattoos? (Some of those things are condemned by the Bible, but not all.)

      • Josey

        when did I ever freak out first of all? And second when did I ever say I didn’t have a problem with the other sins you name? I comment when I feel led to and give my opinion just as you do. We are born sinners through the fall of Adam. That’s just the way it is but Almighty God gave us sinners a way out through faith in Jesus Christ and it is by His precious Holy Spirit when we listen to His voice which always lines up with God’s word. I can say along with the apostle Paul that I was chiefest of sinners before Jesus knocked on the door of my heart and I opened it and let Him in, was changed immediately from night to day just as God’s word says will happen to one born again. That doesn’t mean I am perfect in word or deed, but I trust the good work Christ began in me He will finish when I am translated out of this world. There are seven things God hates more than anything , Proverbs 6:16-19 vs16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: 17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
        And that covers all sin and is the root of sin.
        We can’t be free from any sin except through Christ Jesus, He is my refuge, deliverer, savior, the truth, way and the only way to the Father.

        Matthew 7:13-14 vs13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. It can only be found in our Great and Mighty Savior!

        BTW…all sin is condemned and a person w/out Christ is already dead and can only be resurrected to a new life by repentance and faith in Christ, this is a daily walk. Satan is the accuser of the brethren, those in Christ Jesus and he’s very good at that job but the unbeliever is condemned already because he has rejected Christ so if you are one who has rejected Christ’s sacrifice you are a dead man or lady walking, the only way to change that is believe, repent and commit yourself to Christ to obey Him daily.

        • Cady555

          Sorry. I should have said “some christians freak out…” I did not mean you personally.

          I still think it is odd to refuse to recognize gay marriages because being gay is a horrible sin and then in the next breath declare all sins the same.

  • GA Realist

    I am ordained and will be happy to marry any two persons free of charge in Georgia

    • Cady555

      I’m jealous. There is nothing better than joining in on the creation of new, loving families.

      • Brad F

        No such thing as “gay family.”

        Takes a man and woman to create a child.

        You are not equal to heterosexuals, never will be.

        As far as “loving” goes, people who work in emergency room know what gay couples are really like.

        • SSGT_Randolph

          Stupid and bitter is no way to go through life, son.

          • gizmoZ3

            Anyone who doesn’t know how babies are made is the stupid one, you moron.

          • Brad F

            Nope, I’m grounded in reality.
            It takes a man and woman to create a baby. The only “stupid and bitter” person is someone who denies science.

            If you don’t know how humans reproduce, look it up on Google. Most 4th-graders know how it works, but maybe you’ve been deprived of an education.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No one is disputing that same sex couples can’t make a baby together. We’re just disputing that it matters.

        • Hastur

          what do you call adoption then?

        • Cady555

          I’m sad for you. There is so much good in this world, yet you cling to hate.

          • Brad F

            LOL – so “hate” means “stating a scientific fact”?

            Every 4th-grader knows how babies are made, and yet homosexuals call it “hate” to state a scientific fact.

            Work on your anti-science stance, it’s not healthy.

          • Max

            People who believe that the greatest pleasure in life is getting poked in the rear are not exactly capable of rational thought. The only thing they can breed are viruses.

          • Cady555

            Most marriages are much more than making babies. The love of two people who have been devoted to each other for 6 decades is beautiful. Watching them sob with joy because their marriage is finally recognized is beautiful.

  • afchief

    I have long seen this coming, along with its repercussions for Pastors and Rabbis. Pastors will be intimidated and threatened with fines or imprisonment if they do not comply with a homosexual couple’s “right to marry.” Churches likewise will be systematically attacked, taxed, shut down (because they cannot pay the tax) and their property will be confiscated. Faithful Churches will be persecuted because of the what the Supreme Court has decided. Submit to Baal or suffer the consequences. Histrionic? I think not. Look at the way Hitler marginalized the Church in Nazi Germany and Stalin in Communist Russia. It will happen here!

    • Cady555

      Long seen what coming? I read an article about a legislature reaffirming what is already true. Ministers decide who can be married by them and in their church.

      The flipside also remains true. A minister cannot decide who someone else can marry. A minister cannot dictate that the government can only acknowledge families the minister approves of.

      • Josey

        It is just another anti christ agenda, not surprised by it for the world and it’s god satan hates Christ and those that belong to Him but his day is coming and he knows very well his time is short and those who follow satan, their days are numbered as well and satan hates unbelievers just as much as believers, he hates God and wants to take what is precious to God, humans, he wants all humans to go down with him to hurt God, he could careless what humans he uses in the process. But not so with the Almighty God, He loves every human and has shown that great love by sending His Son as a sin sacrifice and also to show us Himself, that is why He shows how angry He is at those who have rejected such a precious gift to be free of sin, to be washed clean when He rises up and sends the judgements of Revelation. We have all been given a choice, today is the day of salvation if you will hear His voice, you may not have another tomorrow, it is not guaranteed.

        • Cady555

          I remember when I used to believe that stuff. Reality is an improvement.

    • Martris Drake

      “Pastors will be intimidated and threatened with fines or imprisonment if
      they do not comply with a homosexual couple’s “right to marry.”

      No such thing is going to happen.

  • afchief

    The homosexual agenda is like a cancer invading all aspects of culture, government and religion. It is beyond me why anyone thinks sodomy is normal, natural and something to be praised in all realms of society. It is absurd to let 2% of the population tell us when to jump and how high. I am not in favor of oppressing homosexuals but the rational and moral thinker just has to conclude that homosexuality is disordered. It’s another delusion of liberalism that one man sleeping with another man is ok.

    • Ken M

      So don’t do it. No one is forcing you to accept anything. As far as the percentages go, You seem to feel it’s OK for a larger percentage, like Christians for example, to tell the rest of us how to live. Sorry to say this nation isn’t about who has the majority. At last check, equality was for everyone, not based on the beliefs of any one majority.

      • afchief

        A society has to draw the line when it comes to morals. Homosexuality is NOT moral. It is a perversion. It is deviant and extremely dangerous to one’s health.

      • Josey

        you are right no one can force anyone to do anything, there is always a choice but the homosexual agenda is attempting to force Godly businesses to provide service for their ungodly events and I’m sure just as in Sodom and Gomorrah homosexuals will eventually just rape and take whomever they want, some are already doing that especially to the young and defenseless and one day God will judge the guilty, some judgements have already come in the form of diseases but that is because to live that lifestyle is unhealthy but when God’s wrath is poured out people will beg to die but death will allude them, they will try to hide in the mountains and hills from the face of the Lamb of God but there will be nowhere to run or hide in that day which I believe is soon, one reason I am doing my best to get the truth out.
        Not just homosexuals but anyone who has rejected Christ, it’s just homosexuality and transgenderism is a line crossed and causes reprobate minds and that w/out God’s miraculous intervention it will cause separation from God for all eternity to live in torment, and with today the homosexual agenda is causing reprobate minds by removing any God given guilt for that sin by telling them they are born that way or that it’s normal and ok. Feeling guilt isn’t a bad thing, it tells us we are doing something wrong, condemnation is a different thing altogether but I can tell you right now the devil only attempts to condemn those belonging to Christ for those w/out Christ he already has snared and doesn’t want to condemn them lest they realize the truth in God’s word and be set free and join God’s team.
        Matthew 13:47-50 vs47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: 48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. 49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, 50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    • Josey


    • Martris Drake

      ” It is beyond me why anyone thinks sodomy is normal….”

      Ever gotten a BJ before? Ever gone down on your wife? Congrats, you are a sodomite.

      ” It is absurd to let 2% of the population tell us when to jump and how high.”

      Gay people aren’t telling you how to live your life.

      You guys tried to tell them how they are supposed to live their lives and you failed at that.

      Turns out other people’s lives is not your business.

      “I am not in favor of oppressing homosexuals but the rational and moral
      thinker just has to conclude that homosexuality is disordered.”

      Just as much as heterosexuality is a disorder, sure

      • afchief

        SODOMY is the primary method by which AIDS is spread and it only got in to the ‘heterosexual’ population via BISEXUAL perverts who then SODOMIZED their wives or female sexual ‘partners’ . HOMOSEXUALITY is a LEARNED PERVERSION and there is no HOMO gene in the human DNA it is also a BIOLOGICAL DEAD END and NATURE abhors DEAD ENDS. If God had created ‘Adam and Steve’ instead of ‘Adam and Eve’ there would have been no HUMAN RACE. Oh and HOMOS are notoriously PROMISCUOUS so the thought that they will ‘HONOUR’ their marriage vows is frankly PREPOSTEROUS which is just ANOTHER mockery to be inflicted on the ‘Moral MAJORITY’. THIS is what ODUMBO and liberals are CELEBRATING.

        • Martris Drake

          “SODOMY is the primary method by which AIDS is spread…”

          Then you prove you don’t know what you are talking about. The primary sexuality on this planet that has the most about of HIV (You can’t spread AIDS genius) is straight people. And straight people more commonly have vaginal sex.

          “and it only got in to the ‘heterosexual’ population via BISEXUAL perverts…”

          Another lie. Yes let your bigoted hatred spew from you.


          So is heterosexuality

          “it is also a BIOLOGICAL DEAD END…”

          Everything in life is a biological dead end you idiot. You will also die one day.

          ” If God had created ‘Adam and Steve’ instead of ‘Adam and Eve’ there would have been no HUMAN RACE.”

          Ah yes, this old fairytale. Tell me again how god was denied his fruity cereal….oh wait I’m thinking of the Trix the rabbit. I got them confused because they are both fake.

          “Oh and HOMOS are notoriously PROMISCUOUS…”

          Hell yea we are, it’s awesome

          “so the thought that they will ‘HONOUR’ their marriage vows is frankly PREPOSTEROUS”

          There is no marriage vow regarding sex

          • afchief

            Yes, homosexuality is perverted! It is deviant!! It is extremely dangerous to ones health. It is sin. It is death!!!!

            Everyone Should Know

            These Statistics on Homosexuals

            Frank Joseph, M.D.

            What is being pawned off on our children and grandchildren in public schools is the story that to be homosexual or lesbian is just another normal alternative lifestyle.

            Any of you, who have children in public schools, it would behoove you to print out the following and mail it to the principal of your child’s school, with a little note stating:

            I don’t know if the students at (name of school) are being indoctrinated that homosexuality is just another normal alternative lifestyle. If you have been, then you should print out the following and have it passed out to your students, as the truth must be told in order to preserve their health and avoid cutting off about 15-20 years of their life span.

            If the authorities give you a hard time, I would take my child out of that school and put him/her in a private school, and if you cannot afford it, I would homeschool him/her. And you can tell that to the principal.

            Or, you can wait until one day, your child comes home and says, “Mom, I think I’m homosexual.”

            I just heard that in the Los Angeles school district that the enrollments are considerably down (20-30,000) and has caused much grief to the school hierarchy, as the amount of money received is based on the number of students. Probably because more parents are homeschooling.

            burbtn.gif – 43 Bytes

            The statistics on homosexuality and its effects

            Some statistics about the homosexual lifestyle:

            One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (3).

            One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.

            Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting (7).

            Many homosexuals don’t pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: “Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior” (16).

            Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. “Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence” (2). Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels “subjective distress”) (27).

            Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States (5). They make up only 1-2% of the population.

            Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the “gay bowel syndrome” (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus (27).

            73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization (13).

            25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics (11).

            Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film “The Castro”, one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to “cruisy areas” and have anonymous sex.

            78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs (20).

            Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, “Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities” (10).

            Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, “30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals” (10).

            50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals (10).

            Dr. Daniel Capron, a practicing psychiatrist, says, “Homosexuality by definition is not healthy and wholesome. The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person” (10). For other psychiatrists who believe that homosexuality is wrong, please see National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

            It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us(10).

            Gay parade in New York

            Close-up of one of the New York “Gay Parades”

            Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population.

            Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne (8).

            37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism (8).

            41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs (8).

            Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries (8).

            The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (8).

            The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79 (8).

            Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19 times more likely to die in a traffic accident (8).

            21% of lesbians die of murder, suicide or traffic accident, which is at a rate of 534 times higher than the number of white heterosexual females aged 25-44 who die of these things(8).

            50% of the calls to a hotline to report “queer bashing” involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals) (18).

            About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians (12). Homosexuals prey on children.

            33% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex (7).

            There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). This is a child molesting homosexual group whose cry is “SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.” This group can be seen marching in most major homosexual parades across the United States.

            Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor (19).

            73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age (9).

            Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: “The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality” (22).

            Because homosexuals can’t reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children. Homosexuals can be heard chanting “TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT” in their homosexual parades. A group called the “Lesbian Avengers” prides itself on trying to recruit young girls. They print “WE RECRUIT” on their literature. Some other homosexuals aren’t as overt about this, but rather try to infiltrate society and get into positions where they will have access to the malleable minds of young children (e.g., the clergy, teachers, Boy Scout leaders, etc.) (8). See the DC Lesbian Avengers web page, and DC Lesbian Avengers Press Release, where they threaten to recruit little boys and girls. Also, see AFA Action Alert.

          • Martris Drake

            “Yes, homosexuality is perverted! It is deviant!!”

            So is heterosexuality. So Fair is Fair.

            Aww the little sodomite can copy and paste a whole wall of hate. Aren’t you talented.

            Listen deviant, keep your heterosexuality out of schools and to yourself. No one is interested in your perversion.

          • afchief

            This lifestyle is dangerous and not good for the people involved or to our society. We should not glorify such destructive behaviors or even legitimize them. It still is and always will be a “mental disorder” and “Sin”,PERIOD!!!

            Homosexuality has already cost us Billions. AIDS research, a direct result of deviant sexual preferences along with so many untimely deaths. We fund the CDC to study homosexual STD rates, allegedly 44 times higher than heterosexual couples. We fund the NIH to study why Lesbians are obese and binge drink and why there suicide rates are three times higher than heterosexual couples.

          • Martris Drake

            “This lifestyle is dangerous…”

            Then don’t participate in it

            “and not good for the people involved or to our society.”

            Yea just like heterosexuality.

            “Homosexuality has already cost us Billions.”

            So does heterosexuality

            “We fund the CDC to study homosexual STD rates, allegedly 44 times higher than heterosexual couples.”

            Which is relative to the fact that we have more sex than you lowly heterosexuals.

          • afchief

            It is the cover ups that are the proof of the evil. HIV is caused by homosexual behavior. Like most diseases it can be spread to innocent victims and it has and that is lied about. It is constantly mutating against the medical serums that attempt to control it and that creates related drug resistant viruses that can be blamed on something other than HIV. The corruption of the industry created by this creates a voter base to keep it going, not cure it. This is lied about. The annual HIV death rate averages 15,000 in this country and 1.7 million around the world. Add to that 19,000 a year due to related viruses, most notably gonorrhea for which there is no longer a cure and has the highest incidence among males in the western part of the country. This is reported by the CDC but not sensationalized by the gay media

          • Martris Drake

            “HIV is caused by homosexual behavior”

            You mean sexual intercourse? So straight people don’t have sex now? Thats a new one.

            “It is constantly mutating against the medical serums that attempt to
            control it and that creates related drug resistant viruses that can be
            blamed on something other than HIV.”

            Yep, thats how diseases work buddy

          • afchief

            The history of homosexuality reveals that in all cultures it is an elitist practice that recruits the young into its “service.” In fact, it has a history of being a pagan religious ritual which, once again, put it into the practice of the elites of a society. It is no coincidence that human sacrifice (abortion 1973) and homosexuality (1975 when the ASA mysteriously changed Homosexuality from a mental disorder) have arrived in our culture at the same time. Satan, the god of this world knows his time is short and is using abortion and Homosexuality to take as many souls to hell as possible. It’s obvious who is behind this cause because as you can see the evil behind their extreme dedication. Things are going to get dangerous and worse…and soon…

          • Martris Drake

            “In fact, it has a history of being a pagan religious ritual which, once
            again, put it into the practice of the elites of a society.”

            So thats your problem. You hate the fact that you are not elite

            “Satan, the god of this world knows his time is short and is using
            abortion and Homosexuality to take as many souls to hell as possible.”

            This tired old fairytale, pick up Harry Potter instead. It’s a better read.

            “Things are going to get dangerous and worse…and soon…”

            You cowards have been making this vague statement for a long time

          • gogo0

            considering christmas and easter both have history of being pagan religious rituals, the pagan thing is an argument you should look into getting rid of in the future

          • gogo0

            afchief is the resident hate monger, and by far the most entertaining person here because he clearly has no self-control.
            however it is disconcerting that none of the christians on this site step in to calm him down or refute any of his more radical stuff. really gives the impression that they all agree with him, and he is just the only one crazy enough to say all that stuff aloud.

          • Martris Drake

            hate agrees with hate

          • afchief

            Yes more proof that truth is the enemy of liberals!!!

    • Hastur

      how does it feel to be on the losing side again?

      • afchief

        Whenever you have Christ, one is ALWAYS on the winning side!!!

        • gogo0

          with your immense hatred of obama, liberals, “homos”, and everyone else that disagrees with you, do you truly believe there is any room left in your heart for jesus?

          • afchief

            Just stating facts and truths!!!

            Truth is the enemy of liberals!!!

        • Hastur

          no you aren’t. gay marriage is legal and LGBT rights are on the rise, you and your little carpenter have lost.

  • acontraryview

    ““I want you to understand, this legislation is about equal protection and not discrimination,” said the bill’s sponsor, state Sen. Greg Kirk, R-Americus.”

    Considering that the bill specifically makes it legal to discriminate, I’m unclear how he can make that claim.

  • Chip01

    It’s r bad 161 People can’t get together for a worthy cause…

  • Cady555

    “The Pastor Protection Act is a simple reaffirmation of our bedrock principle of separation of church and state,”

    Separation of church and state?

    Suddenly you are all for separation of church and state? Yes, it is a bedrock principle of our nation.

    This law merely states what is already guaranteed by the Constitution. Churches are free to set their own rules. Notice how 50 years after the civil rights movement churches are free to refuse to.marry mixed race couples?

    However, people cannot use government power to push their religious beliefs. Churches can refuse to marry gay couples. But people cannot inject their religious beliefs into secular government and prevent the government from acknowledging some families.

    And people acting with government authority must treat all people equally.

  • peanut butter

    Glad to hear this good news, living in Georgia. It’s NOT a license to discriminate, though, it just gives us what the first amendment guarantees.. The right to exercise our Christian religion freely.

    • Hastur

      are you idiot? religious officials were ALREADY exempt form discrimination laws

      • peanut butter

        But now the states are passing bills to take back their rights to decide what goes on in their state, the things that the Federal government had no right to interfere with in the first place.

        • gogo0

          the federal government has the right to strike down state laws when the state laws are unconstitutional

        • Hastur

          I repeat. are you idiot? religious officials were ALREADY exempt form discrimination laws

  • Chrissy Vee

    6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
    7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
    8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
    9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; ~2 Thessalonians

  • FoJC_Forever

    Laws can be reversed and overturned. People should stop trusting in what a government approves or disapproves concerning Marriage. God created Marriage. It was intended for a man and a woman. It doesn’t matter what one group says or what the laws of any government say, it will always be what God intended. If Christians will stop using government law to affirm their lives and their religion, they wouldn’t have this issue.

    Don’t perform “legal marriages”. Perform ‘marriage ceremonies’ before God with witness to the lifelong commitment between the man and woman as husband and wife. When they consummate the marriage spiritually, mentally and physically, then the man and woman are Married. What the law says doesn’t matter anyway.

    There are a whole lot of people living in adultery, even though the law has pronounced them divorced.

    Follow Jesus, find Truth.

    • Martris Drake

      And alot of people do not subscribe to your religion.

      So therefor your standards of what is, or is not, allowed to be marriage has no authority on others.

      • FoJC_Forever

        People not accepting the Truth do not escape being Judged by the God who created the universe and all the things within it. All will stand before the LORD Jesus (the) Christ in Judgement. Those who rejected the Truth will be cast away into Eternal Damnation and those who know Him will pass into Eternal Life.

        Follow Jesus, find Truth.

        • Hastur

          prove that crap is true

          • FoJC_Forever

            You will have your proof soon enough.

          • Michael C

            …you forgot to add the maniacal laugh at the end of that sentence.

          • FoJC_Forever

            That’s the Devil laughing in your head. Sadly, you continue to pursue Darkness. He’s laughing at your foolishness and the ease with which he seduces you to reject God’s Word.

          • Hastur

            is that suppsoe to scare?

          • FoJC_Forever

            No, just Truth. If Truth scares you, then you should call upon Jesus (the) Christ to save you from your Sin. He is the Truth. After you’ve been saved from your Sin, the Truth will no longer scare you.

            Those who wanted to murder Jesus also demanded proof. He gave it to them, but they rejected it. If you want proof, ask God from a sincere heart to reveal Himself to you, then you will have your proof. If you have already decided to live in Unbelief, and continue until your body dies, then your Unbelief will be shattered the Day you stand before Jesus (the) Christ in Judgement.

            Don’t wait. Today is the Day of Salvation. If you wait until Judgement, the Day of Salvation will have passed you by.

          • Hastur

            I don’t see any truth, just a lot of BS

          • FoJC_Forever

            Those who have believed the Lie of the Devil cannot see Truth, nor understand it, nor perceive it, nor receive it.

            Follow Jesus, find Truth.

        • Martris Drake

          “People not accepting the Truth do not escape being Judged by the God who created the universe and all the things within it.”

          Can you tell me about Harry Potter next? I love fiction.

    • Bob Johnson

      Sounds great. Christians can skip the “legal marriage,” but then of course they do not get to file joint taxes, have visitation rights in hospitals, spousal insurance coverage, and some 1500 federal and state privileges associated with that legal document.

      • FoJC_Forever

        Sounds great. Then people can be slaves to a government that declares, as part of healthcare, that a woman has the right to let another person rip a baby apart while it’s in her womb.

        1500? You’ll have to back that claim up with some actual references.

        Fear. This is what the ones who lead fake Christianity have used for centuries to make the naive and fearful submit to their rule. Only the ones who reject the Truth will continue to listen to their lies, and go back to the Egypt the LORD delivered them from.

        Follow Jesus, find Freedom.

        • Bob Johnson

          Here are the 1049 Federal laws as of 1997
          http://www.religioustolerance. org/hom_0026.htm

          Do you want a link for any particular state?

          • FoJC_Forever

            Bad link.

            If there are ‘1500’ plus laws passed around marriage, then it just proves my point. It has nothing to do with actual Marriage, but a legalized institution that fools people into believing they’re Married before God, when many are just living in adultery.

            Your religion is a failure, just like all other false religions. People who get legally married for legal benefits do so at their own risk.

            Marriage was created by God, not the USA.

          • Bob Johnson

            remove the blank space after the dot to get to the website.

            Yes, you can forgo all the benefits of a legal marriage contract and live as you wish. However, “rendering unto Rome” comes with many perks.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Christians follow Jesus (the) Christ, not Rome.

  • Kerry Hall

    Sin is one of those very touchy subjects. Especially when someone wants something so bad they are willing to overlook it as such just to satisfy their own desires. We all do it at times. Mankind has placed value on sin. Some being worse than others, while some aren’t so bad. Christians need to get in the word and figure out what their jobs as followers of Christ are and also what the job of government is. Two commandments highlighted in the Gospel. Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart mind and soul…and Love thy neighbor as thyself. All the rest hinge on those two. Plant the seeds of relationships, cultivate those relationships in a Godly way and allow GOD to change the hearts of those. He alone can do that and when we (Christians) start acting more like our Savior and less like the world (Remember, we are not of this world) powerful things can happen. We all know this world has always been sinful and it is only going to get worse. Christians will be the cast out of society (persecuted and called fools). Get used to it. You can preach at someone all day long, but you’ll accomplish very little. We all believe this country (USA) was brought into being by principles we all hold near and dear to our hearts, for they are Godly principles, but until we start walking the walk, how can we ever expect others to see HIM in us.

  • BarkingDawg

    What’s the point?

    This is a waste of time.

  • Peter Leh

    seems like needless feel good window dressing.

    “The Pastor Protection Act is a simple reaffirmation of our bedrock principle of separation of church and state”