The silencing of the lambs
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By intimidation. By ridicule. By legal action. By expulsion. By exclusion. That's the way the radical left seeks to win.
There has always been one end-game for the radical left: the silencing of dissenting voices, in particular conservative Christian voices.
The radical left is not simply interested in winning in the marketplace of ideas. It is not simply interested in changing hearts and minds. It is ultimately interested in silencing the opposition, especially all opposition that is based on a biblical worldview.
For years I have said that those who came out of the closet (meaning, radical gay activists) wanted to put us in the closet (meaning those of us who identify with conservative biblical values). And for years I (and many others) have documented this, time and time again.
You might wonder how the radical left wants to silence us. How, exactly, does it want to put us in the closet?
By intimidation. By ridicule. By legal action. By expulsion. By exclusion.
Anything to avoid civil, respectful debate. Anything to avoid a genuine discussion of differences. Anything to avoid true dialogue.
Instead, those who differ with the radical left are to be demonized, stigmatized, marginalized, and silenced.
Back in 2012, the gay activist organization GLAAD launched its Commentator Accountability Project. Its purpose was to discourage media outlets from having people like me on their broadcasts. (I was on of their initial list of 36 commentators. The list has greatly expanded now.)
Again, GLAAD's goal was not to provide useful information for the liberal media to refute our arguments. Instead, their goal was to discredit us and convince the media not to give us any platform.
In short, GLAAD's operating principles were simple. Exclude people, don't examine their ideas. Demonize them, don't dialogue with them.
That's why I said that GLAAD was not the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (their original acronym; now they're just GLAAD). Instead, I suggested, they should be known as the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement.
In that same spirit, it is the radical left which seeks to block conservative speakers from college campuses, even with violent protests.
It is the radical left which seeks to shame people on their jobs and humiliate them in their schools.
As for freedom of speech and expression, that must be a one-way street.
Only the ideas of the left are worthy of dissemination. Dissenters are no better than the Taliban, than ISIS, than the Nazis, than the KKK.
That's the way the radical left seeks to win.
And that's why a high school student was recently suspended for posting Bible verses in her school in response to LGBTQ pride displays. The displays were perfectly welcome. The Bible verses were not.
As I said, freedom of expression only goes one way.
The student, Gabby Helsinger, explains that she was called into the principal's office and "was asked why she posted the Bible verses.
"And I said, 'Because I wanted to spread the word of God,'" she said. "And [the principal] goes, 'Well, did you have permission?' And I said, 'No.' I didn't know you had to have permission because people do it a lot – putting Post-It notes on people's lockers, so I just did it."
"Gabby then asked the principal why any material that mentions God or Jesus, it gets removed 'straight away,' while 'gay pride stuff' can be put up all over school and openly discussed with no repercussions at all."
Enough said.
Or consider the unrelenting attack on Mike Pence, the vice president of the United States. He is a vile person. An ugly person. A person to be shamed by visiting dignitaries and ridiculed by outspoken celebrities. And his wife, Karen, is to be vilified as well. (Related article on OneNewsNow)
Why? Because he has the audacity to believe what virtually all branches of Christianity have believed for the better part of two millennia (namely, that marriage is for a man and a woman) and because his wife has the audacity to teach at a Christian school.
Such views can no longer be tolerated.
Forget about "tolerance" and "acceptance" and "diversity."
Those were just code words used to win over those in the middle. They were nothing more than Trojan horses through which intolerance and exclusivity could be smuggled in.
Once in place, the real agenda now comes to light. And make no mistake about it. It is an ugly, vile agenda. (Yes, I call things like drag queens reading to toddlers ugly and vile, all the more so when one of the drag queens is a registered sex offender.)
How then should we respond to this attempt to silence us? How should we respond to attempts to intimidate us and marginalize us?
Simple. We speak out more loudly and clearly. We take our stands more firmly and boldly. And the more we are hated and slandered, the more we respond with love and truth.
The darkness will never succeed in snuffing out the light.
For the second time this morning, I must say hmmmmmmmmm.
Feigning paranoia in order to foster it, is a standard gambit of fascist propaganda.
[deleted]
The brand of fear mongering paranoid propaganda being pushed by the far righwingers of America today would make Nazi Joseph Goebbels blush...
She says as she fear mongers....
It's understandable that people don't see the fear mongering of the left when they themselves are so entrenched in it.
The irony of the "Fascists on every street corner crowd' complaining about fear mongering paranoid paranoid propaganda is pretty rich.
Maybe they don't read their own seeds.
Which ones, Sean? Have you seen "fear mongering paranoid paranoid propaganda" (that double "paranoid" is very clever) on the left?
Look, the Gays are out of the closet and living next door to you raising children and leading happy lives.
Get used to it
Meh ..... same place they've always been but more are clearly "out" today.
Some are WAY OUT!
How so?
Can you cite any specific actions? Your seed says nothing specific. It's a screed of unsupported blither.
Do you have anything?
Well, in my opinion gays are no different than anyone else. You've got your fundamentalist pricks in the minority that's not happy unless unless it's shitting on anyone and everyone that doesn't goose-step in exact unison to their opinion. And then you've got the majority, just trying to live their lives, that gets a bloody nose because of it.
Can't we all just get along?
- Rodney King
Evidently ..... nope!
- Reality
You are free to believe whatever you believe, you are not free to discriminate.
How so?
Can you cite any specific actions? Your seed says nothing specific. It's a screed of unsupported blither.
Do you have anything
and fostering and adopting unwanted kids...
Re-purposing terms is a common tool in the fascist propagandit's bag of tricks.
Writing meaningless slogans in very large characters is also a common tool.
Sometimes the two are found together.
Pete and REPEAT would say otherwise :
I was born in a place where your ZIP code determines your destiny.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Well....her being elected to an office in congress ...shot that quote to SHIT !
Get the point ?
Probably not the same one you got.
"Where she was born" motivated OAC to become a champion of the poor and excluded.
So her quote stands... which of course has absolutely nothing to do with this seed... Right, XX?
her quote is still SHIT !
She made it....right ?
What was the difference between her and thee folks she grew up with ?
Was it she wasn't as dumb as her friends (which doesn't say much based on her comments now)
I do not understand.
I was Replying civilly to another member.
How is that "running amok"?
[deleted]
Removed for context
[deleted]
yep !
Weird....how those ladies CHEERED themselves vigorously, but sat when more courageous folks were recognized at that "Sit Down" !
Maybe Trump used too many BIG WORDS they couldn't understand ?
I'm waiting for them all to show up in in the Chairman Mao smock Hillary was preferential to.
Trust me .... its coming. General Tso's Smock shop is tooling up for it.
You're right, they were...as were conservative Christian's.
Now they're now both under the Republican banner.
Wonder what banner will be preferred in another 50 years. Green party? Independent? Socialist? I'll be dead as the political, cultural and societal issues continue 🤔
Why is this addressed to me?
removed for context [SP]
removed for context [SP]
The following words from the student is her tell! Self righteousness in the Christian community should NEVER be tolerated, defended or acceptable. A teachable moment, lost to arrogance...sad.
"Seeing that there (were) people in my school that needed help,” said Helsinger to Fox News. “They don’t need to be living in the confusion of wondering if they should be gay, bi, lesbian, trans -- anything like that. And I know that God is the only way that they can be healed by that, and that’s why I did it."
Another little twat who thinks she knows what's best for everyone
And why do these damn kids always lie about why they were suspended?
It appears she honestly believes it's her duty to have responded this way to the rainbow flags. Perhaps the failure is that of her parents and/or her faith community. Her response, IMO, does not appear to put forth the teachings of Christ. Further it's applauded by those who see no issue with her behavior. Sad, truly sad.
That's some serious misogyny directed at a child. Is that your vision of tolerance?
Don't you dare lecture me about misogyny
and you, neither KAG!
She did lie. She said she was suspended for posting bible verses around the school.
She was suspended for not getting permission first
[Removed]
really????
Is KAG that much of a snowflake he can't handle a little cussing?
y'all just fuck off
[Removed]
Amen. Christians were given 10 commandments that are largely broken on a regular basis. Why isn't there the same (or more) hysteria about breaking any on the Big 10 that Yahweh specifically set in stone?
Are the people throwing stones without sin or will they be judged as harshly as they are judging others?
Below is a video of a Christian woman telling about her journey of learning to accept and love and teach. She is typical of a person that I consider to be a follower of Christ.
Well done. Seed material IMO.
Indoctrination overcome by critical thinking necessitated by love.
I think it does. It shows an example of the religious bigotry at play and thus the need for people to fight back just to be treated equally.
Imagine coming of age, discovering your sexuality and being cast out of your social / family / church group because of your biological orientation.
Or, perhaps worse, forcing yourself to not be who you are so as to remain with your social / family / church group and not be cast aside as an abomination.
We need to get our heads out of ancient religious books and think like (at least semi)-intelligent 21st century people.
Or worse, finding yourself physically attacked on coming out, as was mentioned in the video. Thrown down the stairs and dishes thrown at her?
Not too different from what the Bible prescribes for homosexuals, really.
Such beliefs should be called out.
And harshly challenged.
And good Christians defending or even accepting such bigotry flies in the face of the 'good' adjective — seems to me.
You need to read the Bible:
I read a lot of evangelical blogs.
The unbearable cognitive dissonance between personally knowing good, kind, loving gays; and a preacher proclaiming that their "loving God" would condemn those gays to burn for eternity, is a sadly common experience for many.
They reject the preacher, which is good, but also sometimes Christ... which is not so good.
You are showing a profound lack of knowledge in the Abrahamic religions.
Really?
What you have said is that religion hates gay people but only your religion tolerates them.
You are specifically calling one religion horrible and cruel.
You then try to turn it all around on the heathen Democrats that are the problem.
The only overall problems are with Liberal people and Muslims.
Do you know how that even sounds? Ridiculous.
Just curious though, what religious domination are you?
You are now jumping to an extreme (diversion?).
The free exercise clause speaks about the ability to practice the religion of your choice. It does not, however, grant the ability to do anything in the name of religion. If it did, then certain religious groups could declare religious law and execute homosexuals (per the Bible) or commit honor killings (per the Qur'an).
By the same reasoning, being free to believe in and publicly worship a particular supreme entity does not grant you license for bigotry.
It also does not grant one freedom from being judged by one's peers if one happens to express bigoted beliefs.
It seems that some want the freedom to express their bigoted beliefs, but consider any derision of those beliefs to be oppression. They would gladly deny the right of speech to their detractors.
Those people are hypocrites.
I wish I were.
Hard to make that kind of stuff up.
I'd love to believe that people like this are rare... but they're not.
There are NT members who regularly express the same sentiments.
He tried to walk it back, saying he didn't really mean that he would drown them. Whatever.
He rather convincingly declared himself an asshole. No equivocating possible given what he said. Just imagine the level of bigotry at play here.
He edited his comment after the fact. Did you read what I quoted?
See?
That established. Given God held that male homosexual acts were an abomination worthy of the death sentence in the OT, did He change His mind for the NT (the new covenant)? Was God mistaken about the immorality of homosexual relations ... went too far with the death sentence? Did God have a change of heart? What is your view?
I have noticed a lot of times people don't want to say.
Very telling in itself.
What TiG put in block quote would be what was originally said.
Does it say in the NT that being gay is a sin?
So your justification for being against gay people is that the NT did not condemn everything.
Odd thinking there.
Edit: With that way of thinking, I could condemn most anything I wanted...
As I noted (and Ender noted), I quoted KAG's original comment in my reply. Apparently he edited his comment (putting in the New Testament qualification) after I had replied (and moved on). Had I seen the edited version I would have replied with something similar to how I replied to you:
Thing is, given this focus on the NT, I wonder if KAG (and you and others) ignore the parts of the OT that contradict your beliefs. I certainly can see how a Christian faith system would focus strictly on the NT and ignore the OT in its entirety citing the New Covenant. That would be somewhat consistent. But that is typically not done because the OT contains select stories such as Creation, the Garden of Eden (the ostensible origin of humankind), the 10 commandments, Noah's Ark, etc.
So, in result, people are taught cherry-picked portions of the OT. This begs the question as to what gives people the right to determine what part of the word of a perfect God should be accepted and what should be rejected?
Any comments on that?
Was God mistaken in the OT? Given God has never revised Leviticus 20:13 with a new rule, does that mean the death penalty is still in effect? Did it expire with the New Covenant in spite of Jesus' proclamation of:
Leviticus is part of the Pentateuch (i.e. the Torah) - Mosaic law. Jesus, as a Jew, was referencing OT Mosaic law.
Correct. Jesus was quiet on slavery, homosexuality and a host of other things treated rather clearly in the OT. Paul is the loudest voice on homosexuality:
So the NT (at least per Paul) does not contradict the laws of God (in the OT) and indeed suggests that homosexual acts (now lesbians are included) is punishable (due penalty).
The Bible certainly gives plenty of ammunition to bigots. Maybe it is not the best source for morality.
Not sure what you mean by 'preference' but the word in common English implies a choice. Presuming common English, do you think your nephew simply chooses to prefer men? That he could just change his mind and now prefer women? If he could do that, then can you imagine changing your own mind and choosing to prefer men?
I for one know that there is no possible way for me to choose to be sexually attracted to men. I have wondered my entire life what women see in us and it baffles me (happy they do like us, but ... ). So when someone suggests that a gay man has a sexual preference (which implies a choice rather than a biological mandate) I wonder if the question: 'could I change my own sexual orientation' is privately, seriously pondered?