Is David Cameron Blind or Stupid in Not Being Able to See His Own Religion?

First, any strategy to defeat extremism must confront, head on, the extreme ideology that underpins it. We must take its component parts to pieces – the cultish worldview, the conspiracy theories, and yes, the so-called glamorous parts of it as well.

In doing so, let’s not forget our strongest weapon: our own liberal values. We should expose their extremism for what it is – a belief system that glorifies violence and subjugates its people – not least Muslim people.

We should contrast their bigotry, aggression and theocracy with our values. We have, in our country, a very clear creed and we need to promote it much more confidently. Wherever we are from, whatever our background, whatever our religion, there are things we share together.

We are all British. We respect democracy and the rule of law. We believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of worship, equal rights regardless of race, sex, sexuality or faith.

We believe in respecting different faiths but also expecting those faiths to support the British way of life. These are British values. And are underpinned by distinct British institutions. Our freedom comes from our Parliamentary democracy. The rule of law exists because of our independent judiciary. This is the home that we are building together.

Whether you are Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian or Sikh, whether you were born here or born abroad, we can all feel part of this country – and we must now all come together and stand up for our values with confidence and pride.

And as we do so, we should together challenge the ludicrous conspiracy theories of the extremists. The world is not conspiring against Islam;

David Cameron
Prime Minister — United Kingdom
Extremism Speech — July 2015

Not being up on everything all the time this “extremism speech” back in July slipped my attention. This piece is jaw dropping incredible in terms of what is left unsaid in the text. I just could leave this alone without commenting on the absurdity.

1.) Cameron keeps invoking English “liberal values” and how those liberal values should be trumpeted in order to overturn the worldview of the extremists. Cameron even evokes the idea of a shared creed. In point of fact what Cameron has done here is he has invoked Liberalism as a religion to overturn the religion of the extremists, for it is only religion that can produce values and creed. Cameron has told his listeners that the religion of English Liberalism, with its creed and values, is superior to the religion of the extremists.  Indeed so superior is this religion of English liberalism that all other religions can only operate in England as long as those religions submit themselves to the religion of English liberalism with its values and creed.

But think about that for just a moment. Does one really own their own religion if their own religion has to submit to the creed and values of another religion?

2.) If “Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian or Sikh …must now all come together and stand up for our values” and for the shared English Liberal creed  then what is the difference between Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian or the Sikh religions except a few rituals? You see what is going on here is that the religion of English Liberalism with its values and creed is redefining what it means to be Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian and Sikh. Are we to really believe that the values and creed of the Muslim faith, Hindu faith, Jewish faith, Christian faith and Sikh faith are so similar that they can perfectly align with the religious values and creed of English liberalism? If Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian or Sikh, all share a common creed and values with the religion of English Liberalism what is the need for these other faiths?

3.) Now, about those shared values.  It is really the case that all these faith have a shared value of abortion which glorifies violence, that the English religion of Liberalism champions? Do all these religion have the shared value of equality for all those of different sexuality?  Inasmuch as Cameron, as a adherent to the religion of English Liberalism, is seeking to make Islam accept these values in England in that much he is most certainly conspiring against Islam.

4.) Cameron, as an adherent to the religion of English Liberalism with its value and creed, insist that this religion of his allows for “freedom of speech.” If that is true then why has the Home Secretary of England, in contradiction of putative English religious values and creed, blocked the entry into England of Robert Spence, Pamela Geller, and Michael Savage because they want to speak out against Islam? Does  English religious values and creed allow for the freedom of speech that speaks against the English religious values and creed?

5.) Apparently English religious values and creed makes for a theocracy which does not allow for any gods that do not agree with their values and creed and for the kind of violence they glorify.

6.) We see here that there is very little difference between the extremists and the liberal. They each desire that all other religions bow to their creed and values. They each desire to scrub England of its uniquely Christian past in favor of their own competing religions. The disagreement between the extremists that Cameron complains about and the English liberals is the difference between a Trotsky and a Stalin. The disagreement is on methodology and not on substance. Both the extremists and the English liberals  favor their religion to be the reigning religion. The English liberals desire to subjugate people every bit as much as the extremists they complain of.

In the words of C. William Knot Yielding,

 “The liberals envision a multicultural state in which everyone subscribes to liberal ideals. The Jihadists envision a utopian Moslem state in which everyone adheres to Islamic law. It is the mythical belief of the liberals that the Jihadists are not the real Moslems. In the liberals’ eyes of unreality the Jihadists are the bad Moslems who won’t settle down and enjoy the fruits of multicultural Liberaldom.”

Any Christianity that shares values and creed with either Cameron’s religious Liberalism or the Jihadists religious Islam is a Christian that fails to understand his or her own faith.

The CRC, the Banner, Rev. Bob DeMoor and Homosexuality

“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”

 Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

In the July issue of the Banner,

soon to be departing Rev. Bob DeMoor, makes a case for the CRC denomination not fracturing over the potential future doctrinal embrace of practicing homosexuality. DeMoor’s comment are, politically speaking, quite genius. DeMoor will be leaving the Banner soon and so there is little fallout he will have to face over his advocacy of the Denomination accepting practicing homosexuality via the local option. Once Rev. DeMoor is gone, other bureaucrats can respond to complaints by merely offering, “that’s Bob, and Bob’s gone now.” In the way this has been done the next policy step has been pointed to in a very clean and surgical manner.

Rev. DeMoor implores his readers and the denomination to allow each local congregation to choose for themselves whether or not their local congregation will acknowledge the teaching of Scripture that homosexual practice and lifestyle is sin. What Rev. DeMoor doesn’t tell the reader is that if such a decision was arrived at what that would mean is that those who work for the bureaucracy of the denomination (including the Seminary) would at least have to subscribe to the idea that Scripture both teaches and does not teach that homosexual practice and lifestyle is sin, or at the very least that Scripture is so ambiguous on the subject that it is a matter of adiaphora. As such, with such an embrace of the “local option” as policy the consequence would be a bureaucracy and Seminary that would, by its required muddledness on the subject, be pro-homosexual practice and lifestyle. How long could local churches hold out in upholding God’s clear word against sodomy when the whole Denominational institutional infrastructure is, at best, unable, due to denominational diktat, to be anti-homosexual lifestyle and practice?

Rev. DeMoor enjoins that the denomination should take upon itself the 1980 example of making remarriage after divorce a local option issue. Rev. DeMoor doesn’t mention that there was a long history, in the Reformed World in general, that allowed divorce after remarriage. For example, John Calvin allowed for remarriage in the context of adultery, believing that the penalty for such adultery should be death. Divorce under such circumstances gives the innocent party freedom to remarry, Calvin held, for Jesus’ condemnation of remarriage as adultery applied undoubtedly only to “unlawful and frivolous divorces.” Although Calvin was very conservative in his theological view of divorce, like Luther his practice was more liberal. His “Ecclesiastical Ordinances,” adopted by the Little and Large Councils of 1561, allowed three grounds for divorce and remarriage other than adultery: impotence, extreme religious incompatibility, and abandonment. Calvin also provided for annulment where a spouse could not, because of some physical infirmity, perform the conjugal act.

Similarly the  Westminster Confession of Faith Article 24 has taught since the 17th century,

“In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce: and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.”

We could just as easily appeal to Tyndale, Bucer, Knox and other Reformed luminaries for the acceptability of remarriage after divorce in some cases.

We conclude thus that the CRC 1980 decision had historical precedents to reverse previous Synods and to allow Churches to employ the local option on the matter of divorce and remarriage. Where are the centuries long historical precedents in the Reformed world for suggesting that homosexual practice and lifestyle is a valid option so that the determining of its acceptability can be decided on a church by church and case by case basis? Rev. DeMoor is comparing apples to bananas by suggesting a parallel can be drawn between the local option as exercised for the allowance of divorce and remarriage and the local option as exercised for the allowance of men sodomizing men and women doing whatever it is that women do to one another when sharing a “conjugal” bed.

Rev. DeMoor then asks the question if such an approach would erode our teaching to biblical commitment and then answers his own question by saying “no” and then citing Scripture that communicates, in Rev. DeMoor’s world, that unity trumps all matters. However, as has been communicated by many a Divine throughout history, Unity is always only a byproduct of shared truth. Where truth is not shared the closest to unity a organization can come to is the empty shell of administrative and bureaucratic unity. This is a unity only for the sake of unity. It is a unity that stands for nothing, that strives for nothing, and that achieves nothing. It is a mirage that progressives are forever seeing.

Rev. DeMoor would have us “have the humility, love, and grace to affirm that we may have to reexamine our own certainties in light of what we communally discover in God’s Word.” This sounds so high minded and pious but what if, after reexamining our own certainties in light of what we communally discover in God’s Word, we have to say, “Here I stand against the communal discoveries, I can do no other”? My Mother always had a word for communal discoveries after I would appeal to her on that basis. Mom would simply say, “If everyone decided to jump off a cliff would you jump off with them?” Mom was pretty wise that way.

Rev. DeMoor fears denominational hemorrhaging, and well he should. However, Rev. DeMoor and others should keep in mind that hemorrhaging only happens where a wound has been inflicted on the body. The sanction and embrace of homosexual practice and lifestyle by the denomination would be a case of a self inflicted wound that results in to be expected hemorrhaging.

One thing I do agree with Rev. DeMoor and that is his observation that, “We won’t agree on what’s pastoral until we agree on what’s sinful.” There is a good deal packed into that sentence. Different visions and understandings of sin, by necessity, imply different visions and understandings of the Character of God. Different visions and understandings of sin, by necessity, imply different understandings of just exactly why the Lord Christ was raised upon the Cross and so raised from the grave. Different visions and  understandings of sin give us different understandings of the person and work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and sanctification. In point of fact different visions and understandings of sin give us different Gods, Atonements, and Spirit filled living. Those differences give us different Christianities.

May God be pleased to grant to the Christian Reformed Church the wisdom to embrace the Christianity displayed in Holy Writ.






Apologetics At The Midland Daily News

From a online op-ed piece in the Midland Daily News

“After months of work, a report was issued that can be viewed at the Midland Area Community Foundation website. Among the nine Key Performance Areas was this statement on Diversity. “Midland County is committed to equality and inclusion and welcomes, embraces and accepts all people.”

All people. That includes a commitment to not discriminate against anyone based on their heritage or culture, their physical attributes or their station in society. And in our group discussions, it also specifically included a commitment to welcome, embrace and accept anyone regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Bret observes,

This statement is ridiculous. In this statement is the promise to discriminate against those who have a Christian heritage and / or come from a Christian culture that is opposed to sodomy, transgender, lesbianism, necrophilia, bestiality, etc. So the promise by this Midland Michigan group to not discriminate against anyone (Necrophiliacs for example) is a promise to discriminate against Christians since Christians come from a culture and heritage that oppose perverted sexual orientation and disordered gender identity.

This press release is an example of typical Cultural Marxist agenda masking. In the name of tolerance Christian ethics and mores will be discriminated against.

After posting this on the Midland page a sortie of wingnuts came flying at me,

  • Lawrence Perry · 

    Your Christian heritage is not very old. It’s only about 2,000 years old. It’s not even a blink of an eye, as far as human history is concerned. Christianity is based on belief and not evidence. In other words, your Christian heritage and culture doesn’t pass the smell test.
  • Bret L. McAtee 

    That statement is ignorance on stilts Mr. Perry.Christianity has been around since God’s creation. That the Jews abandoned the flowering of their faith when Christ arrived means that Judaism as distinct from Christianity is only 2000 years old. Christianity was the expression of the OT faith come into its own.

    Secondly, you are operating with a definition of faith that is existential and not Biblical. The evidence for Christianity is everywhere and the Christian faith is based upon evidence that is far more securely present then exists in scientism or any other religious worldview. In point of fact Christianity is the ONLY religion that has evidence since even the very word “evidence” itself only finds true meaning as existing in a Christian worldview.

    Of course I would not expect a pagan Cultural Marxist to say that Christianity does not pass the smell test. What will you tell me next? That nothing supernatural is true?

    I’m shocked … shocked I tell you that a Christ hater would say such a thing. LOL.

    Next, how old does a belief have to be before it’s credible? Following your “thinking,” the neo-notions of “sodomite rights” and “sodomite marriage” don’t merit even the slightest consideration since they are completely novel ideas in the history of the West. But since you’ve made age the determining factor, then you are obliged to tell us the magic number at which an idea becomes legitimate.

    And as for your cherished “smell test,” I should think sodomites should be slow about complaining about smell tests give their predilection of playing in the sewer.

    Christianity’s age has nothing to do with whether Christians should be able to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed protections of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom if association.

    Lori Marshall Franson ·

    Mr. McAtee


    Cultural Marxism is bantied around a lot on White Nationalist blogs/publications i.e. Alternative Right, etc. It’s code word for cultural commie-one who opposes discrimination of a targeted population like gays.
  • Bret L. McAtee


    Lori Marshall FransonMore nonsense. Whole books have been written on Cultural Marxism and the Frankfort School from across the ideological spectrum. This is just more special pleading by a Cultural Marxist to dismiss the very weighty criticisms against the school promulgating perversion.

    Lori Marshall Franson

  • Better luck next time, Rev. Reframing the enemy: “Right-wing ideologues, racists and other extremists have jazzed up political correctness and repackaged it — in its most virulent form, as an anti-Semitic theory that identifies Jews in general and several Jewish intellectuals in particular as nefarious, communistic destroyers. These supposed originators of “cultural Marxism” are seen as conspiratorial plotters intent on making Americans feel guilty and thus subverting their Christian culture.In a nutshell, the theory posits that a tiny group of Jewish philosophers who fled Germany in the 1930s and set up shop at Columbia University in New York City devised an unorthodox form of “Marxism” that took aim at American society’s culture, rather than its economic system.

    The theory holds that these self-interested Jews — the so-called “Frankfurt School” of philosophers — planned to try to convince mainstream Americans that white ethnic pride is bad, that sexual liberation is good, and that supposedly traditional American values — Christianity, “family values,” and so on — are reactionary and bigoted. With their core values thus subverted, the theory goes, Americans would be quick to sign on to the ideas of the far left.”

    The SPLC supports my position.

  • Bret L. McAtee


    Miss LoriThe SPLC is the largest officially sanctioned hate group in America.

    A few books that I’ve read that clearly spell out the origins and return to ancient paganism that Cultural Marxism represents,

    Indeed any familiarity at all with the basics of communism and how the Gramsci school altered the classic Communist trajectory slightly will reveal that Cultural Marxism is nothing more than Marxist-Leninist thinking as applied beyond economics to culture.

    You’re simply either wrong or ignorant about the History Mis Lori, or failing that you are merely a cultural Marxist shill. Either way you are certainly gravely mistaken.


    • Jeff LiebmannOrdained Minister at Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Midland

      So to Bret and Rebekah and others, let’s try for moment and stay on topic without bringing in global conspiracies. 100 of the leaders of the County (go to the web site to see the list – this is not in any way a liberal-leaning group – it is mostly business owners) articulated quite clearly the values of our community. Our Representative Gary Glenn seems to disagree and, on top of that, does not care. Marxism and Illuminati aside, the point here is the articulation of our communities’ values and the failure of a politician supposedly committed to them to engage in dialog with his constituents.
    • Bret L. McAtee


      So … to Jeff Liebmann and others,Let’s try to keep in mind that it is the truth we are after and not pooled ignorance … no, not even the pooled ignorance of the sodomite or businessman community or Unitarian Universalist clergy community. For one thing, many businessmen only care for the dollar. Any historic or Biblical ethic that threatens the dollar will find the businessman dumping the ethic in favor of the God almighty dollar.

      The fact that they are supporting your anti-Christ agenda “Rev.” Liebman is proof positive that this is a Liberal (Cultural Marxist) group, or at the very least, useful idiots serving the cultural Marxist agenda. (Which, I’m fairly certain describes the Unitarian Universalist clergy community as well since the Leftist Clergy for Decades have been carrying water for the Marxist agenda. See C. Gregg Singers “The Unholy Alliance.”)

      If the Midland community really does value the stripping of Christians of their constitutional standing then that community desperately needs to re-think their “no-value” values.

      Gary Glenn was just recently elected by a majority vote. That reality indicates he is listening just fine to his constituents. You’re just bleating because he convincingly defeated you in the last election cycle.

      I beg of your Mr. Liebmann. Think of your own soul and the coming judgment day. Please repent.

    • I see. So no matter how many community leaders are involved and regardless of who they are, if they disagree with you then they are sodomites and anti-Christ. Perhaps you would like to take that up with Wallace Howard Mayton of Memorial Presbyterian Church who also served on the group. Or Ed Doerr of the Messiah Lutheran Church.
    • Bret L. McAtee · 

      Jeff … one doesn’t come to truth by counting noses. Not even Liberal clergy noses.
      Bret L. McAtee 

      Jeff,Anybody who accepts this idea is, prima facie, LIBERAL. It is a liberal position that is contrary to God’s word which condemns sodomy repeatedly throughout the Scriptures. (Scripture … remember those? God’s authoritative word and all that?)

      Now, all because they are not as far left as you are doesn’t mean they are not left. Come on Jeff … you can not possibly be this dense.

      Lori Marshall Franson

      Rev McAtee: Thanks for the resources. You may want to alert the FBI about the Southern Poverty Law Center, an outreach partner of the FBI on dangerous hate groups.

      Bret L. McAtee


      LOL … you find it surprising that our Marxist government is in bed with the Marxist Hate group SPLC? Our Federal Government’s incompetency is so legendary that for them to align themselves with anybody hints at the fact that there is a serious problem with those they are aligned.

      Ordained Minister at Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Midland

      Contrary to YOUR interpretation of YOUR god’s word. America is not a theocracy, even if you would like it to be so. I shudder to think what denomination you affiliate with if you consider a Missouri Synod Lutheran minister liberal. Perhaps you would care to share.
      America is a Theocracy Jeff. All governments are. Every single one. The name of America’s God is “Demos” and He rules with an iron fist. His law is legal positivism.Do keep up friend Jeff.

      And Liberals exist in every  denomination Jeff. A minister’s position in supporting sodomy is proof the man is Liberal. God condemns sodomy repeatedly.

      The good news is that upon repentance and leaving sodomy God in Christ will forgive and restore them.

    • Bret L. McAtee


      Says the man who ignores God’s clear revelation on this matter.

      •  Lori Marshall Franson

        Rev McAtee: You seem awfully focused on sodomy, sir. Do you equally focus on gluttony and the lack of males having beards? In short, I think you cherry pick what you want from the Bible and use it to justify your desires to discriminate against others and weave conspiracies, which is your right to the point where your views adversely affect others in this wonderful melting pot of a country without a National Religion.I cannot help but wonder what branding you would like those who are gay to have to alert others who share your views so they can refuse them service in restaurants, stores, etc.

        I sure don’t see you sharing any of the Good News regarding the gospel on here for anyone nor do I recognize you as a spokesman for all Christians. Things such as arrogance, pride, a haughty spirit, bearing false witness/ lies, and sowing discord amongst brethren escapes your writings and message as a Reverend on here. I like to look at the fruits one bears before following them. On that note, I think I’ll listen to the Austin City Lounge Lizards, “Jesus Loves Me but He can’t Stand You”. Good day, sir.

      • Bret L. McAtee 

        Lori Marshall Franson,Typical Liberal response.

        The article is what focused on sodomy Maam. See this quote here,

        “All people. That includes a commitment to not discriminate against anyone based on their heritage or culture, their physical attributes or their station in society. And in our group discussions, it also specifically included a commitment to welcome, embrace and accept anyone regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

        Did you somehow miss that detail? As such I’m merely responding to the articles focus by keeping the focus where the article places it.

        And as I said initially, this is really an article dedicated to discriminating Christians. I said that here,

        “This is ridiculous. In this statement is the promise to discriminate against those who have a Christian heritage and / or come from a Christian culture or have a Christian Heritage that are opposed to sodomy, transgender, lesbianism, necrophilia, bestiality, etc. So the promise to not discriminate against anyone (Necrophiliacs for example) is a promise to discriminate against Christians. “

        You folks are the one forcing your paganistic religion on those who disagree with you. Typical Liberal “freedom. Liberals don’t care what you do, so long as they can use to State to make it compulsory.

        In terms of gluttony

        1.) Unlike sodomy Scripture while labeling gluttony as a “sin” nowhere designates it as a crime.

        2.)  You can be sure when organizations arise insisting that I must accept the gluttonous as “normal” and must give them special civil rights I will respond similarly. However, it is simply the case that the sodomy issue is front and center because you Cultural Marxists who love Government power are trying to force Christians to accept your perversion as normal.

        You so foolishly talk about “branding,” and yet what the Cultural Marxists are seeking to do is to jam Christians into the closet that the Liberals have the sodomites coming out of. You pretend you’re so “broad-minded,” but face it … you hate Biblical Christians, want to strip them of their constitutional gurantees and want them to shut up. As we’ve seen here you want to give sodomites Constitutional special consideration while stripping Christians of our Constitutional free speech, freedom of associations, and other Constitutional protections.

        In terms of your final paragraph of pique … Whatever (shrug).


        I understand that. My question was whether you equally focus on gluttony or males not having beards (might want to realize that picture of you is posted). Sir, I am not gay. I happened to stumble across your kind and the fruits bared when I was caring for those dying of AIDS at the bedside in the 1980s. I don’t hate you, sir, so you won’t have to play that victim card. I think Christians ought to remember the teachings of Christ, such as loving one’s neighbor. I also think you need to keep talking, it is what demonstrates that fruit I was speaking about earlier and there is some interpretation about what a “biblical” Christian is. I certainly don’t want you or your ilk legally being able to discriminate against others. You know, I don’t recall Christ hanging around with the sanctimonious. Until you are without sin , you can keep those stones for your rock garden.
      • Bret L. McAtee


        Lori Marshall FransonHow much more plainly can I put things? I don’t equally focus on gluttony or males not having beards because gluttons or males not having beards are not demanding the special constitutional privileges that sodomites are demanding. Though, you can be sure I have written on assorted sins including gluttony. When gluttons start insisting on special constitutional privileges you can be sure I will zero in on that. You are firing blanks when you keep trying to make this association.

        I have no problem admitting that I am wrong when I am wrong. I do not try to say that my sins are not sins, which is exactly what the sodomite and their “friends” who champion their cause do. When is the last time you called upon someone besides someone you perceive to be a glutton to repent? The fact is that it is not my putative gluttony that makes you so self righteous but rather my pointing out to you over and over again how utterly silly your reasoning is.

        And the point of fact is you are a hater. You hate God by being in favor and trying to normalize what He is opposed to. You are a victimizer in the worst sense. You victimize those you say you love by suggesting that their aberrant behavior is good.
        Thank you for the reminder to love one’s neighbor. You might want to learn that love is not defined however Lori wants it defined. Here you are hating on the perverts by telling them that which terribly shortens their expected life span is acceptable. You call that love? By all that is Holy, please do not ever practice your love on me.

        And remember Lori … you are the one advocating that discrimination against Christians and their heritage and culture should be acceptable. You are the hater here Lori.

        Bret L. McAtee


        LOL … see, another example of Lori, the cultural Marxist wanting to use the government to force people to vaccinate their children when tons of evidence exist that vaccines are toxic.And it will do no good for me to work soup kitchens in Haight Ashbury since I’ve already worked them in third world countries on other continents. Have you broken sadza with the poor in the high density suburbs outside of Harare? Have you ministered to the poor and indigent in their cardboard and tin houses? Have you preached Christ crucified in their hut Churches while chicken and other livestock milled about the Church?

        Don’t pretend to preach to me about your nobility while assuming the absolute worse about me. I know that upsets your precious paradigm. Have you sat with the indigent dying in the hospital while they die of cancer? Have you sat with and sought to comfort the teen parents whose babies have died of terrible diseases? You don’t know what you’re talking about (again) when you hint that I’ve been born with some kind of silver spoon in my mouth. I’ve been there and done that and I tell you again that you are a hater of these people by your refusal to champion God’s authoritative word.

        See … you just continue to exhibit that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You keep making these huge leaps and they are supported by exactly nothing.

        You complain about rock throwing and yet you and your ilk are the ones who started casting the rocks. You cast rocks at those who upheld a Western Civilization and Biblical ethic. You cast stones at those who took up the cause of the unborn. You are a rock thrower extraordinaire and yet in true terrorist fashion you seek to escape your rock throwing by wheeling upon me and pointing and screaming “ROCK-THROWER,” in order to throw the scent off of your own culpability in casting stones.



The Tactics and Abnormality of Sodomy


Homosexual as a word was coined in order to deflect attention from the word of the time that was used, which was “sodomite.” The advocates of sodomy realized that they needed to move from the verb “sodomy,” which drew attention to the act to a noun like “Homosexual,” and later, “gay” which moved ones attention from the act itself to the identity of the person.

So, the word “Homosexual” was latched upon to divert attention away from the dirtiness of the act. Eventually “homosexual” had to give way to “gay” for the same reason that the word “sodomite” gave way to the word “Homosexual.” Now even the word “gay” has become dirty and so other terms are being sought out.

Notice here the language. New worldviews can be spotted by the way the language is changed or manipulated.

I.) Note that there is five stages by which a culture can be forced to accept deviance

a.) Tolerance of deviance

Here what is pushed is the virtue of tolerance. We might not approve of something ourselves but we are “big enough” to allow deviants in our midst. The purpose of tolerance is almost always to serve as means by which to buy time until that which is being tolerated is strong enough to force the toleristas to the next stage.

One way that a deviant behavior is normalized is by talking about it ad-nauseum. The advocates of deviance bring it up without fail. In the case of sodomy, the love that once dare not speak its name now won’t shut the hell up.

This reminds of Pope’s poetry,

“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

Alexander Pope

b.) Acceptance of deviance

In this stage the toleristas not only ask for toleration but also of acceptance. This is the demand to come out of the closet and be accepted in families, churches, employment, etc. This is the stage where the societal taboo of the behavior is removed so that the deviance is seen as odd but not repulsive.

A great means to accomplish this is the usage of the sentimental story. Sentimentalism is told in order to demonstrate how mean and cold hearted are those who can’t be sympathetic to those who want to normalize sodomy.

There is seldom appreciation for how the mainlining of behavior that is associated with disease, drastically reduced mortality rates, and Man boy love is hateful towards people.

c.) Celebration of deviance

“Gay” parades anyone?

Rainbow ribbon day

d.) forced embracing of deviance

Those who once asked to be tolerated in their perversity are now told that if they will not embrace the deviant as normal they will not be tolerated themselves. Those deviants once in the closet, have gone from tolerated to being those who are shoving those who object into the closet. Having gained the ascendancy they will not tolerate those who object to the destructive character of their behavior.

e.) Punishment for those who oppose deviance.

Economic opportunities are cut off from those who object. Finally, “Hate laws” are passed. The sodomites have come out of the closet and the Christians are the ones pushed into the closet.

II.) The Alternative to Marriage?

A.) The New Definition of Marriage

According to Lawyer Ted Olson, the Supreme Court has said Fourteen times that “marriage is a fundamental right that involves privacy, association, liberty and being with the person that you love and forming a part of our community and being treated equally with the rest of society.”

By SCOTUS’s own definition twin brothers could marry each other since twin brothers could love one another and desire privacy, association, liberty and being with the person thy love etc. Indeed, by SCOTUS’ definition Incest no longer exists as a prohibition to marriage. By SCOTUS’s own definition a Pedophile should be allowed to marry his child little boy lover since even in that situation “marriage would be a fundamental right that involves privacy, association, liberty and being with the person that you love and forming a part of our community and being treated equally with the rest of society.” Indeed, by SCOTUS’s own definition of Marriage Pedophilia no longer exists as a prohibition to marriage.

B.) The New Definition of Marriage — By What Standard?

We would also ask the SCOTUS, “By what standard or authority does SCOTUS dare restrict marriage to just one person that someone might love”? By what standard or authority does SCOTUS dare suggest that multiple marriage partners don’t likewise desire to be married in the context of privacy, association, liberty?” SCOTUS must answer the basis of authority by which they limit marriage the way that they do.

What we are seeing now is the replacing of the previous Transcendent Authority for the definition of marriage to the new standard of consensuality among two or more people who have secured the power of the State to support their perversity.

Unelected judges, all over the nation, by legalizing sodomite marriage, in essence, have changed the definition of marriage merely according to their fiat word. They are attempting to legislate reality from the Bench. This is social engineering at its best. Human beings are treated as malleable and can be changed in any way the God State desires to change them.

We really should not be too surprised at this. Any people who allowed their judges to redefine life (Roe vs. Wade) were eventually likewise going to seek to redefine all of reality including marriage.

Via this Judicial malfeasance, unelected Judges have sent “the public a message from the God-State” that natural and traditional families are no different or unique than any other human arrangement and that the family as defined from a Transcendent authority, are not to be preferred over and above disordered non-families. Further, this criminal malfeasance by Judicial diktat has pronounced that any consensual relationship between two or more people, regardless of gender, based on the way those people feel about one another, ought to be called “marriage.” The God State, acting in a supremely religious capacity, has declared war upon and against the legislative authority of nature and nature’s God.

Criminal Judges have pushed aside the complementarity of men and women in favor of whatever “feels” right. Marriages are no longer rooted in a transcendent Authority, biology and human nature, and if there is no transcendent Authority by which to objectively define and identify marriage then marriage is open to any immanent authority’s definition of marriage as long as that immanent authority has the power of the Tyrant State behind it to forcefully implement it’s new subjective fiat definition of marriage.

In short the State can no more redefine marriage, sex, and family, any more then it can turn the moon into Green cheese. All because the Civil realm calls disorder, sin, and perversity, “order,” “righteousness,” and “normalcy” that does not make it so.

C.) Marriage and Children

There was a time when it was understood that one of the prime purposes, if not the prime purpose of Marriage, was the fostering, bearing, and raising of children. Here is the language from one Church’s reading for Marriage,

“Marriage was established to extend the human race, to advance the kingdom of God, and to enrich the lives of those entering this state. To fulfill these purposes, a husband and wife must be lovingly devoted to each other, sharing responsibility for the nurture of the children the Lord may give them as his heritage and as parties to his covenant.”

The possibility of bringing children into the world and raising them is now longer unique to marriage. Because children have been divorced from their mom and dad, marriage is no longer about permanent relationships between a man and a woman for the sake of their children and each other. It is only about how spouses feel about each other.

Such an attitude reduces marriage to one of convenience.

Now, there is no doubt that the children of heterosexual marriage have longed suffered from the instability of impermanent marriages. The ironic thing here is that it is the same worldview that weakened heterosexual marriages is now the worldview that is offering sodomite coupling as being normal for children.

However, all statistics indicate that sodomite and lesbian marriages are famously unstable.

A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the “duration of steady partnerships” was 1.5 years.[1]

In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that “few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”[2]

In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[3]

As such, just as our social order, worked unto the destroying of children’s lives via the liberalization of Divorce laws in the 60’s-70’s so it is once again seeking to cause judicially innocent children to suffer its folly by creating sodomite families.

It should be noted here that the destruction of the family serves the interest of the God state. The God state is more secure the less competition it has. Strong family structure is a threat to the God state because it offers a different location for loyalty other than the God state. As such the God state has an interest in working to create weak family structures.

It would not be difficult to conclude given the trajectory of family law and tax law over the last 50 years that the goal of the law has been to destroy the traditional family. If one looks at the early history of Marxist Russia one can see parallels between the way they initially deconstructed family and the way we are currently deconstructing family.

State sanctioned Sodomite buggery (called “marriage”) is but another brick in that wall of destroying the notion of the Christian family. Sodomite marriage is not about creating more family. Sodomite marriage is about destroying the historic family.


Sodomy is an attack on

A.) The emotional and psychic integrated individual

Believe it or not the American Psychiatric association still labels Homosexuality as disordered. The LGBT individual is not right mentally. The very fact that they have the position on LGBT issues they have is proof that they are not well integrated in their character and personality.

B.) The Family

C.) The Nation

Most Importantly… GOD

We have not said much in this lecture about the centrality of God in all this. We have not done so because we don’t want people to think that somehow this is only an issue that religious people should be concerned about. However, at the end of the day this debate is all about what kind of God will we, as a people bow before? Will we bow before the Tyrant God state which is trying to create reality for us by its fiat legislation and Judicial decision or will we be a people who bow before the God of the Bible who spoke creation and reality into existence by His divine Word.

This debate is a debate between worldviews. Will Man be sovereign or will God be sovereign. Will man dictate reality by his fiat word or will God dictate reality by his fiat word. Will we bow to what God has done by deciding to give Eve to Adam for procreation or will we insist that we no better than God when we match people with the same reproductive organs in a complete redefinition of marriage.

1. Maria Xiridou, et al, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003): 1031.

2. M. Pollak, “Male Homosexuality,” in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985): 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991): 124, 125.

3. M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1973): 225; L. A. Peplau and H. Amaro, “Understanding Lesbian Relationships,” in Homosexuality:Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, ed. J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).

Judicial Sodomy

“In the political and social discussions of the day, God’s law has ceased to be regarded as a factor that deserves to be reckoned with at all…[But] of one thing we can be sure—a nation that tramples thus upon the law of God…is headed for destruction.”

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)
Education, Christianity, and the State — pp. 140, 141
Edited by John Robbins, The Trinity Foundation, Jefferson, Maryland, 1987.

The ongoing imposition of the Sodomite agenda upon the American “nation” has been a top down political power grab that defies the whole concept of “we the people.” The laws that had prohibited same-sex marriage had all been enacted, in a way consistent with Republican forms of Government, either by statewide referenda, like Proposition 8 in California, or by or by Congress or elected state legislatures.

What we have witnessed on this issue is nothing but Judicial Tyranny and Gubernatorial and Congressional Cowardice. The US Congress could have passed DOMA with a Constitutional provision that their ruling was outside the purview of the Courts but chose to decline.

You see, Congress has the power to make exceptions to and regulations of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This court-limiting power is granted in the Exceptions Clause (Art. III, § 2). By exercising these powers in concert, Congress may effectively eliminate any judicial review of certain federal legislative or executive actions and of certain state actions, or alternatively transfer the judicial review responsibility to state courts by “knocking [federal courts]…out of the game.” This could have been done with the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) legislation but was not.

The Gubernatorial cowardice is seen in Governor’s refusing to declare SCOTUS decisions as void and without standing in their States. This is the old State’s rights argument.

Inasmuch as neither the US Congress nor State Governors refuse to stand up to Federal Judicial Tyranny, in that much they are just as responsible for the Sodomization of America as is the Federal Courts.

Since sodomy is intimately connected with a faith system that is pagan, what is happening now is the Judicially forced implementation of the yoke of a pagan religion upon the American people. Americans, may, because of their Christian faith, find the support of all things sodomite against their Christian ethical code but they are, by the working of Judicial fiat, being forced to embrace a new pagan ethic. That America is being forced to embrace a new ethic and so a new religion can be seen by a flurry of cases that the courts have ruled upon,

1.) Courts forcing Printer to make and sell sodomite T-shirts

Judge Wants To Force A Printer To Make Pro-Gay T-Shirts

2.) Courts forcing Owner of Venue to rent their barn for Lesbian pseudo “wedding” ceremony.

3.) Courts forcing Bakers to make cakes to serve sodomite pseudo “wedding” ceremony.

Judge Orders Colorado Cake Maker To Serve Gay Couples

4.) Courts forcing photographers to serve at pseudo wedding.

NM Court Says Christian Photographers Must Compromise Beliefs

5.) Courts forcing florist to serve pseudo wedding.

This action constitutes tyrannical action against the American people inasmuch as such judicial tyranny is aimed at something much larger than mainstreaming sodomy. What this action is aimed at is imposing a belief system and a religion upon the American people by the State. The American people are being told that their Christian religion is only valid insofar as it does not violate the public square religion of the State.

In brief, the US Courts are sodomizing the American people.