This blog is dead... repeat, this blog is dead. I have since repented of the hardcore republicanism expressed through most of this blog's history. See my profile for my current blog.
This post is being revised due to bad writing. You may continue discussion in the comments section, if you wish (anonymous posters, please sign your comments).
posted by jacob.thrasher @ 1/03/2005 09:42:00 PM
30 comments
It's been a long road for me... long ago, I was known on the internet as "NeoFascist?," a stereotypical republican homeschooled blogger. I have repented of my old screeds, and now try to approach matters of theology, philosophy and politics from a more free-thinking perspective. I am Neo no longer. I am jacob.thrasher.
| Get Stickam for Free |
Use this Stickam to view pictures, listen to music from my personal library, and even chat with me if I'm online! Try it out!
"Neo, you are simply the best political teen blogger out there. Keep up the awesome work man. You rock." -Agent Tim
"One of the best teen bloggers I've found in all my diminutive lifespan. Very intelligent in the humorous way. I'm not going to be surprised if I find he becomes a political giant...when we all grow up." -Paradoxically Correct
"...sometimes a little out there, but I keep goin back." -Reliant
"Smart kid, good blog. Go there." -Scott
"I personally agree with him in most cases..." -Giggle Fritz
"...he writes like a much older, better educated religious fanatic then he really is." -Lefty
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
30 Comments:COMMENT POLICY
Please refrain from the use of foul language. Any failure to comply will result in comment deletion.
Being Gay is a sin. God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because the people were homosexuals. God doesn't dicriminate against people, but when he specifically states that being gay is wrong and a sin in the bible, you know for sure that is wrong.
I believe the comment about this person who talked about his gay friend is totally true.
How many times must I state this simple fact: you can't legislate based upon the Christian religion. Seperation of church and state. So your religion prohibits gayness? Good for you. Don't be gay. But butt out of other people's lives, because your religion has no place in government.
LoneAmigo:
I understand your frustration. But you must understand that civil law has to be based on a moral code. One cannot call an action ‘wrong’ unless one has an idea of ‘right’. Since civil law must be consistent, the conception of morality must be absolute. For example, ‘murder’ is absolutely wrong, unjustifiable in any circumstance. ‘Theft’ is absolutely wrong, unjustifiable in any circumstance. Etc.
For better or worse, our civil law is based on the Judeo/Christian moral code, which stipulates that marriage outside of a man and woman is absolutely wrong.
But, hey, we don’t all agree with the Judeo/Christian moral code’s influence on our civil law. That’s fine. That’s o.k. But if you wish to change it, use lawful methods to do so. Due to the democratic method of our country, that involves voting.
This means that you have to democratically convince the citizens of the U. S. of the ‘rightness’ (by what code you assert this, the Lord only knows) of your cause. Failing that, you lose.
Fair enough?
Why is it that most gay-marriage proponents are so unwilling to rely on lawful means to further their agenda? I mean, if you are objectively ‘right’, you should be able to convince people, right?
Why haven’t you?
Could it be that you are… ‘wrong’?
It's not a Judeo-Christian moral code. It's a standard, basic, moral code that almost every culture since the beginning of culture has incoporated. But not every culture has included prohibitions against homosexuality. Ancient Greece would be the most prominent example.
Theft and murder are illegal in Saudi Arabia, India, Bhutan, Mongolia... all non-Judeo-Christian countries. Theft and murder are illegal in China, an officially atheist nation. These are virtually universal ideas and laws.
Legislating against murder is not legislating according to a Judeo-Christian moral code. Legislating against gay marriage is legislating according to religion. That is something that IS NOT DONE. Repeat after me slowly: SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
Give me a break. You recite the same arguments over and over again, and I have to post basically the same reply over and over again.
Amigo:
The same, tired old arguments are repeatedly used, because these same, tired old arguments are applicable.
If you feel that prohibiting gay-marriage infringes on the mythological philosophy of 'separation of church and state', wonderful!
Thanks to the democratic freedom of the U.S., you have the freedom to 'do something about it.'
BUT... you must attempt to change the law by lawful measures, i.e., voting.
What is incredibly annoying about the homosexual agenda, is that it refuses to abide by democratic principles. It wants special powers granted to it, which would bypass democracy on the grounds that it is 'right'.
Ironically enough, isn't that a Class A example of the infringement of religion on the state?
>>>These are virtually universal ideas and laws.
I'd be careful, if I were you, on relying on 'universal law' to back up your argument on the non-religious nature of civil law.
Don't forget that this same 'universal law' WITHOUT EXCEPTION considered homosexuality as abnormal, or (in the case of the Greeks) as secondary to heterosexuality.
Claiming that 'universal law' is only partially relevant (right about theft, murder, etc., wrong about homosexuality) opens up a vast chasm that I think you would be better off leaving closed.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
That quote is verbatim from the U.S. Constitution. Note the use of the word "establishment". That's why it's known as the "establishment" clause, not the "separation" clause. Congress cannot "establish" a state religion, whether Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, or the specific beliefs of any sect within a particular religion. It's a sad comment on public education when many people cannot grasp, or don't care to grasp, the essentials of the American system of government. The American system of government was never meant to be separated from the basic religious ideals of its people. Those ideals were always meant to be free to inform public policy and debate, not to be excluded from the public forum. To exclude religious viewpoints is to establish a type of state religion -- secular humanism.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."
--John Adams
Wow.
Hope this isn't too long for a comment-----
it seemed appropriate.
BTW...the preceding comments were awesome.
WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) today delivered the following statement on the floor of the United States Senate addressing several social issues facing the country:
"The Old Testament prophet Amos was a sheep herder who lived back in the Judean hills, away from the larger cities of Bethlehem and Jerusalem. Compared to the intellectual urbanites like Isaiah and Jeremiah, he was just an unsophisticated country hick.
"But Amos had a unique grasp of political and social issues and his poetic literary skill was among the best of all the prophets. That familiar quote of Martin Luther King, Jr. about 'Justice will rush down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream' are Amos's words.
"Amos was the first to propose the concept of a universal God and not just some tribal deity. He also wrote that God demanded moral purity, not rituals and sacrifices. This blunt speaking moral conscience of his time warns in Chapter 8, verse 11 of The Book of Amos, as if he were speaking to us today:
That 'the days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land. Not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the word of the Lord.
'And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east. They shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.'
'A famine in the land'. Has anyone more accurately described the situation we face in America today? 'A famine of hearing the words of the Lord.'
"But some will say, Amos was just an Old Testament prophet - a minor one at that - who lived 700 years before Christ. That is true, so how about one of the most influential historians of modern times?
"Arnold Toynbee who wrote the acclaimed 12 volume A Study of History, once declared, 'Of the 22 civilizations that have appeared in history, 19 of them collapsed when they reached the moral state America is in today.'
"Toynbee died in 1975, before seeing the worst that was yet to come. Yes, Arnold Toynbee saw the famine. The 'famine of hearing the words of the Lord.' Whether it is removing a display of the Ten Commandments from a Courthouse or the Nativity Scene from a city square. Whether it is eliminating prayer in schools or eliminating 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance. Whether it is making a mockery of the sacred institution of marriage between a man and woman or, yes, telecasting around the world made-in-the-USA filth masquerading as entertainment.
"The Culture of Far Left America was displayed in a startling way during the Super Bowl's now infamous half-time show. A show brought to us courtesy of Value-Les Moonves and the pagan temple of Viacom-Babylon.
"I asked the question yesterday, how many of you have ever run over a skunk with your car? I have many times and I can tell you, the stink stays around for a long time. You can take the car through a car wash and it's still there. So the scent of this event will long linger in the nostrils of America.
"I'm not talking just about an exposed mammary gland with a pull-tab attached to it. Really no one should have been too surprised at that. Wouldn't one expect a bumping, humping, trashy routine entitled 'I'm going to get you naked' to end that way.
"Does any responsible adult ever listen to the words of this rap-crap? I'd quote you some of it, but the Sergeant of Arms would throw me out of here, as well he should. And then there was that prancing, dancing, strutting, rutting guy evidently suffering from jock itch because he kept yelling and grabbing his crotch. But then, maybe there's a crotch grabbing culture I've unaware of.
"But as bad as all this was, the thing that yanked my chain the hardest was seeing that ignoramus with his pointed head stuck up through a hole he had cut in the flag of the United States of America, screaming about having 'a bottle of scotch and watching lots of crotch.' Think about that.
"This is the same flag that we pledge allegiance to. This is the flag that is draped over coffins of dead young uniformed warriors killed while protecting Kid Crock's bony butt. He should be tarred and feathered, and ridden out of this country on a rail. Talk about a good reality show, there's one for you.
"The desire and will of this Congress to meaningfully do anything about any of these so-called social issues is non existent and embarrassingly disgraceful. The American people are waiting and growing impatient with us. They want something done.
"I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of S.J. Res. 26 along with Senator Allard and others, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. And S.1558, the Liberties Restoration Act, which declares religious liberty rights in several ways, including the Pledge of Allegiance and the display of the Ten Commandments. And today I join Senator Shelby and others with the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 that limits the jurisdiction of federal courts in certain ways.
"In doing so, I stand shoulder to shoulder not only with my Senate co-sponsors and Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama but, more importantly, with our Founding Fathers in the conception of religious liberty and the terribly wrong direction our modern judiciary has taken us in.
"Everyone today seems to think that the U.S. Constitution expressly provides for separation of church and state. Ask any ten people if that's not so. And I'll bet you most of them will say 'Well, sure.' And some will point out, 'it's in the First Amendment.'
"Wrong! Read it! It says, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Where is the word 'separate'? Where are the words 'church' or 'state.'
"They are not there. Never have been. Never intended to be. Read the Congressional Records during that four-month period in 1789 when the amendment was being framed in Congress. Clearly their intent was to prohibit a single denomination in exclusion of all others, whether it was Anglican or Catholic or some other.
"I highly recommend a great book entitled Original Intent by David Barton. It really gets into how the actual members of Congress, who drafted the First Amendment, expected basic Biblical principles and values to be present throughout public life and society, not separate from it.
"It was Alexander Hamilton who pointed out that 'judges should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty.' Bound down! That is exactly what is needed to be done. There was not a single precedent cited when school prayer was struck down in 1962.
"These judges who legislate instead of adjudicate, do it without being responsible to one single solitary voter for their actions. Among the signers of the Declaration of Independence was a brilliant young physician from Pennsylvania named Benjamin Rush.
"When Rush was elected to that First Continental Congress, his close friend Benjamin Franklin told him 'We need you. . . we have a great task before us, assigned to us by Providence.' Today, 228 years later there is still a great task before us assigned to us by Providence. Our Founding Fathers did not shirk their duty and we can do no less.
"By the way, Benjamin Rush was once asked a question that has long interested this Senator from Georgia in particular. Dr. Rush was asked, are you a democrat or an aristocrat? And the good doctor answered, 'I am neither '. 'I am a Christocrat. I believe He, alone, who created and redeemed man is qualified to govern him.' That reply of Benjamin Rush is just as true today in the year of our Lord 2004 as it was in the year of our Lord 1776.
"So, if I am asked why - with all the pressing problems this nation faces today - why am I pushing these social issues and taking the Senate's valuable time? I will answer: Because, it is of the highest importance. Yes, there's a deficit to be concerned about in this country, a deficit of decency.
"So, as the sand empties through my hourglass at warp speed - and with my time running out in this Senate and on this earth, I feel compelled to speak out. For I truly believe that at times like this, silence is not golden. It is yellow."
do all of you sit in front of your computers looking at blogs all day?? I go to all these blogs and its the same people every time. why is everyone so obsessed with blogs??
Perhaps you should ask yourself that same question, Anonymous. How would someone know that the same people blog all the time if they weren't checking it out all the time themselves? Are you obsessed? Are you obsessed with the potential obsessions of others?
Hey if you were wanting to know anonymous, that reply to your post that was anonymous was written by Neofascist..I am almost positive.(Just if you were wondering)
Wrong, Anonymous. But try again...
For example, ‘murder’ is absolutely wrong, unjustifiable in any circumstance.
--That's a pretty loaded argument. Of course murder is always wrong. The question is, is the taking another human's life always murder? Ever heard of justifiable homicide? There's a reason that justifiable homicide is in the books - because the taking of another person's life is not always, by definition, wrong.
You should use a different example to prove your point.
Wow, this is interesting... and very confusing.
I implore you, if you post anonymously, PLEASE sign your posts. You may certainly use a pseudonym if you wish, just use something so that we can address you. I like letting people post on my blog without a Blogger Profile, but I need a way to address you. I'm not mad... I'm just having... an identity crisis? haha!
Just so everyone knows, I do not generally post anonymously, and I don't post anonymously on my own blog for sure.
You know, I had a good argument, but I *completely* slaughtered it with the way I wrote that post... I think I'm going to revise it.
Will do...
club soda
why is everybody soo obsessed with blogs- and no i hardly ever go to blogs. but the ones that i have been to ive seen the same people. u guys need a hobby
What if blogging is a hobby? Would that be okay with you, or is there some other hobby more noble, or more worthy of my time? The thing that you perhaps don't understand about blogging, Anonymous, is that it's an intellectual exercise and allows you to hone opinions by writing them out and having others comment on those opinions. I can only speak for myself, but the rise of the blog has actually made me a more well-rounded person by forcing me to research and really study a variety of issues of varying complexity.
club soda
yeah a weird one
and its stupid to sit in front of your computer all day.
I love your links Neo... I really do!
Belligerent Anonymous,
"yeah a weird one"
(mock response 1)
Wonderful comeback! Wow, you're really showing how you shine with that one! Please, don't go "all out" on us! I'm frightened!
(mock response 2)
Huh, I never thought about it that way... I can't believe it! Thank you, thank you so much for showing me the error of my ways! I don't know what I'd do without you.
(mock response 3)
Oh, well if it's weird...
(end of mock responses)
Please enlighten us to some of your wholesome hobbies. I'm dying to know of all the ways you spend your time. I choose to blog for the same reasons that Club Soda just said.
I don't quite understand how it's *dumb* to make yourself *smarter* with your hobbies. Please enlighten me, since I'm just stupid for sitting in front of my computer all day (forget the tennis, mock trial, church, swimming, and various other activities that I participate in).
One final note: Not all blogs are run and frequented by the same people. This is one small corner of the blogosphere, and if you spend your time here, you'll see the same people. Rest assured though, there are many other bloggers.
youre really annoying neo
and if u want to know some of my hobbies i play tennis, take piano, i used to do dance i enjoy writing and i do a ton of other stuff
Why don't you use your blogger profile? It would be easier that way...
Really annoying? Oh well, you can't please everyone. You're the one who came over here and started attacking us, so I think you probably need a chill pill or two.
Nice hobbies, by the way. My list of hobbies happens to include blogging. Is there something wrong with that? I think dance is a weird hobby, but you're free to do it if you wish. We don't knock you for your hobbies; why do you knock us for ours?
thanks barney i really needed to know that(ser.) and i dont take dance anymore neo
Anon,
The point was not that you take dance; it was that we both have hobbies that the other would consider weird. Maybe I gave you too much credit, but I expected you to be able to see that.
Actually, Ser was right in her comment. You're just too prideful to listen to anyone.
As a warning, I hate deleting people's comments. Just uh... there's this thing called respect... try it sometime.
Y'all need to remember that there is a huge difference between hating and tolerating and tolerating and accepting. The term "tolerate" has been co-opted and stripped of its meaning by the minions of political correctness. These days, if I'm to tolerate something I'm actually being told I need to accept, and even celebrate it. Why should I be forced to accept something I disagree with? And, in this case, I disagree with homosexuality. But, you know what? I really don't care if Joe Neighbor is homosexual. I have a Christian obligation to help Joe if he needs help, and to counsel Joe if he looks for that type of counseling. But I'm not obligated to call Joe a sinner and tell him he's going to Hell. In that case I'd have to tell everybody in my neighborhood the same thing, because everybody sins. For some reason, homosexuality has received the lion's share of the attention in the Christian community. Meanwhile, every other sin enumerated in the Bible goes unchecked as we unhealthily concentrate on this one problem. If you check your Gospels, you'll note that Jesus says the smallest sin, and even just thinking about it, is worthy of damnation. Yet, the Gospel message, the Good News, is that we can be free from the bondage of sin here and in eternity through Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Believe in Him, repent, and be free.
I don't know about y'all, but I can't tell you how much that freedom has changed my life. Do y'all know what it's like to be a slave to sin, and I mean all kinds of sin? I do, and I still struggle with it, but I get a fresh start every day through Christ's forgiveness, and each day more of the old passes away, making me stronger, though it's not my strength, but that of the Spirit.
The truth is that everybody is a slave to something. Some are slaves to fashion, their peers, their job, whatever. The problem is, all those things in the world ultimately amount to nothing, and will discard you at the blink of an eye for the slightest reason. I prefer to answer the call of the Good Shepherd, who says, "I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd gives His life for the sheep. But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep." John 10:11-13
The hireling is everything of this world. Analyze your life and everything around you closely, and if you look closely enough, you should come to the realization that, if it benefits them in the slightest possible way, people and institutions will discard you in a nanosecond.
I went way off task there, but felt it had to be said to provide some background and perspective on the Gospel and those who believe its message. It must be understood that most of us believers have no animus toward homosexuals. Simply put, we tolerate the behavior, and don't hate, condemn or assault (physically or verbally) homosexuals, and never would.
From a strictly empirical standpoint, it is not a healthy lifestyle. Look at the statistics, from suicide to general health, and it is decidedly less healthy that a heterosexual lifestyle. Further, it is not a lifestyle that has ever been deemed by any society in world history as one that is equivalent to heterosexuality (and yes, I know about the Greeks and their practices, but it was not seen as a life-long lifestyle).
So, the feeling that homosexuality should not receive the same acceptance as heterosexuality, particularly as it relates to marriage, is not based simply on a subjective religious belief. As mentioned in another post on this topic, there's a very good chance it would not be in the general public's interest to recognize homosexual marriage. We have no clue, at this point, what the ramifications of "normalizing" the behavior would be. It's not wise to monkey with an institution like marriage; to damn the torpedoes and hope that it doesn't rip apart the fabric of society. And I'm not saying same-sex marriage will do that. I'm saying that we don't know, and if we don't know we should wait and see what the potential fallout is, if there is any. However, every time we have monkeyed with marriage, such as no-fault divorce, the consequences have proven to be disastrous. Our continued celebration of the single mom has literally destroyed children. I see it every day. I see how our moral laxity has made children feel utterly worthless and hopeless. Have you ever had a little girl tell you about the turmoil in her home caused by the live-in boyfriend while her real father (who came from a broken home) sits in jail? How she's scared and lonely? It's sickening that our society has enabled, and in fact encouraged, the abandonment of our children to the vices of the parents. Again, I'm not saying that same-sex marriage will do this, but I'm emphasizing the point that it's ridiculous to continue to tear the institution apart.
We always hear the emotional argument that a homosexual couple can help break this cycle and care for children in a loving home. The problem is that same-sex couples are not immune from divorce or any of the other relational problems of heterosexuals. In fact, particularly among male homosexuals, monogamy is not the norm, so it's safe to say that a same-sex marriage is more likely to be subject to divorce and disintegration.
club soda
Post a Comment
<< Home