December 23, 2013

On the "Duck Dynasty" flap, Mike Huckabee is opposing and fomenting the squelching of anti-gay speech.

He said:
"I think it's come to a point in our culture where political correctness has made it so if you want to take a point of view that is traditional, that holds to a steadfast, old-fashioned biblical, Christian values - which are also, by the way, values of traditional Judaism and even Islam - and somehow you're just supposed to shut up and keep that to yourself."

Huckabee pointed to a "new level of bullying on the part of these militant activist groups,” as reason for Robertson's suspension by A&E, referring to groups like the Human Rights Campaign, which urged the network to suspend the star.

But Huckabee conceded that Robertson's comments would have been "more appropriate for the duck woods than it would be for the pages of a major news magazine."
So Huckabee is part of moving the culture to the very point that he's observing that it's come to. There really are things you don't say in mixed company, and it's long been part of the culture to refrain from voicing religious views that make other people uncomfortable. In Christianity, there are many many sins, and it's not socially acceptable to talk about all of them openly and indiscriminately.

If you don't believe me, here's an experiment you can do over the next 3 days. Whenever you find yourself in a conversation with a fat person, inform them that gluttony is a sin. Here are some Biblical verses you can incorporate into your experience:
Proverbs 23:20-21 warns us, “Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags.” Proverbs 28:7 declares, “He who keeps the law is a discerning son, but a companion of gluttons disgraces his father.” Proverbs 23:2 proclaims, “Put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony.”
Let me know how that works out for you. But you won't do it, because you know it's not acceptable.

What people are having trouble with is the somewhat sudden change, with hostility to homosexuality moving into the category of something not appropriate to spout to a general audience.

And that doesn't mean Phil Robertson shouldn't have said what he said. He was being interviewed and pressed on a topic and he answered honestly. He has a reality show that is entertaining because it's somewhat daring and different, and people can choose whether they'd like to drop in on this particular cast of colorful characters. The culture of the show is a different, smaller circle than the whole American culture. And the network, A&E, is another culture. It includes some entertainment premised on colorful indiscretions that go only as far as fits a corporate brand.

We're in the process of figuring out what you can say where, what has no consequences, what counts as funny or daring and offensive to some but not enough to have a negative effect a speaker or a network, and what everyone ought to know by now is going to hurt you.

What hurts a business like A&E is different from what hurts an individual human being, especially one who believes he is building up his treasures in heaven.

330 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 330 of 330
harrogate said...

"But because it's baked in, the Robertsons can aggrandize while plausibly denying that they are. 'Hey! What's your problem? This is just how we are!'"


Heh, the Kardashian defense. A tried and true classic.

MaxedOutMama said...

Fat people are told all the time that they are unhealthy. Insurance companies demand that they lose weight/attend wellness classes or pay higher premiums.

Your claim is complete bullshit. A segment of society has tried to make the word "sin" a no-no in polite company, but that doesn't mean that we don't talk about and levy penalties on "sins" all the time.

Sin taxes are alive and well.

No, your contention is that promiscuous sexual behavior is not allowed to be called "unhealthy" or "sin" in polite society, but that only means that we're all hypocrites on the topic, because everybody thinks it is.

Nor, btw, is your theory of polite society at all an accurate description of US society.

Ralph Hyatt said...

"Ralph, I'm simply refuting your OWN statement. You are wrong, it does not require acceptance of a God to be moral. Humans are capeable of self regulation, call it human decency."

Never made any such claim.

Non-religious can act in a moral manner just as religious can act immorally.

I have claimed that natural law comes from God. But you don't have to accept that in order to follow it.

But this is just an attempt to change the subject.

Therefore, I will cede to Inga the victory. Atheists and agnostics are not all murders and thieves. Religious folk are not all sinless plaster saints.

sunsong said...

Ralph Hyatt,

Because it goes without saying.

No, I don't think it does. And certainly, my opinion is that Robertson takes no care whatsoever about "how" he is going to say what he says or what kind of impact it will have. I think he probably wants to "shock" people - which is anther thing that adolescents like to do.

I don't agree with you that his comments aren't hurtful... to lump all kinds of supposed people and *sins* together and damn them is, imo, very hurtful...

All he had to say is that he is a literalist Christian and he believes every word in the Bible, or something like that. That's all he had to say, imo.

I also don't agree with you that it is ok to say horrible things about people you don't even know. Nor do I agree that it is ok because they aren't that way because they are gay they are that way because they reject God (your God). He is saying that indeed they are that way, imo. To me, he is clearly saying that. And that is hurtful in a way that beyond the pale, imo. It looks to me like it is intended to be hurtful.

I believe that people can be as mean spirited and cruel and hurtful as they want to be (as long as they aren't physically hurting people or breaking the law) - but that does not mean there won't be consequences. Other people have the right to respond to bullies and hurtful people.

This guy comes across to me as functioning at an adolescent level - just as Cruz and Palin etc do. I am happy to see them coalescing together in favor of their *right* to freedom without responsibility :-) I think it is helpful to know who stands for what :-)

Also, for the record I don't believe that God is anything like that. God is Love, I believe. Not Love and condemnation. I also think we have pretty concluded our "conversation" here. Hopefully agreeing to disagree. Thanks.

FullMoon said...

Kirk Parker said...

I stopped reading at "Huckabee".


Ummmm, yeah, right. I tell all the children, listen to everybody, sort it out for yourself.

sunsong said...

I think this is funny:

Well, if we're going to be literal.....
Dear Phil (duck dynasty) Robertson,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

(unknown)

Ralph Hyatt said...

"I also think we have pretty concluded our "conversation" here. "

I suppose so, cause it looks like I was correct that you consider expression of traditional religious (not just Christian) beliefs to be hurtful.

Also, you have honed your sense of outrage to an exquisite degree. Congrats on that.

Ralph Hyatt said...

"I think this is funny:"

Actually, since Robertson quotes the New Testament, it is just the usual ignorant Atheist nonsense.

Anonymous said...

So do Christians ( such as Robertson) reject the entire Old Testament?! I'll answer, no they don't, they pick and choose which spiritual laws to embrace and which ones to ignore.

Michael said...

Sunsong. Hopefully you didnt write that sophomoric "dig." Believing in nothing but abortion the liberal is left with hypcrisy as the only sin. And the lazy retort of laughing at cultures not their own.

C Stanley said...

Inga, the "picking and choosing" isn't random. The New Testament establishes a new covenant.

Trashhauler said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

This is juicy: Informality and nonconformity as indicators of social status.

Accept this idea, and you can see Phil Robertson's Mansonesque look and nonconformist opinion-spouting as a way of indicating that he is rich and successful.

Trashhauler said...

"Sexual orientation is either genetic or it is developmental."

It could be both. Here's a thought experiment: Who's to say that a genetic probability doesn't exist that must be activated through an environmental trigger? It could be that in some, the genetic predisposition is easily triggered, while in others nothing will trigger it. That could explain why homosexual tendencies don't seem to fit a bell curve.

Hell, the same thing could apply to any genetic predisposition.

If so, then encouraging homosexuality as good and normal could activate the environmental trigger for those who would otherwise never feel the urge.

Ralph Hyatt said...

"So do Christians ( such as Robertson) reject the entire Old Testament?! I'll answer, no they don't, they pick and choose which spiritual laws to embrace and which ones to ignore."

Says you. Anyone who has ever read the New Testament knows that Old Testament law is no longer operative.

Some Christians try to ignore this. You have no way of knowing if Robertson is of that bent. Since he quotes New Testament scripture to support his theological stance the assumption would be that he is not.

I suppose you might be referring to the fact that he (like all Christians) follow the moral laws found in the Old Testament, as opposed to the ceremonial and civil laws. But those are just restating natural law. And are confirmed by Jesus' commands to love god and your neighbor.

This is the old, "You eat shrimp don't you? Doesn't that invalidate the whole Old Testament then you hypocrite!" dodge.

Anonymous said...

CStanley help me out, where on the New Testament does it condem homosexuality? If its a new covenant, is homosexuality excluded in this new covenant? What about if the homosexuals are not engaging in promiscuous sex and are actually married?

Michael said...

Julius R. Thanks for the link. I believe the article to be correct. beginning with Hollywood producers, dressing down, becoming egalitarian in dress, caught on. Walk through an airport and contrast the dress of the average passenger with that of passengers of twenty years ago. Ditto major corporations. So in a sense the current wave of billionaire dot comers is just more of the same. Mao was big on dressing everyone the same. I was over there when the little hats with the red stars and the identicsl tunics was all the enforced rage.

Anonymous said...

It goes the opposite way, too. In my family, my gen was very pro-gay. My sil particularly was pro-lesbian, often saying she'd go gay if she ever got a divorce, be pleased if her daughter had the long ring finger, testing her evangelical in-laws, etc.

Now one kid of the nextgen is living as a partnered lesbian and another teen has been been checking the lifestyle out at a distance.

There has been no push back. In the face of no push back, she felt free to say that she still hopes the younger one will be het "because it's still harder to live the other way in the long run."

Kirk Parker said...

FullMoon,

Ummm, what???

That would make sense if this were the first time I'd ever encountered Huckabee. Except no, because then I wouldn't have the longstanding history to go on, whereby I account nothing that Mike Huckabee says to be worth paying attention to.

What part of "I don't want to waste my time listening to/reading the thoughts of this pathetic big-government populist" doesn't make sense to you? Every moment I spend reading his thoughts is a moment I'll never get back...

C Stanley said...

Inga, you're asking the wrong person because I'm Catholic, therefore not of the sola scriptura bent. If you want to know why Catholics believe homosexuality is wrong, I could point you to the Catechism, to several papal encyclicals, and other sources for the theology behind it.

If you want to know what Protestants and evangelicals believe, Phil Robertson's comments allude to several NT quotes, as has already been pointed out.

gerry said...

The New Testament (St. Paul, Romans 1:26-27): "For this reason (idolatry) God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error."

St. Paul also treated extensively the theology rescinding observance of the Mosaic Law, the ceremonial and civil laws observed by Jews through Jesus Christ's sacrifice upon the cross. The Ten Commandments, he taught, remain God's law, however. Therefore the commandment that requires chastity, that prohibits all adultery or misuse of sexuality, including homosexual behavior, still applies.

YoungHegelian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
YoungHegelian said...

@Inga,
@Inga,

where on the New Testament does it condem homosexuality?

Wikipedia is our friend.

There are two modes of attack that supporters of normalizing homosexuality with the Christian faiths take to these texts:

1) It's Paul not Jesus who says these things.

2) The words Paul uses don't really refer to homosexuality.

The problem with 1 is that the Pauline epistles are the earliest Christian texts we have, and were written before the Gospels were redacted, if not existing in some oral form. Major aspects of Christian theology are impossible without Paul, and no Christian sect of any size sees the Pauline epistles as any less "canonical" than the Gospels.

2) The words that are commonly thought to refer to homosexuality in Paul were never, ever, described by the earliest Greek Church Fathers as referring to any other sin, and some of the Fathers go into graphic detail on the nature of sexual sins. These were guys who spoke Koine Greek, unlike us, who try to reconstruct its meaning after 2000 years

Sigivald said...

Whenever you find yourself in a conversation with a fat person, inform them that gluttony is a sin

But gluttony also isn't "being fat".

It's a sensual obsession with food; fat people can be non-gluttons, and rail-skinny people can be gluttons ... perhaps even more easily.

I'm a lifelong atheist, but I do know that if one is going to try and deal in religious concepts - especially against people using them in a religious context - one should know what they actually mean.

Mark O said...

"Whenever you find yourself in a conversation with a fat person, inform them that gluttony is a sin."

I suppose if you are asked your opinion on the matter it might be appropriate. This was an interview.

I hope you are not grading law school exams on this basis.

Saint Croix said...

Who's to say that a genetic probability doesn't exist that must be activated through an environmental trigger?

Darwin. Every time the gene expresses itself, the line dies out.

It's a shame liberals haven't heard of this Darwin fellow.

I'll take "Free Will" for a 100, Alex.

Anonymous said...

Yes indeed it was Paul and he was every bit as fallible a human as you or I.

Anonymous said...

Saint Croix, because some people are born homosexual, it doesn't mean the human race will die out. It's been around since Biblical days, we are still here.

Anglelyne said...

We're in the process of figuring out what you can say where, what has no consequences, what counts as funny or daring and offensive to some...

The above is a corollary of civility bullshit. Trying to think of a good term for it.

Who is this "we" of which you speak? There is no "process" here, of evolving social attitudes. The normal process of changing social attitudes doesn't involve decent citizens starting to fear for their livelihoods and liberty for voicing opinions that were, and are, mainstream. A situation where native members of a culture have to waste time and sweat everywhere and everyday trying to figure out what's OK to say, instead of this knowledge being mostly second-nature (because, you know, it's their home culture and they're part of the "we"), is pathological. Especially when, unlike being in a foreign country where you don't know the rules but there does exist a consistent set of rules which the natives understand, new taboos are introduced practically every day. And where yesterday, pushers of X swore that they would never promote Y (and how dare you suggest such a thing!), but today are screaming for your head for being critical of Y.

This is not normal, it is not natural social change, it is coerced. There are words for that sort of thing, naturally, as it has many precedents in history.

There is no "we" here, who share a foundation of cultural and moral axioms on which they can hash out differences in good faith. There's just a bunch of bullies ("we") telling everybody else to STFU or else.

YoungHegelian said...

@Inga,

Yes indeed it was Paul and he was every bit as fallible a human as you or I.

The Pauline Epistles, as canonical books of the New Testament, are thought by orthodox-thinking Christians to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

You can agree or disagree, but that's been the view of all major Christian sects for 2000 years.

Drago said...

Inga said...
Saint Croix, because some people are born homosexual, it doesn't mean the human race will die out.

Feel free to share the "science" underlying this assertion.

C Stanley said...

Inga, a "line" dying out does not equal a species dying out.

I will argue against St. Croix's point though because genes can be passed down through a line where the gene is unexpressed (either through autosomal recessivity or by more subtle epigenetic means.) if this were mot so, then there would be no genetically transmitted genes which are fatal before childbearing years.

C Stanley said...

Sunsong, concerning your "funny" joke...

So, if you feel that certain people are espousing views that are harmful and you wish to confront them, you think long and hard to approach the matter in a sensitive way so that you can broach the topic withput being insensitive....and then you decide that asinine mocking is the best way to go?

Fortunately all of the Christians I know have thick enough skin that they would find that joke too dumb to cause offense, but it didn't escape my attention that you demand one set of rules on one side of the debate and toss them aside at will for your own side.

Crazy Jane said...

Over the last 30 years or so, we have adopted a new, secular mortal sin: being judgmental. I absolutely refuse to be drawn into "discussions" on hot-button issues from obesity to gay rights to the situation of African Americans in our country to the merits of breast-feeding. I'm not the only one who feels this way. We know that the knives are out on the right and the left. Civil discourse -- hah!

sunsong said...

C Stanley,

Two things. I am not a public figure. Very few people will be *exposed* to the funny quote I posted, which I did label as humor. Unlike Robertson who exposed himself and his hurtful remarks to millions, which he did NOT label as humor. Do you think that what Robertson said was just a joke?

2. I didn't start this. When you damn people and call them names, try to deny them full liberties etc etc - they get to respond. Making fun of the anti-gay crowd is part of what you should expect when you attack them over and over.

david7134 said...

A rhetorical observation, much has been made of the fact that homosexuals are genetically predisposed to there attraction to the opposite sex and therefore it must be natural or that we should accept homosexuality. But, people with diabetes are genetically predisposed to their condition and we treat that. If we consider the way things naturally go together, then a relationship between a man and woman is the only natural union.

But my feel is that if you want to do something in your bedroom, fine. The problems start when you desire rights that are not in the power of the government to grant, such as homosexual marriage or picking a fight with a man of religion because he has a different view of the world from you, yet is not forcing his view on you.

Joe said...

For all intents and purposes, Japan.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

I think you pretty much nailed it. The fight is for the consensus viewpoint. The Pope did the best job of making everybody happy which is why he is creating a snow angel on the New Yorker.

C Stanley said...

@sunsong- I think he was using humor to make a point about his inability to relate to the sexual preferences of gay men.

But your question is irrelevant anyway, unless you want to try to tell me that everyone would have been OK with it if he was a conservative comedian and had said the same thing.

Your second point isn't even worthy of response.

Julie C said...

So some old guy with a beard answered a question in a magazine and some other people decided to be offended. And then some corporate types got nervous and pulled the plug on the old guy.

Who cares what he thinks? We all have opinions. I'm betting that every single opinion you or I have is offensive to someone, somewhere.

Have you ever seen Family Guy? That show lampoons gays, straights, Christians, Muslims, people with Down Syndrome, paraplegics, etc. The show is hilarious! Personally I find Seth McFarlane to be a bit of a tool, but his humor is right up my alley. We should be doing more of that, not less. If you don't like what the Duck guy said, don't watch his show! I'd say don't buy GQ magazine but I'm not sure anyone does.

You want to know why politicians are mostly so mealy-mouthed? Because they know that one, just one, wrong word can mean the end of a career. Any public, or even not so public person, can now be effectively silenced (or forced to grovel an apology) for saying something that somebody finds offensive.

Alex said...

The less hate-filled bigots the better. I'm glad the country has shamed this idiot away from the spotlight.

B said...

sunsong said...Very few people will be *exposed* to the funny quote I posted, which I did label as humor.

Granted, but it was a clear view of exactly why you are not getting any traction with your comments. You either have not read Robertson's interview, read it and don't understand it, or read it and are purposefully misconstruing it.

Unlike Robertson who exposed himself and his hurtful remarks to millions, which he did NOT label as humor.

It was not humor nor was it intended to be so this is a strawman attempt to hang something on Robertson that a fairminded casual observer immediately sees as BS. This reinforces the third explanation for misstating/misconstruing Robertson's interview.

Do you think that what Robertson said was just a joke?

Setting up another strawman.

I didn't start this. When you damn people and call them names, try to deny them full liberties etc etc - they get to respond. Making fun of the anti-gay crowd is part of what you should expect when you attack them over and over.

This is the sort of calculated distortion that didn't and won't work with Robertson and his audience.

The subject is obviously very important to you and you are determined to be personally affronted. But it appears to me that you can't get there without first spinning events and facts into a launchpad that suits your intent instead of addressing the events and facts in an honest way.

Seeing Red said...

And who is to say all the female hormones we've been ingesting for almost 50 years doesn't have an affect? They're not filtered out of our water systems.

Drago said...

Alex, the "country" did not do anything. A liberal tv show executive or executives made a decision.

Robertson was not "shamed". Quite the opposite in fact.

Other than that your post was "factually" spot on.

hombre said...

Remember when Bill Maher produced "Religulous," his documentary disparaging religion and its practitioners with "hurtful" dialogue.

Remember how the liberal community rallied around the disparaged and called for civility and sensitivity from Maher. Remember how his targets tried to drive him out of show biz?

Of course not. Jesus told Christians we would be disparaged, and more, for our faith. And so it goes.

When homosexuals decided to put their orientation on display in every conceivable forum, they knew the Abrahamic religion held the practice to be a sin. So now they whine like babies when some Christian says so. Candy asses.

Wait'll the Muslims take over.

Chef Mojo said...

@sunsong:

I didn't start this. When you damn people and call them names, try to deny them full liberties etc etc - they get to respond. Making fun of the anti-gay crowd is part of what you should expect when you attack them over and over.

Which is exactly the sort of behavior you're engaging in towards Robertson.

Because, after all, two wrongs do make a right, after all.

What a wonderful world this would be if people just ignored guys like Robertson by saying, "Oh? That's what he said? How quaint! Hey, how 'bout those Panthers, huh?"

We Americans have such easy, nonsensical lives, if this is the sort of thing that worries, hurts and harms us. Pretty fucking pathetic.

hombre said...

Post at 6:13 should read: "Abrahamic religion[s]."

RecChief said...

Inga- so if people are born homosexual, does that mean that there is a genetic marker?

Seems to me that with all the genetic testing going on, you might not want to go there.

Mountain Maven said...

I can't stand Huckabee. What a politician.

Alex said...

As long as gay people are denied their full 1st-class citizen status in this country, the bigots have to be shouted down and pilloried. Once they are no longer a threat, let them spout their bigotry all they want. But I agree with countries like Germany that have regulations on hate speech. It's about time we threw away the antiquated 1st Amendment.

Michael said...

Alex. Could not agree more, comrade. I think we will come for you first.

Anonymous said...

RecChief, if one believes in the infallibility of God, one should understand that God allowed the genetic or developmental occurance that created a homosexual. Please explain very young children that identify as male or female of the opposite sex at a very young age before sexuality is even a possibility. They don't CHOOSE to be homosexual as teens and adults, the orientation has been in their brains since before birth, expressed at puberty in most cases. Why do you think some commit suicide? They don't WANT to be gay.

YoungHegelian said...

But I agree with countries like Germany that have regulations on hate speech. It's about time we threw away the antiquated 1st Amendment.

Well, to quote Dennis the Peasant: "It all comes out now, it does!".

Alex being Alex, he fails to notice the irony of positing Germany as an exemplar of free speech. Next, he'll be citing the Russians for their good government.

Anonymous said...

Ten things I've learned about gay people in ten years/ A Christian perspective

Of course I expect some here will reject her as true Christian.

C Stanley said...

Inga, are you seriously saying that explaining a homosexual tendency is worse than explaining why some kids get cancer, or cystic fibrosis, or Tay Sachs, or other horrible diseases?

I acknowledge that homosexuality would be considered a cross to bear, and for Christians who agree that their kids might have a predisposition to same sex attraction, that is difficult. But I find it odd that you would use the argument that God couldn't have allowed the genetic makeup to happen unless He meant for those kids to grow up and practice homosexuality. For that to be true, you'd have to also assert that God wants kids with those diseases to suffer terrible pain and die young.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Of course I expect some here will reject her as true Christian.

Could be. Or maybe they'll just disagree with what she says.

Chef Mojo said...

@Inga:

Please explain very young children that identify as male or female of the opposite sex at a very young age before sexuality is even a possibility.

How about we rephrase that a little:

"Please explain very young children that have repressed memories of sexual abuse at a very young age before sexuality is even a possibility.

Remember the McMartin Preschool hysteria?  And many, many other similar situations? I would imagine after all that, one would take a child's self expression towards sexuality "at a very young age before sexuality is even a possibility," with a very large grain of salt.

Now, since I know you don't have an explanation for your initial proposition to begin with, perhaps you should consider the possibility that those children exhibiting the behavior you describe as being prompted - literally or subliminally - by adults? Perhaps adults, ah, sympathetic to the propositions involved?

Children, after all, are quite malleable.

Chef Mojo said...

@Inga:

And as a personal anecdote, I have a young cousin, who declared when she was in her tens and tweens, that she was a lesbian. I was quite supportive, but mostly passively, as was the rest of the family. OH, but she was militant in her declarations! And a vegetarian! God was an instrument of the patriarchy, don't ya know? The military industrial complex was scum of the earth! She was a chunky little thing, with a bit of an acne problem. Socially awkward. Shy. She was something to endure at holiday gatherings. Drove her parents nuts.

And then she turned 15, and, well, things started to change.

Four years ago, she married a Marine 2LT - a guy - out of VMI. In an Episcopal Church. She has a pre-med degree from W&L, but put that off while she had a little girl. She loves meat. Simply loves it.

Your argument is invalid, as the younguns say.

Anonymous said...

CStanley, no it wouldn't assert any such thing. If one believes in an all powerful and infallible God, one would understand that he just might have a purpose, a grand plan and we as mere mortals cannot possibly understand it. Isn't that where faith and trust is supposed to come into play?

Or it's all random and there is no God with any grand plan, the Bible could've been written by humans who fooled themselves into thinking they were Divinly inspired.

C Stanley said...

That's exactly my point, Inga. He may have a plan, indeed, for everyone who might face particular challenges.

Anonymous said...

Mojo, how do you explain the existence of homosexuals that come out of Christian homes? Who "planted" such ideas in their minds? And please don't try to deny this happens. I have anecdotal stories I could relay about two such homosexual people.

C Stanley said...

I think both you and mojo are right about prevalence. Nature plus nurture sure seems to be the most likely explanation, but I have definitely seen the phenomenon Mojo describes in today's culture where girls seem to experiment with a lesbian identity as they are going through a socially awkward phase.

sunsong said...

30% of gay teens commit suicide

hombre said...

Igna: "Of course I expect some here will reject her as true Christian."

It's difficult to tell whether she's a "true" Christian - whatever that is. It is easy to see that she is a polemicist for gay talking points, not for the Christian perspective. She doesn't know much about the perspectives of the Bible or faithful Christians. But then it's always about the straw men, isn't it?

The ever-narrow Igna would broaden her own perspective by reading the Anchoress' post of 12/20 and links: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/

Elizabeth Scalia's Christian credentials are impeccable and her personal circumstances thought provoking.

Thought? Thought? Yes, Igna, thought.

Chef Mojo said...

@Inga:

And please don't try to deny this happens.

Of course it happens. I, too, have personal experience with that situation. Why would I deny that? I'm an atheist. I don't have a dog in the religious, ah, dogma race.

My point is, however, that we don't know why this happens.

Is the child completely isolated in the home? Doubtfully. Perhaps he has a cousin he interacts with who comes from a less strident home? Family reunions are amazing events. What is the child exposed to in school and the media? Where the children you speak of completely isolated socially? Can you deny that our culture seeps into everything we do, and is extremely pertinent in our day to day lives? You use the term "planted" as if it is insidious and purposeful. I think you need to rethink that. So much of what children are exposed to socially is very subliminal. Couple that with the fact that most children feel the crave and feel the need for attention? Think about it.

Critical and skeptical thinking would cause you to pause and set aside your assumptions regarding genetic behavioral proclivities. I'm not discounting them, mind you. I am positing that there are many other valid explanations for homosexual behavior and assignment, and genetic arguments are simply one of them.

In the end, they are all hypotheses at this point in time.

I tend to be suspicious, however, at the veracity of children when prompted by adults. And you can't deny that doesn't happen, can you?

Drago said...

Alex: "As long as gay people are denied their full 1st-class citizen status in this country..."

Of course, in the liberal world view, anyone who claims that homosexual acts constitute a sin are somehow denying practicing homosexuals their "1st-class citizen status in this country...".

It's just a hop, skip and a jump to thought crimes writ large, not just in academia where the lefties are toiling away to achieve that very thing.

hombre said...

Igna: "Mojo, how do you explain the existence of homosexuals that come out of Christian homes? Who "planted" such ideas in their minds?"

Crikey, it's just too much. Christian homes are cocoons, you know. And everybody knows Christians aren't susceptible to sin. Right?

Sorry, Mojo, I just couldn't help myself. Carry on, please.

hombre said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sunsong said...

Chef Mojo,

Merry Christmas to you!

Chef Mojo said...

@sunsong:

And a Merry Christmas to you, as well! Couple that with a Happy New Year, and I'm sure we'll all have reason to smile as we swing once more around the Sun!

sunsong said...

Chef Mojo,

Thank you, and nicely put about our yearly trip. Sometimes I think about that - not enough - but sometimes. And the supposed 30 billion light years of beauty that is our universe.

Yeah, let's smile :-)

Pookie Number 2 said...

Sunsong: 30% of gay teens commit suicide

That's tragic, of course, but there are numerous forms of mental illness that, when un- or mis-treated, can lead to suicide.

I'd actually argue that we should help people with these mental problems, which is somewhat different from pretending that the problems aren't problems.

iowan2 said...

@Inga
Mojo, how do you explain the existence of homosexuals that come out of Christian homes?

This is far afield from the topic.

Can a person express their personal religious /spiritual views?

Robertson is not set out to rid the world of homosexuality, or sin.
And here is the simple part that everyone insists on complicating.

If you are enslaved by your obsessions (sin?) addictions, booze,sloth,sex.......he is eager to share his experience and how he found freedom, a freedom that is unimaginable. Now understand that Phil has never claimed his is the only, exclusive, way to freedom. There maybe other paths but this is his and, and for millions of others it works......everytime.
For Phil...this is important, Turning his addictions over to a higher power,Christ, there is freedom. That overpowering craving is removed, in place of sex there will be serenity.
This is also not a one and done cure. It is a set of values that are worked on hour by hour, day by day.

This is something you as an individual seeks. Not something that anyone can force on you.

Pookie Number 2 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sunsong said...

Pookie Number 2,

You assert that being gay is a mental illness? That idea is not going anywhere. The argument is over, except for about 30 more states legalizing gay marriage.

What if I assert that being a fundamentalist Christian is a mental illness?

William said...

There's an old joke about poverty not being a sin, but that it might just as well be.

YoungHegelian said...

@Sunsong,

Please, before you link to some web site that has an ax to grind, could you please read it over, including what it links to.

The web site on the 30% suicide rate for gay teens links to a paper that says:

A report on suicide among gay and lesbian youth provides a powerful illustration of how statements derived from very limited hard data can acquire the aura of fact. In 1989 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published Report
of the Secretary’s Task Force on Youth Suicide

. The section “Gay and Lesbian Youth
Suicide” includes two often-quoted statements:

• Homosexual youth may represent up to 30 percent of youth suicide
deaths.

• Suicide is the leading cause of death for LGBT youth.

Ryan and Futterman (1998) have pointed out criticisms that these statements were based on a review by Paul Gibson (1989) of non-
random studies and agency
reports on diverse lesbian and gay populations. Unfortunately, the statements have often been quoted as factual even though the scientific grounding behind
them is questionable.


Stop & think: do 1/3 of gay teens kill themselves? That would cut down on the gay population in a big hurry, dontcha think?

Pookie Number 2 said...

You assert that being gay is a mental illness?

I think so, yes. It seems like a defect in the reproductive system.

That idea is not going anywhere. The argument is over, except for about 30 more states legalizing gay marriage.

For the time being, you're probably right. If and when a cure is found, that whole attitude may change. I guess we'll see. (Or we won't.)

What if I assert that being a fundamentalist Christian is a mental illness?

Then you will have asserted something silly. You won't be the first or last to do so.

sunsong said...

Pookie Number 2

lol it's no more silly than asserting that begin gay is a mental illness. Your assertion is actually, imo, harmful. You are part of the reason that 30% of gay teens commit suicide, imo. The irresponsibility of you and Robertson and Huckabee etc is, imo, dangerous.

YoungHegelian said...

Also, be very careful about asserting a link between gay teenagers as being oppressed & suicidal. If oppression is such a cause of suicide, why is it that black girls are the group least likely to commit suicide?

My guess as to the link between gay teenagers & increased risk of suicide? Teenagers that will self-identify as gay at a young age tend to white & more affluent than the norm, the group most likely to suicide in general.

Here's my reference.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Your assertion is actually, imo, harmful.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it's still silly.

Should we also tell teen-aged diabetics to eat lots of sugar so they don't feel bad about their disorders? Should we encourage teens with pica to scarf down the styrofoam?

You are part of the reason that 30% of gay teens commit suicide, imo.

That's very unlikely. Most gay teens don't even know who I am.

The irresponsibility of you and Robertson and Huckabee etc is, imo, dangerous.

I think it's far more dangerous to ignore reality and condemn people to a greatly increased risk of mental and physical disease simply because it's politically correct or popular to do so.

But you're certainly entitled to your opinion, and I doubt I have the writing skill to change your mind in a blog commentary to-and-fro. I probably couldn't even do it in person.

Unknown said...

thanks for the observation: that “They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters" is a quote from Romans 1:29. I should have recognized this (MSM should have recognized this) and didn't.

Inga, the party line (that I happen to believe) we are born with a nature to sin (rebel against God, fail to meet standards, "miss the mark") and when we give in to this -- then we sin. Simple and straightforward. Suggesting that a genetic predisposition to self destructive behavior should be an excuse for sinful behavior misses the point. We ALL have a genetic predisposition to sin.

sunsong said...

YoungHegelian & Pookie Number 2

I disagree with you. [Hegelian your reference is not relevant, though it does show that females commit suicide a lot less than males - answering your question about black girls.]

I think you are both willfully blind because of your own prejudice. It is most likely the comments that gay teens hear from people like you and the adolescent right and the bullying that is behind the high number of suicides.

Being gay is not a disease Pookie - talk about silliness - maybe that's your pipe dream.
You have lost the argument. It's over. Why continue to do harm? A year ago 6 states had gay marriage. Today, if you count Utah - there are 18!!! The number has tripled in one year. It won't be long and most people will wonder why gays were ever denied the same rights as everyone else.

Fundamentalists, if they don't change, will likely become more and more marginalized.

hombre said...

"What if I assert that being a fundamentalist Christian is a mental illness?"

It is unlikely that you know what a fundamentalist Christian is.

It is also fairly common knowledge that homosexuality was listed as a mental illness for many years. Not so fundamentalist Christianity. Precedent exists for one, not the other.

OTOH, you lefties are constantly setting precedents for altering reality, including language, economics, etc. Why not the definition of mental illness - or was that already done in 1973?

hombre said...

"It is most likely the comments that gay teens hear from people like you and the adolescent right and the bullying that is behind the high number of suicides."

Wow! "Most likely" observation and comment as causation. Could you be any more absurd?

Pookie Number 2 said...

Being gay is not a disease Pookie

I didn't say it was a disease, I said I think it's a disorder. Apparently you disagree. You're not alone.

I agree that the current political trend points toward more states legalizing gay marriage. I think that's a good thing. On the other hand, I think finding an effective cure or treatment for homosexual tendencies would be even better.

I'm not sure I agree that 'fundamentalists' (I suspect you're mis-using the term) will be increasingly marginalized, though. The human proclivity toward religion (with all of its costs and benefits) has a much more substantial history that the much rarer proclivity for homosexual activity. It's probably unwise to assume that the latter's proponents will overcome the former's.

Kirk Parker said...

Sunsong,

Could you be more dishonest if you tried? The item you linked says no such thing; it claims that 30% of gay youth attempt suicide.

Larry Nelson said...

Inga said...
Muslims and some Jews think that you put yourself at spiritual risk and maybe even eternal damnation if you eat pork. Put down that pork chop you gluttonous homo!

LOL, that was funny.
I don't think I've ever agreed with Inga, but she is making some good points similar to Althouse:

I read this quote recently that is somewhat tangent to the topic.

"Now, from the point of view of social acceptance, we all know that the urge to truth needs restraining. Everyone’s least favorite neighbor is the one who responds to a cheery “How ya doin’?” with a comprehensive list of her physical ailments. All true, no doubt, but I’m trying to walk my dog here".
John Derbyshire

sunsong said...

Kirk Parker,

You are right. My apologies. However 30% attempted is way, way too many. In fact, it is horrendous, imo. And the anti-gay forces are a big part of the reason why, imo.

Drago said...

sunsong: "You are part of the reason that 30% of gay teens commit suicide, imo."

Full. Stop.

According to 2012 Census data, there are 29,632,223 teenagers (13 thru 19) in the US.

If we assume a 2% rate for # of homosexuals (and ignoring the sliding scale of additional percentages for bisexuals etc.), then we obtain the value of 592,644 for number of homosexual teenagers.

30% of that number yields 177,793.

Sunsong is asserting that there are 177,793 homosexual teenage suicides.

This is yet another example of how leftists bastardize all data and statistics.

Next up for sunsong and the other mathematically illiterate lefties are these oldy but goodie insane lefty statistical claims:
1) More women are beaten on superbowl sunday than any other day of the year
2) Men beating women is the single biggest cause of birth defects in the US




Drago said...

hombre: "Wow! "Most likely" observation and comment as causation. Could you be any more absurd?"

Yes she can. Just give her a shot.

sunsong said...

Drago,

I got it wrong - 30% attempt suicide - which is horrendous, imo

hombre said...

"I don't think I've ever agreed with Inga, but she is making some good points similar to Althouse:"

"Similar to Althouse?" Maybe, if you boost Igna's IQ by 50 points, or so (or lower your own).

Drago said...

sunsong: "I got it wrong - 30% attempt suicide - which is horrendous, imo"

Given your performance to date on stats (as well as the lefts history with stats), I'll need to see a link for that item.

sunsong said...

Drago,
Check out the link at 7:51

Drago said...

Sunsong: "And the anti-gay forces are a big part of the reason why, imo"

Your opinion is of zero value in the discussion of what drives (whatever the # happens to be) homosexual teenagers to commit suicide.

Of course, it wasn't that long ago the lefties were telling us that lefty Jared Loughner shot Gabby Giffords because of some target symbol on a Palin website.

So yeah, pull the other one as the Brits say.

Renee said...

I keep reading a factoid that 40% of homeless youths identify being LGBT. But all I could find was ”According to the National Network of Runaway and Youth Services, six percent of homeless youth are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender (GLBT) (Molino, 2007). The number of homeless teenagers who are pregnant is estimated to be somewhere between six and twenty-two percent. (Health Resources and Services Administration 2001)”


You are more likely to be homeless due heterosexual behavior them homosexual behavior.

Kirk Parker said...

Sunsong,

Sorry, I don't believe that stat, either, but at least it's not self-refuting like your original claim.

Drago said...

Sunsong: "Check out the link at 7:51

I did.

It's a statistical joke, with nothing driving that number except someone's guess.

And why is that?

Snip: "Suicide is the eleventh leading cause of death overall in the United States, and the
third leading cause of death for youth age 15 through 24, following unintentional
injuries and homicide. However, data on suicide rates—the number of suicide
deaths per 100,000 of population—reveal that the rate for this age group is 10 per
100,000, below the national rate of 11.01 per 100,000 for people of all ages (Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007)."

Full. Stop.

The rate of suicide members of the 15 thru 24 age group is below the national average for all age breakouts.

The sunsong link continues with this snip: "Little can be said with any certainty about the extent of suicide deaths among LGB youth."

Well, those stupid authors never spoke with sunsong who seems to be quite certain (in her very own humble honest opinion) that it's all those horrible right-wingers fault that some homosexual teenagers commit suicide.

Thanks sunsong.

You can safely be ignored from here on out.

Renee said...

http://deusnobiscum.com/2013/11/25/open-letter-to-rhianna-lavalla/



"My personal experience, though, as a Catholic, who is also a homosexual, speaks louder than any document ever could. In the four and a half years since I voluntarily became a Roman Catholic I have never had a single priest treat me as less human than another Catholic because of my sexuality. I have never heard a homily where the priest said that homosexuals, or anyone else for that matter, were not human due to the inclinations of their hearts. I have been showered with words of encouragement in the confessional and have had the undying love and support of Catholic friends as I have shared this intimate part of my life with them.

The problem here isn’t the Church. It is this culture that has somehow come to this warped and dangerous conclusion that if I don’t agree with you on every issue, if I don’t approve of your every action, if I don’t give you everything you demand, that I must hate you or view you as subhuman. It is precisely this culture that treats us as subhuman as it objectifies men and women in pornography and sexual promiscuity, denies basic anatomical and physiological realities, tolerates abortion on demand for any reason whatsoever, and mocks the basic idea of self-control."


This was written prior DD.....

sunsong said...

Drago,

You left this out:

LGB youth as a group experience more suicidal behavior than other youth. A variety of studies indicate that LGB youth are nearly one and a half to three times more likely to have reported suicidal ideation than non-LGB youth. Research from several sources also revealed that LGB youth are nearly one and a half to seven times more likely than non-LGB youth to have reported attempting suicide. These studies do not include transgender youth.

For several reasons, little can be said with certainty about suicide deaths among LGB people. Most mortality data do not include sexual orientation. However, based on the higher rate of suicide attempts among LGB youth and the relative seriousness of their suicide attempts, it is likely that LGB youth experience higher rates of suicide deaths than their non-LGB peers. While limited information is available on suicidal behavior among transgender youth, it is plausible to hypothesize that transgender youth, in common with LGB youth, have elevated risk and lower protective factors and higher rates of suicidal behavior. Risk and protective factors help explain suicidal behavior and inform program and practitioner approaches to reducing suicidal behavior.

LGB youth generally have more risk factors, more severe risk factors, and fewer protective factors than heterosexual youth. For example, LGB youth often lack important protective factors such as family support and safe schools, and more LGB young people appear to experience depression and substance abuse. In addition, there is risk unique to LGB youth related to the development of sexual orientation, for example, disclosure at an early age raises risks.

It would be difficult to overstate the impact of stigma and discrimination against LGBT individuals in the United States. Stigma and discrimination are directly tied to risk factors for suicide. For example, discrimination has a strong association with mental illness, and heterosexism may lead to isolation, family rejection, and lack of access to culturally competent care.

Drago said...

Sunsong, I left that out since there is nothing behind the claim.

I was looking for some definitive studies backing that claim up.

But there isn't.

You even pasted the key paragraph: "For several reasons, little can be said with certainty about suicide deaths among LGB people. Most mortality data do not include sexual orientation. However, based on the higher rate of suicide attempts among LGB youth and the relative seriousness of their suicide attempts, it is likely that LGB youth experience higher rates of suicide deaths than their non-LGB peers. While limited information is available on suicidal behavior among transgender youth, it is plausible to hypothesize that transgender youth, in common with LGB youth, have elevated risk and lower protective factors and higher rates of suicidal behavior. Risk and protective factors help explain suicidal behavior and inform program and practitioner approaches to reducing suicidal behavior."

Read it again to yourself.

Slowly.

Have it translated for you if you have to.

It's not any sort of statistically valid study.

It's just someones guess.

But hey, you're a lefty and it serves your purpose, so who needs actual data right?

I guess if I like my plan I can keep my plan too, period, right?

Renee said...

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/health/suicide-rate-rises-sharply-in-us.html


No mention of being gay, as a factor.

Drago said...

Renee said...
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/health/suicide-rate-rises-sharply-in-us.html


No mention of being gay, as a factor.

Correct.

Now, it could possibly be that homosexual youths are at greater risk for suicide than non-homosexual youth (with whatever relevant factors held constant), but we don't have data to back that up.

But that will never stop the sunsongs of the world from making a number up out of thin air and then ASSIGNING responsibility for that outcome to conservatives.

The assignment of blame to conservatives is all the left really cares about anyway so it's probably better to not really study the issue more closely anyway.

Renee said...



Between 1952 and 1995, suicide in young adults nearly tripled.


Back in the 50s.... should we go back to the values of the 50s to reduce suicide?

Drago said...

Renee: "Back in the 50s.... should we go back to the values of the 50s to reduce suicide?"

I do miss the cars.

Renee said...

No seat belts or airbags.....

Drago said...

Renee said...
No seat belts or airbags.....

And you could play football in the backseats!

sunsong said...

Drago,

From within the paragraph you seem to like so much:

However, based on the higher rate of suicide attempts among LGB youth and the relative seriousness of their suicide attempts, it is likely that LGB youth experience higher rates of suicide deaths than their non-LGB peers.

What they don't know about is the exact number of deaths. They do know about the attempts.

sunsong said...

Renee,

That article is about middle age suicide. I'm talking about teens.

sunsong said...

Drago,

I place some of the responsibility for the high number of attempted suicides among gay teens with fundamentalists. I haven't mentioned conservatives.

Drago said...

sunsong said...
Drago,

"I place some of the responsibility for the high number of attempted suicides among gay teens with fundamentalists."

Of course you do. There simply isn't anything substantive underlying that assertion.

But hey, assignment of blame and political advantage is what this is all about so who wants to let "facts" get in the way.

Sunsong: "I haven't mentioned conservatives."

Nooooo. Of course not.

You'll leave that assignment of fundamentalist/taliban status to conservatives to your other compatriots on this blog.

Neat.

Tidy.

All those on the right guilty.

A soviet apparatchik could not have laid it out better.

You will, of course, take that as a compliment I'm sure.

It's unfortunate that there is nothing substantive underlying your assertion.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Most gay teens who murder themselves do so because of their self-image, formed from consuming entertainment made by liberals.

It is very sad Hollywood execs and corporations help teens kill themselves but they care more about money than anything else.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Alec Baldwin has caused 742 gay teen deaths so far this year.

That is just one greedy, wealthy liberal. Imagine how many more are out there.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Mark Zuckerberg has blood on his billions too.

Jason said...

Damn, sunsong….

Yesterday you uncritically passed on a bogus quote that said that Pope Francis said that people who worship God and Vishnu were worshipping "the same God," and that he said so at the Third Vatican Council, which never happened.

When the adults in the room rubbed your ignorant nose in the fact that it was a made-up quote you still clung to it, because TRUTHINESS.

Now your hammering on some bullshit claim that 30 percent of GLBT kids commit suicide. It's not only bullshit, it is OBVIOUS bullshit.

Why don't you have a built-in bullshit detector, moron?

Tighten your shot group.

Jason said...

Alex: As long as gay people are denied their full 1st-class citizen status in this country, the bigots have to be shouted down and pilloried. Once they are no longer a threat, let them spout their bigotry all they want. But I agree with countries like Germany that have regulations on hate speech. It's about time we threw away the antiquated 1st Amendment.

Scratch a liberal, you'll find a fascist. Every time.


sunsong said...

Jason,

Talk about inaccuracy, here is the actual quote:

"Whether we call God, Jesus, Adonai, Allah or Krishna, we all worship the same God of love. This truth is self-evident to all who have love and humility in their hearts”
~unknown

I love it! I think it is beautiful. Thanks so much Jason, for creating the opportunity for me to post it again!

gadfly said...

You don't have to foment the attack on fat people, Ann - it begins with government policies despite studies that show overweight folks live longer.

Fat people probably need to be treated medically by pumping them full of Prozac or some other SSRI in order to get them properly noticed at the next school shooting by the anti-gun folks.

Fat people got no reason to live.

Anonymous said...

Context is important.

The writer from GQ asked Phil this question:

"What, in your mind, is sinful?"

So Phil was being interviewed, was asked a question, and gave his honest opinion. Huckabee is a PC idiot.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Sunsong-- again, not revolutionary. The idea is that all religions have some element of truth, but only the Catholic Church has the fullness of faith.

You could actually have found the same sentiment (minus the Catholic) in C.S. Lewis's Last Battle.... where the worshipers of Tash who try to do good and honorable things in his name are ACTUALLY worshiping Aslan, though thety do not know it. And the worshipers of Aslan who do terrible things in his name are actually worshiping Tash.

The idea is that a longing for God and a knowledge of the truth is written on each and every human heart, because our creator made EVERYONE to know, love and serve him. So, a pagan who's never heard of Jesus but who tries to do what is right and acts in love is worshiping God, even if he doesn't really know who he's worshiping.

On the other hand... if you were raised in the fullness of truth and deliberately turn your back on it? You're in pretty bad shape.

Which may be why it's mostly fallen-away Christians who get so bent out of shape by the Duck Dynasty thing. They DID have formed consciences at some point, they're choosing to ignore them, and as a result, they're angry, scared, and bitter.

Renee said...

Suicide is suicide right?

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.

Over at the HuffPost...

"Kids Of Divorce And Suicide: New Study Shows Link"

Family structure plays a big role in the changes of a young person having suicidal thoughts.

If we want to decrease suicide rates in young persons, we need to stabilize the family but that would require a hetero-normative structure of a father and mother.

Also young African-American men have high rates of suicide, due to the stresses that they occur.

"According to the American Association of Suicidology, in 2005, 1,992 suicides were completed by African-Americans and that suicide was the third leading cause of death among African-American youth. The Centers for Disease Control reported that between 1999 and 2004, young African-American males had the highest rate of suicide. This latter finding is consistent with research that males are more likely to complete suicides whereas females are more likely to attempt suicide."


Renee said...

So we have divorce and fatherless as clear factors... but if I said a marriage between your mother and father will decrease a teenager's chance of suicide I would be labeled as 'anti-gay'.

Jason said...

How's that research into the Third Vatican Council going, sunsong?

Renee said...

@sunsong

You were fooled by a satirical site, "Diversity Chronicles" that mentioned a 'Third Vatican Council".

Link to fake Pope Francis quote.

Here is the the disclaimer that the site is satirical.



Renee said...

Here is something Pope Francis did say...

"God willed to share in our human condition to the point of becoming one with us in the Person of Jesus, who is true Man and true God. However, there is something even more surprising. The presence of God among men did not take place in a perfect, idyllic world but rather in this real world, which is marked by so many things both good and bad, by division, wickedness, poverty, arrogance and war. He chose to live in our history as it is, with all the weight of its limitations and of its tragedies. In doing so, he has demonstrated in an unequalled manner his merciful and truly loving disposition toward the human creature. He is God-with-us. Jesus is God-with-us. Do you believe this? Together let us profess: Jesus is God with us! Jesus is God with us always and for ever with us in history's suffering and sorrow. The Birth of Jesus reveals that God “sided” with man once and for all, to save us, to raise us from the dust of our misery, from our difficulty, from our sins."


Pope Francis is talking about Jesus is God and our sins..... That was just last week.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Sunsong, I apologize for posting this thought so late, but it seems to me that if people with a mental disorder have a higher rate of attempting suicide, that's very likely just another aspect of the disorder.

Lyle said...

Christopher Hitchens would be awesome to have right now.

I think he'd be intellectually bullying GLAAD and A&E right now.

Anonymous said...

Re: Gluttony

My dad actually used to really get on my mom about gluttony. He had her so terrified she never went above 129 when 9 months pregnant.

He was apparently a real procedural pain in the ass.(As the last kid, I escaped the worst of it.) Consequently, his wife and kids are no longer in the Church with one kid going so far as to write the Vatican and make sure they were taken off the baptismal roles of "an abusive institution."

Borepatch said...

Point of order, Professor Althouse. The passages you quote from the Bible do not identify gluttony as a sin. Do you have different passages that do?

Not arguing that either homosexuality or gluttony are or are not sins, just that your analogy appears to have missed the target you were aiming for.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 330 of 330   Newer› Newest»