Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Endorsing sin

March 1, 2011

Advertisement

To the editor:

Proverbs 14:34 says: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” Unfortunately, the current administration has decided to stop defending the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). According to Attorney General Eric Holder, the nation’s legal and social views have changed during the last 15 years (Wall Street Journal, Feb. 24). “Mr. Holder said that DOMA was enacted amid sentiments that reflect ‘precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution’s) Equal Protection clause is designed to guard against.’”

As a result, our national position is to endorse sin with its supposed rights and reject righteousness. God’s word does not change and neither do His righteous standards which define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Since when did sin by a nation, group of people, couples or individuals become a protected class? There is only one way to protect against sin and that is through the saving grace and truth found in Jesus Christ.

I believe that our nation’s cancer (economic and other woes) is a result of our rejection of God’s ways. The decision to stop defending this law is a huge mistake which will lead to terminal cancer and the demise of a once great nation.

Comments

mom_of_three 3 years, 9 months ago

I just shake my head and sigh. Lots of things, such as slavery and pologamy is mentioned in the bible, but are not followed by (most) religious folks any more. And the last time I checked, it was hetereosexual couples getting divorced, causing the downfall of marriage. No one seems too concerned with that, but allow two people of the same sex who love each other to get married...oh my gosh, the world will come to an end....NOT.

gr 3 years, 9 months ago

Are you suggesting that the Bible says we should follow slavery and polygamy?

Are you also suggesting that if some people are doing bad things then everything is up for grabs?

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

The Bible contains many things that people don't follow any more - like stoning a woman to death for adultery.

The point is that if you're going to use the Bible, you have to use it very selectively, which kind of contradicts the "following God's word" rhetoric.

parrothead8 3 years, 9 months ago

God says that we should try to love everyone and leave the judging up to God.

Should we listen to God or Dr. Burkhead?

deec 3 years, 9 months ago

And eating pork and shellfish are forbidden. How come he's not railing against all the bacon-eaters?

Corey Williams 3 years, 9 months ago

Don't forget working on the sabbath and wearing two different kinds of fabric.

ScottyMac 3 years, 9 months ago

Don't forget: Charging interest on a loan.

Kirk Larson 3 years, 9 months ago

Don't forget touching the skin of a dead pig. That makes football the sport of the devil!

gr 3 years, 9 months ago

Could it be he's not "railing" against those things because those things aren't related in the DOMA?

Kirk Larson 3 years, 9 months ago

Well shouldn't they be? I mean surely one can't go picking and choosing which parts of the bible they think should be enforced by their own personal whims?

/crickets

jonas_opines 3 years, 9 months ago

Sin is a fictitious concept, as far as I'm concerned. If it concerns you, then allow it to shape the way you and yours live your lives.

Oh, wait. Burkhead LTE. Wastin' my time.

riverdrifter 3 years, 9 months ago

"Just as every cop is a criminal And all the sinners saints As heads is tails just call me Lucifer I'm in need of some restraint

...I'll ya one time: you're to blame"

pace 3 years, 9 months ago

i find nothing in the bible that says it is righteous to deny civil rights to homosexuals. Marriage between opposite or same sex people is a right, which needs to be recognized by law. I don't agree that god has suddenly decided to dedicate plague, cancer, ills because homosexuals are allowed to marry. Don't just pick the berries from the bush follow the whole tree of faith. To exaggerate two adults right to marriage to such absurd drama is wicked. I believe you have the right to to be homophobic, I don't agree with how you feel and I don't agree it is supported in the bible to deny rights, like marriage and family to others. In follow faith, don't pick a berry, climb the whole tree. I know it is a deep feeling and I respect your feelings, I don't think they are rational, but that is how I feel and think. You might try reading at least some other views on the topic.

http://www.examiner.com/religious-skepticism-in-national/picking-and-choosing-god-s-law-leviticus

...Acceptance of homosexuality is and was often cultural, as per the early Romans and Greeks. It was known and accepted. ...

Ironically, those fundamentalists believing in and adamant about the above have no compunction about planting gardens with many types of seeds, despite the specific prohibition of this in Leviticus 19:19. Nor do they have compunctions about eating crabs, lobster, shrimp, clams, oysters, abalone, other non-finned seafood, ham or bacon, despite Leviticus 11.Also, in Leviticus 19, they have no problems in wearing clothing woven of two different materials, cutting the hair on the sides of your head or clipping beards, despite the specific prohibitions against these in Leviticus 19:19 and 19:27 respectively. Since religionists are picking which part of a faith they wish to follow and which they wish to ignore, it would seem that they have no real faith at all...

gr 3 years, 9 months ago

Is marriage a right? Are any and all allowed to marry? Is it a right everywhere?

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

According to the Supreme Court, marriage is a "fundamental right" - see Loving vs. Virginia, in which an interracial couple was denied the right to marry.

That would be in this country, according to our own system of laws.

Jimo 3 years, 9 months ago

Indeed, the question is by what right does government discriminate among its citizens?

If the recent California trial is any predictor, there the state wasn't able to demonstrate even the lowest level of evidence - that there even could be (let alone is) any valid basis for making a distinction.

This Administration, along with quite a lot of others, Democrats and Republicans, have concluded that this is correct -- every justification offered for government endorsed discrimination is as thin as gossamer.

Getaroom 3 years, 9 months ago

Marriage is an intellectual construct of humans, depending on who is making the decision and definitions it could be either a law, right or any thing else. Interpretations of the Bible are simply and only that. The Bible's authority is up for grabs and aways will be. Argue it, gripe about it to the ends of time, whatever time is, but for sure that time is yours to spend however you see fit. Just don't be cramming it down anybody's throat. Believe what you want and leave others to make their own choices. Judge not........

ivalueamerica 3 years, 9 months ago

Carol,

There is no difference between a a Christian supremacist, a Muslim supremacist or a white supremacist. All three take a personal opinion of a particular morality and feel they have some right to force others to conform and agree.

Government has no right or no business giving special rights to bigots and supremacists such as yourself allowing you to force my morals by law. Generally, if it is an issue of consenting adults and no third party is harmed, it is none of your damn business.

Further, marriage is not sacred in the Bible, you are bearing false witness. Interesting you think some sins are so important and yet others you commit with blatant disregard. Marriage was a civil action until the 14th Century when King James and the Catholic Church struggled for control of marriage and divorce.

Carol, there is NOTHING Christian about you. You are about power, hate and control, not love, tolerance and example. I suggest you fix your own soul before you try to force others to think like you do through legislation.

Let she who is without sin cast the first stone.

kristopherfisk 3 years, 9 months ago

The writer's name is 'Carl,' not 'Carol.'

shadowlady 3 years, 9 months ago

Read Ephesians chapter 5, it does not say anything about same sex marriage, but speaks of husband and wife, and speaks about the husband cherishing his wife and so on. And the Bible also says that God has given each person free will, to choose the way they want to go. Naturally God hopes that they will choose His way, BUT it is each persons choice to make.

KSManimal 3 years, 9 months ago

Leviticus 19:28 forbids tattoos. I think we need to amend the US Constitution to reflect this. At least for same-sex couples, or anyone who is different than Burkhead.

gudpoynt 3 years, 9 months ago

Like this guy, who get's the Leviticus bit about man/woman marriage tattooed on his arm

http://bzfd.it/f6MAuc

RoeDapple 3 years, 9 months ago

"God Hates__!! (Insert your paranoid bias here) For me I'm pretty sure it's boiled cabbage . . .

Gene Wallace 3 years, 9 months ago

Hmmmm! Hate is Evil God Hates ... God is Evil

Fred Mertz 3 years, 9 months ago

Our government must protect religious freedom. It is a basic tenet upon which this country was founded. But, in protecting religious freedom, the government must not play favorites and establish a government religion.

Today's established religions are divided on the issue of homosexuality. Some forbid it, others embrace it. The government must stay out of it as dictated by the Constitution. We are not a Christian nation, but a secular one with the Constitution as its bible.

Carol, who do you think will find favor with the Lord. The one who says, Lord, I followed your word with my life and I stoned those that did not. I made their lifes miserable because they were sinners. Or the one that says, Lord, I followed your word and loved those that did not because I know they too are your children. I tried to stay true of not judging others believing that their sins were between them and you. I don't know why they are different than me, I did not understand them, but I tried to follow in Jesus' footsteps and show love to those shunned by society.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 3 years, 9 months ago

Hurry! Hurry! Get you copy of this 10,000,000th electronic printing Tom Shewmon's NEW memoir - Adding "less" to Meaning - It's hilarious!

Unfortunately, he meant it to be deadly serious.

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

So you believe that allowing gay and lesbian folks to get married, create lasting relationships, and have equality under the law is a bad thing?

Flap Doodle 3 years, 9 months ago

"There is no difference between a a Christian supremacist, a Muslim supremacist or a white supremacist." One of those three is more likely to make a video of himself beheading an unbeliever.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

To the posters who have addressed the letter writer as "Carol," his name is "Carl." He is a distinguished Professor Emeritus of Engineering at the University of Kansas.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

pace 3 years, 9 months ago

While I disagree with him about homosexuals and god's punishing people with cancer. I don't disrespect hm as a person or an intellect. He was born in a different time and raised a certain way. Many decent and intelligent people are being preached from the pulpit the special hate verses. The who to blame and what you can do to someone else. I don't know why he has chosen this tenet. Maybe he doesn't eat shellfish , I don't hate him or think he is stupid because he has a faith in and hates homosexuals. There are many out there that use the bible as a flogging stick against everyone, I have to say I don't think Carl is one of them. But I don't know, everyone is a sinner and it is hard to see into your own heart much less someone else's.. It seems to take two generations and major law before the handy prejudice one clasps is loosened and about 23 minutes to pick up an old hatred if it is convenient.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Actually, you do a pretty good job of flogging yourself. Keep at it.

tolawdjk 3 years, 9 months ago

Doesn't that make him one of the liberal elite? Or does the fact that he is also on the govt. payroll as an employee of KDHE? Does that mean he is getting retirement from the University + payroll?

I took one of his classes. "Phoned it in" couldn't describe it better.

jaywalker 3 years, 9 months ago

I'm consistently disappointed when I hear rants like Burkhead's. How is it anyone is so narrow-minded ... in this day and age,,,,,, that they're still unable to see that homosexuals are made in God's likeness just like themselves?
What's even a more bum-fuddled way of looking for proof of God's "wrath" is to posit that He has chosen retribution in the form of economic plague. Yes, I'm certain you're correct. Locusts are so trite.

Richard Heckler 3 years, 9 months ago

It's all a matter of interpretation for example...

Meet Sin Supreme:

  1. Bush Reagan Iran – Contra Secret Weapons Affair

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/execsum.htm http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/24/spy.network.probe/index.html

Did it ever stop? http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4120/we_arm_the_world/ http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0208-05.htm

  1. Nixon's Watergate http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/index.html

  2. The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

  3. Bush family of politicians "Rebuilding America's Defences," openly advocates for total global military domination. Many PNAC members held highest-level positions in the George W. Bush administration. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century

  4. The Bush/Cheney Wall Street Bank Fraud on Consumers http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html

  5. What did Bush and Henry Paulson do with the $700 billion of bail out money? http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year

scott3460 3 years, 9 months ago

....and the close left, and the center, and the right of center and even, Tom, gasp, some folks way out in the far right fantasy world in which you exist.

ignati5 3 years, 9 months ago

Let's give ol' Carl a break. He has a message, and he delivers it frequently, consistently and concisely. When Carl ran in the primary for Lawrence City Commission about fifteen years ago, the AIDS epidemic was at its height and the "Simply Equal" ordinance was at issue - the one, eventually adopted btw, to extend certain rights to gays and lesbians in rental and hiring. Each candidate was given five minutes to respond to a question about their stance on this issue. Most, predictably, wobbled ; a couple of Liberals delivered Aeropagite defenses of civil liberties; all had to be timed out by an indulgent timekeeper. When Carl's turn came, he said simply, "The wages of sin is death" followed by the scriptural reference. As I value style over substance in political debate, I was impressed, but, of course, not enough to vote for him. He did, I think, make it through the primary, causing many to wring their hands in dismay; he went down in flames in the general election. In terms of land use and zoning policies, there were actually worse candidates than he that time around. BG

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

Yes.

God forbid a group of people wants "equal protection" under the law - sounds almost un-American.

Oh wait, never mind.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 3 years, 9 months ago

Come on... Tom is an expert at spinning his foul wheels. What has he said that's lead to what he purports to believe, due to his spinning? Nothing... He is a royal spider of webs designed to be broken. Let the sycophant spin his dreary nursery rhymes. He is an amusement park, as still as the death of sales, boiling up huckster and carny patter, an embarrassingly stumbling "expert" at spinning wheels into digression and futility. Let him ride his gassy, guzzling into his own space and time. He is the plastic rabbit to the greyhounds' lifeless, betting foolishness, hoping that his plastic nature eases his way to the finish line, never realizing that he is indeed that ridiculous, plastic rabbit of false notions and dope running fool's dreams. He is only a gift to those winners of advertising's bliss...a shill of shills, ill will and willful ignorance... yet he's so obviously the mark of the beast, thus so easily spotted. Let us revel in his futility, and in his failure to realize same.

Kontum1972 3 years, 9 months ago

why do you even give a damn about this? as long as they are not aproaching you why do u even waste your time on this subject? To each his own....

and i am not gay...

live and let live.... if you recall Hitler wanted gay , and jews and all didnt fit his race to be exterminated we fought a war over this and whipped his A**....this is the land of the free.... as long as they are not hitting on you...chill out....Jeez!

coderob 3 years, 9 months ago

Even if a gay guy were hitting on you, just say you're not interested. What's the big deal?

gogoplata 3 years, 9 months ago

There is only one way to protect against sin and that is through the saving grace and truth found in Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ saves us from sin but salvation in Christ comes throught faith, not government force.

Christians should try and persuade others by teaching them the gospel instead of trying to use the government to force people how to live.

Government should have nothing to do with any marriage.

ignati5 3 years, 9 months ago

I have never heard or read from Carl Burkhead any suggestion of "government force." He once said that he would cousel gays in his office who wanted to reform. He is a religious fanatic with good intentions. I'll leave it you all to decide whether this is more or less dangerous than a sham religious fanatic doing it to manipulate gullible belivers.BG

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

Government making laws against gay marriage is an example of government force, and one that the letter supports.

Ceallach 3 years, 9 months ago

When I saw the title and first line of the letter I knew this was going to get ugly.

My problem with Holder's statement is that I'm not convinced he has the authority to decide which laws he will or will not defend. We the people can change laws, but until they are changed Holder job is to defend them. If I'm incorrect I'm sure someone will be happy to let me know.

Kirk Larson 3 years, 9 months ago

The administration has made clear they will enforce the law as it stands, but they do not have to argue for it if it is challenged in court. The Bush people did the same thing.

coderob 3 years, 9 months ago

I'm curious. What were some of the ones Bush didn't defend?

Kirk Larson 3 years, 9 months ago

"The George W. Bush administration refused to defend a federal law that denied mass-transit funds to any transportation system that displayed ads advocating the legalization of marijuana. And in the George H.W. Bush administration, the Justice Department refused to defend a federal law providing affirmative action in the awarding of broadcasting licenses — a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a narrow 5-4 vote" http://www.kqed.org/news/story/2011/02/28/45004/us_defends_doma_despite_dropping_support?source=npr&category=u.s.

meggers 3 years, 9 months ago

I don't know about the Bush administration, but when Chief Justice John Roberts was acting solicitor general, he refused to defend a FCC affirmative action law. The law was eventually upheld, by the way.

Situations like this are rare, but certainly not unprecedented.

Kirk Larson 3 years, 9 months ago

These guys are like clockwork:

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/02/man_booked_with_masturbating_a.html

Mr. Burkhead and his ilk are just taking their inner hatred and turning it outwards.

Kirk Larson 3 years, 9 months ago

At least Southern Decadence is about consenting adults. Storms was watching little kids. So Tom, self-hate much?

Kirk Larson 3 years, 9 months ago

Pardon me, but the Department of Justice and the office of the Attorney General are still part of the Executive branch. Hyperbole much?

BigPrune 3 years, 9 months ago

Does this mean Tom, Dick and Harry can get married? Who are we to say it would be wrong? What about Karen and Richard, a brother and sister who love eachother most would find offensive - it should be okay for them to marry as well........thanks Obama, you've just set yourself up to be impeached, finally.

BigPrune 3 years, 9 months ago

What about the higher suicide rate in children who are adopted by homosexual couples?

Bob_Keeshan 3 years, 9 months ago

There are no credible sources for that claim, nor for the equally onerous claim of "higher stress levels" among children adopted by homosexual couples.

bad_dog 3 years, 9 months ago

There are numerous published studies reflecting lower incident rates of thirst, skinned knees and flatulence amongst children adopted by gay couples. Just Google it-they're out there, I swear.

Kirk Larson 3 years, 9 months ago

If there are any "higher stress levels" among kids of gay couples it's from having to deal with bigoted, homophobic jerkwads. It's nothing intrinsic to the parents.

bad_dog 3 years, 9 months ago

Google "Tom Shewmon's attack on the Constitution"

2160 results in 0.25 seconds!

Wow!

nepenthe 3 years, 9 months ago

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Matthew 7:15-20

Frederic Gutknecht IV 3 years, 9 months ago

What means have we to reveal false "prophets" beyond versions of your good book? Our book is born of wolves and thorns in time. What means have we to make your false book true? I hew down your book's fruit, and cast its mash into true fires of our knowledge and belief. And there is naught beyond what can be known. And we can truly see that there is no belief in what only can be seen by those who choose to find our peace. There is no belief beyond the future of true knowledge. We are cast in a sea of words spun by the demons of short-lived lives and so there is no future in our present word. Visions of the future are not revealed to those trapped by these short words or time. It is in seeking ways beyond our words that truth is found. We are but grunting pigs of little value, here to be torn by thorns and eaten by our wolves. Enjoy this vast, vicarious repast or thrive in seeking, Ye shall find the way beyond our living forever or just another day. There is a way. It is not within books read but is buried in books to be written by what is within belief, examined by all, and found beyond debate.

nepenthe 3 years, 9 months ago

patpat I'm not even Christian, m'dear. I'm merely quoting this person's own Bible back at 'em.

Stuart Evans 3 years, 9 months ago

don't forget all the preachers preaching against gay sex and for family values, who have shown up in bath houses, gay clubs and rest stops. I guess they were just doing hands on research.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 9 months ago

Oh for cryin' out loud! Defense of what? Marriage? The vast majority of marriges end in divorce! How is that a sacred covenent? And since when did the government get involved with marriage (a religious act)? Seperation of church and state! Keep your religion out of my life! Leave it to the Xtians to stifle love. NO LOVE FOR YOU! LOL! Hypocrits, every last one.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 9 months ago

Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, sponsor of the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, “was married three times, and paid for his second wife’s abortion; failed to pay child support to the children of his first two wives and while married to his third and present wife and was photographed licking whipped cream off of strippers at his inaugural party.”

thewayne 3 years, 9 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 9 months ago

You people are so full of yourselves...Get a grip! Wouldn't the world be a much better place if we all minded our own business? I think so.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 9 months ago

Charlie Sheen? Never heard of him. I suspect he is nothing but a weapon of mass distraction.

Jimo 3 years, 9 months ago

Ah, but Mr. Burkhead, that would be individual sin, soul by soul by soul. Where do you find it your duty to stamp out others' sin? There's this little section about worrying about the speck in your brother's eye while avoiding the beam in your own. Since your odds of avoiding sin justifying eternal damnation are barely above zero perhaps you should focus your limited resources on your own soul, yes?

Larry Miller 3 years, 9 months ago

Spec in your brother's eye - you might want to read the whole section - it is BEFORE you help your brother. "help" being the operative word.

"Since your odds of avoiding sin justifying eternal damnation are barely above zero" - actually, it is zero. We cannot save ourselves.

Liberty275 3 years, 9 months ago

I don't see the problem with letting same sex marriages occur, as many of you endorse. What dirty things people of consent do behind closed doors is nobody else's business, so the state shouldn't discriminate against them for those acts. I wonder, however, where the loudest voices here draw the line. Do you draw it at the mormon with 8 wives? How about at the 50 year old that marries a 16 year old? Are you as open minded about paying cash for sex instead of a house and car? How about unlimited access to all drugs?

The letter to the editor is a little bigoted, but really, I'd guess just a little less than it's most vocal critics.

coderob 3 years, 9 months ago

The whole logic of the slippery slope argument would also have you believe that giving women the right to vote would have eventually led to us giving the right to infants and then again to primates.

gudpoynt 3 years, 9 months ago

Infants, perhaps. In fact, I think it's just a matter of time. Wouldn't be surprised to see the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda move in that direction.

Primates on the other hand is simply ridiculous, since there is no biological connection between them and humans whatsoever.

Liberty275 3 years, 9 months ago

I'd say 16. That's the age of consent (meaning the age when you can make decisions that will affect your entire life), therefore that should be the age when you are allowed to vote. No slippery slopes here. Frankly, I find it obscene that a 17 year old can be shipped to Afghanistan and get blown to bits by an IED but he can't vote.

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

The only question for me is one of consent.

If 8 women (adult) willingly marry one man, that's fine with me.

Etc.

Liberty275 3 years, 9 months ago

Not bad. I'm a little confused about your stance on drugs though. I can take it to mean you don't want your bus driver smoking a rope, or you don't want some guy snorting PCP with his wife and kids at home in case he goes into a rage and beats them. Could you clarify?

Liberty275 3 years, 9 months ago

Should homosexual activity be limited to areas where medical professionals can ensure there is no chance HIV might be transmitted?

Kirk Larson 3 years, 9 months ago

World wide heterosexuals transmit HIV as often as homosexuals. So ALL sexual activity should be monitored, don't ya think?

Liberty275 3 years, 9 months ago

OK, all sexual activity monitored if that makes you happy. The point remains unaltered and unanswered.

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

There's a little bit of difference between sexual activity (consensual) and somebody on a PCP rage assaulting people.

If people want to reduce their risk of catching STD's, they can take simple precautions.

It's not as easy to deal with the PCP guy.

Bob_Keeshan 3 years, 9 months ago

"There is only one way to protect against sin and that is through the saving grace and truth found in Jesus Christ."

I'm no lawyer, but I do believe that is a violation of the establishment clause.

Then again, Islam isn't real friendly to gay marriage either. Perhaps if the US was ruled by Sharia Law the whole issue of gay marriage would be moot.

meggers 3 years, 9 months ago

Mr. Burkhart,

The law wouldn't have been enacted to begin with, if not for false prophets that exploit the bible to rationalize their own bigotry.

gudpoynt 3 years, 9 months ago

And let's also not forget Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity."

Can you believe that in 96% of cases where a man cuts of a woman's hand for grabbing his junk, US courts will rule in favor of the WOMAN?! Unfathomable! I mean, the Good Book says it right there! Plain as day! Endorsing sin, indeed!

tolawdjk 3 years, 9 months ago

Only for a man and his countryman. If it is an illegal, or visa'd foriegn national, I think she's in the clear.

Getaroom 3 years, 9 months ago

Carl is once again dragging us back into the dark ages with his frozen in time Bible rants. And to make matters worse Shewmon chimes in with his Obama rant - ever spewing forth his not so veiled racism. Both of you ranters, back in your respective boxes. The feeding frenzy is over!

gudpoynt 3 years, 9 months ago

Seriously, Carl. And Tom too. You are the Glass Joe of conservatism. Dismissing your diatribes has become little more than muscle memory.

Life, like golf and poker, is much more enjoyable when you don't suck at it.

TheYetiSpeaks 3 years, 9 months ago

I find the Bible enhances my life greatly. However, I find nothing in it about me inserting myself in others' lives and telling them how to live them. In fact, the Bible does tell me not to point my finger and cry out "sinner"....for I am a sinner....and sin is sin. There are no varying degrees. As far as the government is concerned, the word marriage should be completely done away with. The government should call them all civil unions and allow them to anyone of legal age and lawful standing and deliver them the benefits held within. Then the people can call it whatever they want. Problem solved.

gl0ck0wn3r 3 years, 9 months ago

Silly LTE is silly. Arguing with a pseudo-conservative who wishes to have a theocratic government or believes one already exists within the US is as pointless as arguing with Merrill about traffic circles.

voevoda 3 years, 9 months ago

"Declare to My people their transgression... They ask Me for the right way, They are eager for the nearness of God... This is [what] I desire: ...To let the oppressed go free; To break off every yoke. It is to share your bread with the hungry, And to take the wretched poor into your home; When you see the naked, to clothe him, And not to ignore your own kin... If you banish the yoke from your midst, The menacing hand, and evil speech, And you offer your compassion to the hungry And satisfy the famished creature-- Then shall your light shine in darkness, And your gloom shall be like noonday. The Lord will guide you always." Isaiah 58:1-11 (excerpted)

Peacemaker452 3 years, 9 months ago

It is all about consent and not harming the rights of others.

Many of you so called liberals aren’t liberal at all, just less socially conservative. You still want to place restrictions on others based on your moral and political beliefs. If those restrictions have to be enforced by the government at the point of a gun, so be it.

And you conservatives; stay the hell out of people’s lives. If they are not hurting you, what business is it of yours what they do? You talk about smaller government and more freedom and then you give us this junk and just like the liberals; if the government must enforce your beliefs at the point of a gun, so be it.

The really sad thing is both groups are so much alike. “This is what I want and I will use force to ensure it happens.”

You may scoff at most of the ideas that libertarians believe in, but you would do well to read and understand the non-aggression principle.

Here is a head start for some of you that are a little slower than others: The non-aggression principle’s concept is also seen in most major religions and philosophies and in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

gudpoynt 3 years, 9 months ago

for the loss...

in fact, argument fail...

"You still want to place restrictions on others based on your moral and political beliefs. If those restrictions have to be enforced by the government at the point of a gun, so be it."

ALLOWING equal marriage rights is not a RESTRICTION.

You can argue that an ALLOWANCE, or an ACCEPTANCE, is merely the restriction of a restriction, in which case you get into a hopelessly cyclical argument that is as thin as those comprised of cherry-picked, anachronistic, and often misinterpreted Bible verses, nearly all from the Old Testament, used to validate the bigotry that is homophobia.

Mr. Burkhead is a case in point. While his rhetoric isn't nearly as inflammatory as Fred Phelps, his message is the same. He's not saying God "hates" homosexuals. He's merely saying that God will not protect homosexuals from a life of eternal damnation, even though it is within His omnipotence to do so. (And yes, God is of course a "He").

In some cases, you might be correct in your perception that so-called "liberals" (read "Democrats") are just as much after control and power over their fellow citizens as their so-called "conservative" (read "Republican") counterparts. But this is not one of those cases. Sorry, buddy, but not even close.

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

I think the point was - gay marriage is ok, but polygamy isn't.

Or we believe in personal freedom, but drugs and prostitution should still be illegal.

Etc.

Peacemaker452 3 years, 9 months ago

Jafs, Thanks for reading and understanding what I was trying to say before posting a reply. You are correct, I think that too many people want their brand of freedoms, but not anyone else's.

coderob 3 years, 9 months ago

A British court just barred a Christian couple from being foster carers because of their anti-homosexual views, "We are prepared to love and accept any child. All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing."

I can't decide on what I think on this one, but am leaning towards the view that children in foster care need stability, and not proselytizing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896

guesswho 3 years, 9 months ago

Just adding to the 100+ comments here...

For those of you who want to equate this to legalizing marriage between and among all sorts of things (multiple spouses, sibings, etc) we need to agree on what we are talking about.

There are legal and religious aspects to marriage. The legal aspect is contractual rights between the partners according to the state's laws. A divorce breaks that contract. That contract affords certain rights and benefits. The religious aspect is in whatever faith that couple has. Many same-sex couples have been 'married' in their particular house of worship that respects that right. There is no legal right with the state.

Now, for those of you who say this could open up to multiple-wife scenarios - in a way that happens when a man has multiple girlfriends he is stringing along. That is not illegal. He cannot though, have legally more than one wife - too difficult with property rights and all. Siblings (same or opposite sex) would still not be allowed due to genetic concerns of offspring (as well as an ick factor). Age difference? There still needs to be the age of consent, which is by the state. Hugh Hefner at 84 is getting married to a 25 year old. Illegal? No. Weird? you bet.

As an aside, there are many varied opinions on these quotes from the Bible. Some scholars argue over the semantics of that Leviticus passage had more to do with men and young boys.

But, since we are talking about men not sleeping with men, does that make lesbianism OK?

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

I'm sure we could figure out a way to deal with property rights issues with polygamy.

Just off the top of my head, they'd all be co-owners.

MyName 3 years, 9 months ago

If you're on the same side of an issue as the Phelps clan, chances are it's the wrong side.

Stuart Evans 3 years, 9 months ago

This letter started out with a passage from the bible. I stopped looking for logic, reason and intelligence right after.

I had just read a really fun piece today about quoting the bible in your morality lessons. this is what I found out. http://www.commondreams.org/further/2011/01/03-3

copied from link. 1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are 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?

  1. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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, or should I ask the police to do it?

  5. 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? Are there degrees of abomination?

  6. 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?

  7. 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?

  8. 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?

  9. 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 and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

nepenthe 3 years, 9 months ago

And how would you like your internets presented to you, oh winner of them?

Larry Miller 3 years, 9 months ago

oh good grief. If you actually knew what you were talking about you would know that context matters and that none of these apply now. That doesn't change what was said. You just have to apply the context. Research!!

coderob 3 years, 9 months ago

Grr. What happened to my comment about the BBC story?

coderob 3 years, 9 months ago

That is too strange. It disappeared for a bit. I was using ctrl+F to find it, and it wasn't showing up. Tom may be right about the spambot.

jellybeanies 3 years, 9 months ago

Sin is human defined through social and cultural norms. In my opinion, sin doesn't truly exist. As humans, we do things that are categorized as right or wrong. The categorizations change as we come across people with different backgrounds and experiences. One man's sin is another man's pleasure.

OzD 3 years, 9 months ago

"God’s word does not change and neither do His righteous standards which define marriage as the union between a man and a woman." Whew! What a relief that God isn't siding with Holder on this one. So, as a Christian, nothing changes for me, at least in the realm I'm supposed to care more about (heavenly vs earthy). Got it.

"There is only one way to protect against sin and that is through the saving grace and truth found in Jesus Christ." Good, once again I'm relieved to learn that nothing has changed as far as God is concerned, Holder is not proposing any changes to the Good Book then?

"The decision to stop defending this law is a huge mistake which will lead to terminal cancer and the demise of a once great nation." Demise?!? Don't you dare tell Hannity that the US won't be the most awesomest country God ever created for ever and ever times infinity. So, American exceptionalism is entirely dependent on how gays are treated in the US? This LTE makes our exceptionalism AND God's omnipotence seem rather flimsy.

ksb 3 years, 9 months ago

How tiresome and discouraging when Individuals don't seem to understand that quoting a bible verse and asserting theology is not sound argument in a culture with a multiplicity of perfectly acceptable religious beliefs and non-beliefs.

beeshlii 3 years, 9 months ago

i'm all for pologramy on Saturday nights. wooohoooo...

Gene Wallace 3 years, 9 months ago

Christians do Not own Marriage! Neither do any of the other religions and spiritual realities in this country. Spiritual marriage is a religious celebration and "contract". Civil, lawful, marriage is a legal contract between two people and the state of residence. No religion or religious group has the Constitutional Right to own Marriage.

Joseph Jarvis 3 years, 9 months ago

"The decision to stop defending [DOMA] is a huge mistake which will lead to terminal cancer and the demise of a once great nation."

You've just proven Attorney General Holder's point in a nutshell, i.e., "stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection clause is designed to guard against."

Commenting has been disabled for this item.