“Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate analysis, Part IV: Straw men and the Bible
Abolish Human Abortion followers love to use the term “straw man” to dismiss pro-life arguments that point out their inconsistencies.
(For example, during their recent “Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate, AHA’s T. Russell Hunter called it a “very, very silly straw man” when Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s Gregg Cunningham challenged Hunter for saying he would let a secularist save the life of his 2-year-old but not let a secularist help him save the lives of children marked for abortion [beginning at 1:20:20 on the video].)
So today let’s talk about straw men.
Repeatedly throughout the debate, Hunter blamed incrementalists for the fact that abortion has remained legal in the U.S. for 43 years, and this because we don’t have enough faith in God. Excerpted from his closing argument (1:53:39-1:59:47), italicized/underlined emphases mine for points to make afterward:
The Word of God is clear on at least this point. When there are grave injustices and evils going on in your midst, you ought to, because you love your neighbor, do justice and show mercy.
My big beef – my big problem- with the incrementalism is that people, instead of trusting in the Word of God and coming together as the bride of Christ and bringing the Gospel into conflict with the evil of the age, and doing what we are commanded to do, instead of being like Jonah to Nineveh, we go and we say, “What do the laws say? What can I get within the current federal ruling?”…
The debate between immediatism and incrementalism, when it’s couched in the, “which should we rally around, which should we come together,” if all Christians had to say, I’m going to go all my funding all my energy, my time, my talent, my church, which project should the people of God do? You may call it binary. Should we all pick up the ax and lay it to the trunk of the tree over and over and over, no matter how long it takes…. Should we do that – should that be what we unify around – or should we continue to say that’s good, I like that, but I’m gonna work on cutting down these branches….
My contention is that the people of God are under a false delusion that incrementalism is what they ought to be paying attention to. They ought to be unifying….
I don’t find incrementalism in the Bible. I don’t find incrementalism in the historical record of fighting social justice, except for that it is as a tutor to tell us don’t play around with it….
It’s just a question of like, do you believe in that God?…
If we can get people to believe in Him and trust in Him we can abolish abortion. But if we can’t get people to believe in Him and trust in Him we will not abolish abortion.
The emphasized sections highlight three flaws – straw men, if you will – in Hunter’s logic.
False premise
First, Hunter sets up a false premise, claiming we must choose between immediatism and incrementalism.
But Hunter is the only one “couching” it as an either/or. As Cunningham repeatedly rebutted, Hunter’s assumption is flawed and binary. Incrementalists pursue both strategies. We can walk and chew gum. Hunter apparently can’t.
Let babies stuck in the branches die
Second, Hunter glosses over the babies he is callously willing to sacrifice while focusing on chopping down the abortion tree with his ax, “no matter how long it takes.” Russell repeatedly refuses to stop and own the span of time between when immediatists began axing and when the tree falls. How exactly do we “show mercy” to our neighbors caught in the branches of abortion while ignoring them to hack at the tree “over and over and over, no matter how long it takes“?
Blame incrementalists when immediatism fails
Third, Hunter says we only need faith to stop abortion, but apparently the faith of he and his band isn’t strong enough. If they fail, it’s our fault. International Coalition of Abolitionist Societies reiterated their convenient escape hatch/scapegoat in a recent Facebook post:
In other words, there’s a Goliath II blocking AHA from getting to Goliath I.
Scott Klusendorf of Life Training Institute responded to that logic fail in his article analyzing the debate:
Hunter never once said how his policy of immediatism plays out in the real world. How, exactly, does it work to insist on the immediate abolition of abortion? Got the votes for that? Here is where Hunter’s argument is truly self-sealing. He states that if only all incrementalists would become immediatists, we could take the ax to the root and win.
So there you have it. When you can’t explain how your strategy actually works in the real world, you just fault your opponents for your failure to execute. This reminds me of faith healers who blame the victim for “not having enough faith” when he doesn’t immediately recover from a systemic illness….
… Hunter’s reply was that pro-life incrementalists don’t trust the power of the risen Lord and thus don’t embrace immediatism. But wait. If Hunter truly believes the power of the risen Lord enables us to end abortion immediately, why wait for us? Doesn’t that same power enable small groups as well as large ones?
If so, stop blaming the pro-life movement for not joining your immediatist crusade. After all, the gospel proclamation began with just twelve men, accompanied by signs and wonders, proclaiming the power of the risen Jesus in the very city where he was crucified in the face of hostility far worse than Hunter faces today.
Hunter also stated, “I don’t find incrementalism in the Bible.” If so, it’s only because he doesn’t want to. Cunningham gave but three examples (2:00:12-2:02:16), as summarized by Klusendorf:
First, Paul (1 Cor. 3) works incrementally to convey hard truths to weak brothers in the faith. He gives them milk instead of solid food. He revealed God’s law to them incrementally so they could digest it. Second, Jesus (Mark 10:4) says that God instructed Moses to relax the law on marriage because the people were not ready for tough divorce codes just then. Gradually, however, Christ toughens those laws. Jesus said this! Third, when Peter asked about paying the temple tax, Jesus compromised and paid lest he offend weaker Jews. Jesus was skillfully picking his fights!
Klusendorf added:
Commenting on the debate, Dr. Marc Newman, professor of rhetoric at Regent University and well-known debate coach, writes:
Look at Acts 17, with Paul on Mars Hill. He preaches a sermon during which he, quite interestingly, doesn’t cite a single scripture, but does invoke the local religion, philosophers, and poets. At the end, some scoff, some convert, and others say that they want to hear more on this subject.
Similarly, God in his foreknowledge and omnipotence, could convert all of the elect in the womb, but he does not. C.S. Lewis came to Christ incrementally: from an atheist, to a mythologist, to a theist, to a Christian - and this road has been traveled by many others.
God saves people in much the same way that incrementalists save children. God makes it clear that it is His desire that all be saved (1 Tim. 2:3-4), and that He takes no delight in the destruction of the wicked (Ez. 33:11). Nevertheless, we all come, one at a time. This one gets saved, then that one.
Imagine if the apostles waited until they crafted a strategy that resulted in the salvation of everyone before they actually began evangelizing? The Church would have been strangled in its cradle. No. The Apostle Paul says that he works separately among the cultures in all ways that don’t require him to compromise the core of the faith, becomes all things to all men, that by all means, he might saves some - not all, some (1 Cor. 9:19-23). Paul even declares that he will live as one under the law, even though he is not under the law, if by doing so he can save some. If Paul was an incrementalist, count me in.
In short, if Paul and the other apostles didn’t immediately end the social ills of their day by applying the power of the risen Christ, what makes Hunter think he can do so today?
Actually, as he stated during the debate and elsewhere, Hunter doesn’t believe “immediatism” means “immediate,” the topic of my next post.
Also read:
Prologue
Part I: Let babies die today, we can save the rest later
Part II: There’s only one way to cut down a tree?
Part III: Social justice history vs TR Hunter
Scott Klusendorf: Debate between Gregg Cunningham and T. Russell Hunter
Jonathan Van Maren: Four observations from the Cunningham vs. Hunter debate
I love Fundamentalist Christians. I genuinely do, and I appreciate their fervor.
So it is with genuine sadness in my heart that I must admit: The arguments that Fundamentalists make usually do not make sense to other Christians, and we wonder why they even make sense to Fundamentalists.
It seems that Fundamentalist culture and tradition carries as much weight as the Bible does, even though this violates their fundamental principle of “Scripture Alone.”
It does not matter whether Hunter cannot “find” incrementalism in Scripture or not. According to Fundamentalist principles, it only matters if he can find a positive prohibition against incrementalism. If we can find advice in Scripture that speaks of stepwise advancing toward the goal of evangelization or discipline, then our work is “biblical” enough. If he can find an example in Scripture of immediatism in evangelization or discipline, then he is also “biblical,” according to his own standards.
We have examples of stepwise catechesis (milk first, then then solid food). We have examples of stepwise discipline (talk to the brother alone, then before a few witnesses, then judgment before the Church). So his failure to find biblical examples of incrementalism is not our problem.
Just saying: Catholicism has the concept of “inculturation.” We find ourselves in a pagan culture that kills its children. We need to re-establish Christian faith into the life of this culture. While the Bible is always helpful in guiding insights, we do not rely on Scripture alone to know and accomplish this goal of inculturation.
Thus, Catholics and Evangelicals in solidarity have invented the Sidewalk Prayer Vigil…. which is a good and useful tool for both the Incrementalist and the Immediatist. We may find an example of something like this in Scripture, or maybe not.
We don’t need Scripture to tell us to pray.
8 likes
My problem with the Immediatism v. Incrementalism debate is that it is focused rather solely on the political aspect of pro-life work. The main work of pro-life is to change the culture. Laws and court decisions are merely tools in that larger struggle. We may get pro-life laws to lead the culture to life, and we may get pro-life laws only after we have a culture of life.
The laws alone will not end abortion.
The Immediatist attitude betrays too much faith in Washington DC, and not enough faith in God.
7 likes
Ms. Stanek, I have carefully followed your critiques of the recent debate and I thank you for your strong, honest, and loving words. Flannery O’Connor once wrote that we should push as hard as the age that pushes against us, and the abolitionist coterie is pushing fiercely. There are constant quarrels, controversies, and dissention with this bunch but pointed and patient analysis of these brothers and sisters in Christ will yield some fruit in the end, God willing.
9 likes
hmmm…Del. I seem to remember you chiding me and “warning” me not to dismiss and lump together a whole “ecclesiastical” community. Although the one I was taking issue with is blatantly pro-child killing.
Your hypocrisy aside, I do actually agree with you that fundamentalists hold their “culture” to be just as sacred as Scripture and it is this that I have always argued against and taken issue with. And I am a fundamentalist.
Nothing wrong with tradition but when you hold tradition as equal to scripture you start to go down paths that MAY eventually directly contradict God’s Word. And that is what Christians need to guard against.
2 likes
Thanks, Sydney. For keeping an eye on me, and holding me accountable.
2 likes
Isn’t homosexual marriage winning by incrementalism? State by State?
And the vote for that is coming up this spring, so isn’t this kind of another AHA inspired distraction? I understand AHA is well intentioned, but unless we as Christians are aware that even good Christians are targeted by the devil(some would say even more so), shouldn’t we focus troops on bolstering the line where it’s weakest?
I, as a well intentioned Christian, have been distracted by well intentioned Christians before, and it always came at a time where my energy was more needed elsewhere. Understandably, the devil was doing his best at bashing our heads in together.
If this supreme court vote passes, then in places like Virginia, and other commonwealth states that have a magistrate that can legally issue an arrest warrant on behalf of the state against any citizen SUSPECTED of breaking the law, the first people to get arrested will be those upholding their religious beliefs. They don’t need to get a judge to issue a warrant. All they have to do is go to the magistrate and point their finger at some one. However, there will be no penalty of purjury, because the charge of discrimination will be totally valid, as homosexual marriage rights will be legally enforced, a mandate, by law.
Politicians like Hillary & Biden are just licking their chops waiting to be able to divide the churches down the line and create social justice outreach ministries out of churches after they take away our tax-exempt status. You can forget about overturning Roe V. Wade.
You will have to try to just stay out of jail, that is, if you profess Christ. I don’t know if going to jail on behalf of your loyalty to God is incrementalist or not, but that his how these homosexual advocates are winning, one state at a time, and then… this spring, if we don’t just focus in on ground zero here, all at once with a national constitutional ammendedment, basically to dissolve marriage into nothing more than a grounds to ILLEGALIZE anything a homosexual does not find particularly pleasing to his or her “choices.” It will be like shopping for victims for them. One at a time.
Worst part is six of these supreme court justices are Catholic, I believe. AHA should be having a feild day with this one, but no. They, as usual, are concerned with being what the bible explicitly says to avoid; contentious people. I wonder if in their version of the bible the
translator used the word “clash” instead of contentious. That would make sense, but I hope it’s just that they don’t know what they are doing when they piss upwind.
Hunter should stop emulating Christ, its like watching Biden try to be Catholic. Just be a servant, you will be more like Christ that way, and less like Biden.
3 likes
Can Immediatists prove that the Incrementalist approach means a delay in an overall abortion ban?
If they can, then they have a case. If not, then not.
5 likes
As a matter of fact, how about a ban on buying anything Starbucks until the Supreme Court justices decide on marriage?
It would:
a. make the news
b. make the water coolers at workplaces.
c. make it personal, by further raising awareness on the fatal vote by making it into private conversations(and the household, making the “starbucks boycott” infamous, heroic and underdoggy(americans love underdogs)) as in;
Christian 1: “hey, lets meet someplace,”
Christian 2: “Okay, where”
Christian 1: “How about our usual place at Starbucks,”
Christian 2 “I can’t , I’m participating in the boycott. Have you heard?”
Christian 1 “No I haven’t what is going on?”
Christian 1: “OMG, you haven’t!?!, Let me get you up to date since all the new stations want to talk about is the same thing over and over and over again. This is what time it is…”
Pastors should be ON TOP OF THIS, because it is their tax exempt status on the line, as well as possibly their freedom outside of jail time, and some business killing fines that will devastate their livelihoods, much less their lifestyles. I think giving up a little bit of starbucks goes a long way. Its a form of fasting and sacrifice, which God says we should do. And it’s communicating in the only language many of these elites can understand: money & demographics.
As a matter of fact, starbucks is becoming an IKON in many liberal circles. I see the starbucks bumper stickers on the backs of the same cars which also sport “I’m ready for Hillary” and Rainbow Peace Frog, bumper stickers. So we really should not be eating the food of idols if it leads others to think we are not pracitcing the Christian faith as we claim to be, and it makes a visual statement in the community, It makes people accountable and it’s a show of hands.
Pastors have a vested interest in this one here. And, oh yeah, Starbucks gives tons to PP as well… so maybe that fast would last until the Supreme Court overturns Roe Vs. Wade.
But at least start with preserving what is left of America, and if that means starving starbucks… I suggest Pete’s Coffee, LIFEBOAT COFFE: FREAKING JET FUEL and have other not so potent blends, most importantly they promote life and preserve marriage. http://lifeboatcoffee.com ( and it actually is better coffee, it’s less acidic and a richer blend if you can believe it, they get it from all over the globe). Those are just 2. I don’t know that much about Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf, but Panera has good coffee, so… Starbucks has other brands they serve tho–I think seattles best might be starbucks too, so its kind of important to hit them in the wallet, like-good and hard.
And didn’t we talk about this already… (what are you waiting for?) https://www.jillstanek.com/2012/05/should-pro-lifers-buy-starbucks/
0 likes
What a plethora of near-hysterical exaggerations Angels. All same-sex marriage will do is remove the unjustified discrimination against homosexuals. That’s it. Churches will not be forced to do anything. You as a christian will not be forced to do anything. It certainly won’t ‘illegalize’ anything a homosexual doesn’t find ‘pleasing’. “Choices”? You mean the right to marry the person they love, just like everybody else can?
2 likes
“As a matter of fact, how about a ban on buying anything Starbucks until the Supreme Court justices decide on marriage?”
Honestly, given the absurdly burnt taste of their coffee, let’s just not buy Stabucks in general. Also, I’m still punishing them for the stupidity of that #RaceTogether nonsense.
3 likes
“unjustified discrimination” ???
And who decides what that means? If it were harmless, then the institutions of marriage would not be the focus of the debate. That is the central building block of society, not a fringe element. You shouldn’t have to redefine something to engage in it. It doesn’t work for you? Find something else, don’t ruin it for the ones who need it to securely flourish; not to mention survive mothers, children and incidentally, fathers as well.
And yes, children depend on a mother and father figure, without which an UNFILLABLE void remains. Both contribute their own unique value to that circumstance and the fact that there is an institution that concerns itself SOLELY with that agenda is not only heartwarming, it is brutally invaluable, even a priceless experience to ones upbringing. I’m sorry everyone can’t have that, but those that have that blessing, cherish it in one way or another. You’d be a fool not to. No world is perfect, but we must have Boundaries and definitions if we are to maintain any SEMBLANCE of structure over our order. Otherwise, it’s like you yourself said; unjustified discrimination will be the new law of the land, and anyone can get arrested for any reason, as long as it falls under some one, somewhere’s idea of unjustified discrimination. BTW, did you know satanists can legally torture and sacrifice animals in their rituals? Would Redefining marriage do anything to stop ISIS in Texas, or maybe it would protect ISIS from unjust discrimination in their own uncaring pursuit of justice, which involves cutting the noses of women off whom they suspect of committing adultery, if that lady should be so lucky?
If your idea of justice is not caring about the rights of others, because you have a more superficial benefit in domineering over those others rights, and claiming them as your own, even though you don’t care what they will lose, nor o you want to deal with the liabilities that maintaining those same standards would bring to bear upon you and your own SUPERFLUOUS actions… then you really need to be honest with yourself, your selfish. Not only that, but you yourself must realize that in that, is a discrimination, by you against those willing to sacrifice before an altar to abide by the standards of what the sacrifice of flesh and blood on that altar means, a total and complete sacrifice of self for the welfare of others, which you are unwilling to do. Not only that, but you are going to take away the rights of others willing to do that, so you yourself can be seen as Jesus on the cross. Who are you putting on this show for, Reality? Get real. Call yourself Fantasy.
In order to keep the dream alive, and give children the best possible opportunity for a chance, we need to keep that one last man standing. Preserve marriage. Boycott Starbucks. Pray.
I saw giant lifesavers on billboards out in Los Angeles… no wait, that was not a lifesaver. It read LIFESAVER, but it was actually a picture of a rainbow colored condom made to look like a package of candies you would suck on. This. In the porn / child abuse capitol of America. So really, Reality, what reality are your idealist friends trying to send to these most exploited young people, whom already can’t get a break from even the advertisers of safe sex-much less same sex marriage? This isn’t for the children. It’s for selfish grownups who want to claim a status. Traditional marriage IS for children. Simple. Don’t get it still?
Please tell me you got it.
Those people fighting for a gay redefinition do look loving, and are fuzzy and warm=and they are! BUT, BIG BUTT—that DOES NOT mean they CARE about the FULL ramnifications of their actions. King Kong was warm and fuzzy too, and look what he did to NYC. Same thing, dude. Know your place, and don’t mess with others’. Gay is NOT the new Black. These are not people who can’t get jobs. They have effing GREAT jobs. As a matter of fact, some of them are running the movie industry, and wear Prada & Gucci every day. I am guessing you get many of your talking points from these people. These are not the same people who marched for the right to vote. These people who your ‘defending’ wear leather chaps when they march. Some don’t wear pants.
Oh, I came back for a reason which was please scroll down to the bottom of the https://www.jillstanek.com/2012/05/should-pro-lifers-buy-starbucks/ comment section for a laughable moment… so worth it.
0 likes
“race together”? pah-leeze don’t make me research that. Pray tell, thee, what is it?
1 likes
And who decides what that means? – society. It took some time but eventually society decided discrimination on the basis of color or gender was wrong. And now it is realizing that discrimination on the basis of sexuality is also wrong. Same-sex marriage will harm no one.
If it were harmless, then the institutions of marriage would not be the focus of the debate. – how do you figure that. It is happening exactly because it is harmless. Marriage is the topic.
That is the central building block of society, not a fringe element. – if you think it’s a central building block of society then why shouldn’t it include all loving couples, some of whom have children.
You shouldn’t have to redefine something to engage in it. – it isn’t being redefined. Its just removing the bit that says “everyone except you gays.”
It doesn’t work for you? – it works, it works for heterosexuals and it works for homosexuals.
Find something else, don’t ruin it for the ones who need it to securely flourish; not to mention survive mothers, children and incidentally, fathers as well. – it isn’t being ruined for anyone. Most homosexuals are born of happily married heterosexuals.
And yes, children depend on a mother and father figure, without which an UNFILLABLE void remains. – pity there are so any single parent families then isn’t it. Should we remove the children of those who divorce or become widowed?
Would derestricting marriage do anything to stop ISIS in Texas, or maybe it would protect ISIS from unjust discrimination – will retaining the discrimination do so? How?
If your idea of justice is not caring about the rights of others, because you have a more superficial benefit in domineering over those others rights, and claiming them as your own, even though you don’t care what they will lose, nor o you want to deal with the liabilities that maintaining those same standards would bring to bear upon you and your own SUPERFLUOUS actions… then you really need to be honest with yourself, your selfish. – I think the most concise response I can give to this is that you must have been looking in the mirror when you said it. You are the one not caring about the rights of others. You don’t care what people are losing. You will lose zero, zip, nada. Liabilities? What are you on about?
Not only that, but you yourself must realize that in that, is a discrimination, by you against those willing to sacrifice before an altar to abide by the standards of what the sacrifice of flesh and blood on that altar means – what utter tripe. You are not being discriminated against. Preventing you from discriminating against others is not discriminating against you. You are not being forced to do anything or prevented from doing what you want. You and your altar are free to proceed as usual.
Not only that, but you are going to take away the rights of others willing to do that, – you are losing no rights whatsoever. Except perhaps the right to unjustifiably discriminate. Yet that still won’t be a preventative or a coercion in what you do.
so you yourself can be seen as Jesus on the cross. Who are you putting on this show for, Reality? – what jesus? What cross? They aren’t in my vernacular. You are the one holding yourself out to be the singularity that you think everyone else should be. Get over yourself.
Get real. Call yourself Fantasy. – get a grip. Stop fantasizing that not being able to dictate how others live in any way dictates how you live.
You conflate homosexuality with porn and child abuse? I and my friends in non-discrimination and fairness for all are sending a message of non-discrimination and fairness for all.
It’s for selfish grownups who want to claim a status. – which is exactly what you are doing.
Traditional marriage IS for children. Simple. Don’t get it still? Please tell me you got it. – so you would disallow marriage for those who cannot or will not have children? What about those disgusting, wrinkly old perverts who wish to wed? Marriage is for people who love each other. Some choose to have children. It’s high time you got that.
Those people fighting for a gay redefinition do look loving, and are fuzzy and warm – it isn’t a redefinition. It’s the removal of a discriminatory element. At least someone is capable of being loving, fuzzy and warm.
that does not mean they care about the full ramnifications of their actions. – the only ramification is equality. Nothing else. Certainly nothing negative.
King Kong was warm and fuzzy too, and look what he did to NYC. – and why did he do so?
Same thing, dude. Know your place, and don’t mess with others’ – says she who is doing all she possibly can to mess with others. Know your own place.
1 likes
Isn’t homosexual marriage winning by incrementalism? State by State?
Their response to that one is usually along the lines of “Eww, we shouldn’t do what those yucky homosexuals do even if it actually works”.
3 likes
Dear me Navi, you are sooo cheeky sometimes :-)
2 likes
“These are not people who can’t get jobs. They have effing GREAT jobs. As a matter of fact, some of them are running the movie industry, and wear Prada & Gucci every day. I am guessing you get many of your talking points from these people. These are not the same people who marched for the right to vote. These people who your ‘defending’ wear leather chaps when they march. Some don’t wear pants.”
Um… did you get your idea of the average LGBT person from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy or something? I mean, come on now. No all LGBT people are as terrifying as you think. Some of us are mechanics and parents, haha.
2 likes
“race together”? pah-leeze don’t make me research that. Pray tell, thee, what is it?”
It was some dumb idea the people are Starbucks head office got wherein the baristas would write #racetogether on customers’ coffee cups and the customer would then have the option of discussing race relations with them. Because apparently they though that was something somebody somewhere would want to do for some reason.
1 likes
“Isn’t homosexual marriage winning by incrementalism? State by State?”
Navi already covered this very well, but I would like to add that from what I’ve seen AHAers don’t consider geographical incrementalism to be “real: incrementalism, at least not in the sense of being the type of incrementalism that they oppose. I think the argument is something like each government only has authority over a specified area, so if they ban all abortion within that area they are doing as much as it is within that government’s power to do.
1 likes
[…] vs Incrementalist” debate against Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s Gregg Cunningham by stating the tree of abortion must be hacked with an ax “over and over and over, no matter how long […]
0 likes
JDC, about the #racetogether thing… I agree it’s silly to have baristas do that. I mean, people wanna go in and get coffee, not have an in-depth conversation about race relations and institutionalized racism. It’s not likely to go well. I don’t think it’s bad that people are trying to get conversations going, though.
1 likes
*”real”
1 likes
“‘that does not mean they care about the full ramnifications of their actions.’ – the only ramification is equality. Nothing else. Certainly nothing negative.”
Okay, so here’s the problem, the advocates for homosexual marriage are closing down businesses, and terrorizing people, and vandalizing churches.
So… they don’t care about anyone other than themselves with this agenda. They could tear down the entire country, and they will still be in denial about their responsibility, here. If they wanted marriage in a church, they would do that, but no… they have to redefine the entire institution. There’s a reason that can’t access traditional marriage in a church, and that’s because they chose something else. They have to accept that, those who own and operate those churches do not want form themselves and their families what homosexuals want for these others and their families. Two different worlds and to force one on another is a dictatorship.
I’m glad you can see that King King was throwing a great big hissyfit, much like these tyrants taking over the supreme court, marriage and America.
0 likes
oh that is hilarious, race together. I mean, I don’t know… okay, well… thats… that’s the thing. See you can’t just make people do something and expect them to follow through with the suggestion, it has to be organic, otherwise it’s just weird and dictatory. You see… that’s why freedom of religion is our first right. Because once you take that away, anyone can come along and tell anyone to do anything, because their religion is higher up on the food chain.
That’s the thing, once you break it into the churches that the government CAN make laws pertaining to religious institutions, you lose every. other. right. To those at the top of the food chain. And right now, Isis is might = right. So there’s your gay marriage for you, and they are NOT going to be so friendly towards men wanting to marry men in their houses of worship.
0 likes
Okay, so here’s the problem, the advocates for homosexual marriage are closing down businesses, and terrorizing people, and vandalizing churches. – not true.
So… they don’t care about anyone other than themselves with this agenda. no, that would be you with your agenda. Nothing is being taken from you. Nothing at all. Yet your continue to take from others.
They could tear down the entire country, and they will still be in denial about their responsibility, here. – talk about overwrought! No harm will be done to the country or anyone or anything in it by inclusiveness. If anything it is people such as you who are continuing to perpetuate harm.
If they wanted marriage in a church, they would do that, – you know that isn’t true. Churches will not be forced to conduct same-sex marriages. Marriage is a civil act, they will take place under the auspices of the state. Churches merely add ritual to the event. It is good to see that some churches do wish to be a part of the future though.
but no… they have to redefine the entire institution. – no, it is not being redefined. Its just removing the bit that says “everyone except you gays. ”
There’s a reason that can’t access traditional marriage in a church, and that’s because they chose something else. – some churches have chosen to move with the times. Others have chosen something else.
They have to accept that, those who own and operate those churches do not want form themselves and their families what homosexuals want for these others and their families. Two different worlds and to force one on another is a dictatorship. – they do accept that. They are not dictating to anyone. That’s the domain of people such as yourself.
I’m glad you can see that King King was throwing a great big hissyfit, much like these tyrants taking over the supreme court, marriage and America. – you’re the one having the hissyfit. You want to stop people doing something you don’t like which will have no impact on you whatsoever. If anyone is behaving in a tyrannical manner it is you. Unless you mean those judges who deemed a corporation as being able to have a religious mind.
What you are saying basically amounts to – “when we criticize and discriminate against you, we’re exercising our religious freedom. When you criticize us for discriminating against you, we’re being persecuted.”
0 likes
[…] II: There’s only one way to cut down a tree? Part III: Social justice history vs TR Hunter Part IV: Straw men and the Bible Part V: Sacrificing children to the idol of abolitionism Scott Klusendorf: Debate between Gregg […]
0 likes
[…] Part IV: Straw men and the Bible […]
0 likes
[…] II: There’s only one way to cut down a tree? Part III: Social justice history vs TR Hunter Part IV: Straw men and the Bible Part V: Sacrificing children to the idol of abolitionism Part VI: Christians and the legislative […]
0 likes