The Theocratic Offensive Against Washington State's Supreme Court

Dude this is retarted. You're saying that they're forcing their moral code on the rest of society, but why on earth would they do that? It doesn't give them any more power than they all have. It would just be a waste of money. And given that Westgate Chapel is a Christian church, they believe that man is saved by Jesus and by faith, not by works, so forcing moral code on society is converting people. Your blog is pointless. They believe that homosexuality is wrong, and they are taking a stand for biblical marriage. I don't see why that is any different than democrats protesting and leading movements against President Bush. How come they aren't called bigots or zealots? I think by trying to rob Christians from their right to protest and saying "we need to make it our business to defeat them," that's equally bigoted and zealoted against them. Think about it and drop the bias. Don't go saying things are wrong when you do them too. That's hypocritical and discredits everything you stand for. Do you find any hypocrisy in Westgate Chapel? They're more reliable than you are--that means they're right. "You, therefore, do not pass judgement on someone else. For at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, for you who pass judgement do the same things." (Romans 2:1).

Dude this is retarted. You're saying that they're forcing their moral code on the rest of society, but why on earth would they do that? It doesn't give them any more power than they all have. It would just be a waste of money. And given that Westgate Chapel is a Christian church, they believe that man is saved by Jesus and by faith, not by works, so forcing moral code on society is converting people. Your blog is pointless. They believe that homosexuality is

If Westgate and other right-wing churches are as you say "saved by Jesus and faith, not by works," then why are they working so hard to elect their candidates in the political arena? It would be pointless, if that is really what these leaders beleive. Make no mistake they are in this fight for power, and all the egotism that goes with it.

I have never said that Westgate, or anyone else doesn't have the right to "protest" or "take a stand" on anything. However, I can disagree with what that stand is and give my opinion on it. Denying people equal treatment under the law is prejudiced, and express a bigotry against homosexuals.

Then for what logical reason do you think they are forcing their moral code on society? Why on earth would they challenge homosexuality to force society to conform to a moral code? What on earth are you saying it accomplishes?

Man Made,

To answer your first question, they are forcing their moral code on society, because they believe that the Bible and God calls them to do so. That is the basis of theocracy.

To answer your second question, same answer as the first.

To answer your final question, I am saying that this accomplishes a) Giving the GOP a fanatic electoral base that they can turn out by dropping a few key words and phrases, b) It gives the leaders of the American theocrats a fiefdom of followers to control (it satisfies a base lust for power, and finally c) It gives those followers a feeling of security and superiority to be doing "God's will" (as defined by their leaders).

I don't think that morality has much to do with the drive to discriminate against gays, except as using the idea of it as a justification for said discrimination.

You have hit the nail on the head - these are neo-fascist, anti-Christ usurpers of truth, peace and love. I Cor 5:12 tells us the true disciple will focus on the church and that God Himself is responsible for those outside of the church. It is time they decided to stop doing God's job for Him.

Peace, Human

Ok, with all due respect, I would like to step in. If we are using the Bible, here's a verse. "Select capable men from all the people - men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain - and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens." Exodus 18:21 (NIV) By men who fear God, that includes men who oppose homosexuality because the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, and a man who fears God will feel the same way about sin as God does. Basically, they are voting for righteousness, and calling others to do the same. I think there is hardly any wrong in that; isn't voting the thing we are supposed to do? The Bible also says that "Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain." (1 Timothy 3:8 NIV) Therefore, if these Christians were forcing moral code on society for personal gain, as you say they are, that makes them out to be complete hypocrites. But Christian's aren't hypocrites; there's more. Let me post the verse that HUMAN claims tells us that Christians are to not focus outside the church. "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. 'Expel the wicked man from among you.'" 1 Corinthians 5:12. It says do not JUDGE, it never says do not concern yourselves with. This partners with Romans 2:1 "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." But Sound the Alarm and Westgate Chapel are not passing judgement, so they are safe on that point as well. They are concerning themselves with, not judging. Ask anyone at Westgate and they say 'hate the sin, not the person.' They love (and God loves) the people, but the sin is, well, sin as defined by the Bible. I will not oppose the idea that they are attacking homosexual laws in the state because God has called them to, because it's true that he has, but if they are doing it for personal gain, it cannot be because the God has called them to. Both ideas cannot sit in the same boat, because doing it for personal gain is not godly. So either they are doing God's will as they claim, or they are doing it for personal gain. Take your pick, believe what you want. I won't try to sell you something you think tastes sour. But finally, I would like to say that they have done nothing bigoted, prejudiced, or otherwise immoral in anything they have done to oppose homosexuality. They have called Christians to prayer and told them to vote for the most righteous leader in the voting booth. They went out and got signatures for Referendum 65, but never once did anything prejudiced or bigoted. They attended the Mayday for Marriage, again nothing but a peaceful assembly to advocate for biblical marriage, not to judge or condemn homosexuals, or force them to change. Not once have they shown any intent of forcing homosexuals to stop their homosexuality, or forcing moral code on society. If you would, please respond. I would like to see what you think about what I have said. If I can further clarify, let me know. As well, try attending a Westgate Chapel service. That would give you a clearer idea of what they are about. You can't judge a book by it's cover, and reading some stuff from the website won't tell you everything. Get right into the middle of it and get some primary information, straight from the heart of the conflict.

God bless, ~a servant of the Lord

Servant, Quote scripture all you like, but in a society where there is a separation between religious dogma and government (and therefore the law) what bearing does that have.

You may be called by your religious belief to oppose homosexuality, but that does not mean that anyone else must heed that call, and it is not a justification for legal discrimination against homosexuals.

The burden is on you to prove that there are factual (not dogmatic) logical reasons to condone such discrimination.

Separation of church and state is a myth. The Constitution does not say separation of church and state, it says the Congress shall make no law respecting any establishment of religion. With all due respect, please do not bring up seperation of church and state because it does not exist.

As well, America is a Christian country. Now isn't that a radical statement? Well it's true, to some extent at least. In Israel they don't deliver the mail on Saturdays, beacause it's Shabbat, and on Yom Kippur, because it's the Day of Atonement; that's because it's a Jewish country. In Saudi Arabia they don't deliver the mail on Ramadan and on Fridays; that's because it's a Muslim country. Now in America last I checked they don't deliver the mail on Sundays and on Christmas. I thought that it was quite a strange coincidence; could it have anything to do? That maybe we are a Christian country? We're certainly not a Christian government, but we are a country founded on Christianity and Christian principles. Basically, dogma does have a place in our country and it is not to be seperated from politics. Mahatma Ghandi once said, "Those who believe that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." Patrick Henry, one of the great firebrands of the American Revolution, one the most outstanding of our founding fathers along with Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, etc., and a great Christian man once said, "It cannot be emphasized too often or too strongly that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ!" I think at the very least we could stick with Christianity for mere patriotism and fulfill the desires that the founding fathers had just for the sake of 'reverence' for them. That means as a nation we should decide that homosexuality is a sin and disapprove of it. Sadly, our government is not Christian like our country is.

Before I go any further, I would like to know where you are coming from. If you don't mind, may I have a brief summary of your beliefs? (i.e. Do you belong to a religion? What do you believe about homosexuality? What are some of your other beliefs? etc.)

Servant,

If "Congress shall make no law" establishing or abolishing religion, wouldn't that separate government from religion in a legal (constitutional sense)?

That isn't to say that people in government can't be guided by religious principals. But it does prohibit them from making laws to enshrine or bar a religion under American government.

So when you argue for protecting legal discrimination against homosexuals, and do so solely on the basis of Christian Biblical scripture, you are asking for a rupture in that separation.

Bring on the next theocratic talking point please.

As to my beliefs. I think I make those clear enough in my writing, as they pertain to the topics and debates at hand.

But the Constitution does not say "Congres shall make no law establishing a religion", it says "respecting an establisment of religion." They are not the same thing. This is not establishing a religion, nor respecting it, because even some atheists believe homosexuality is wrong. This isn't a purely Christian debate.

And your religion and beliefs are not clear enough. Please explain. Do you believe in the existence of moral absolutes?

"Respecting" in the context of the 1st amendment means "in relation to." That is a widely accepted interpretation.

Now, I think you misunderstand my argument, about conservative Christians wanting to establish a theocratic state. It isn't a constitutional one. Constitutionally theocrats have the right to advocate and push their agenda. That is also under the 1st amendment. I do however feel that their movement and agenda threaten the Constitution.

I think that they want to establish Christian supremacy over American society (not a majority, or dominant influence, but complete supremacy).

I think that they want to control the most private, and individual liberties that we as people enjoy.

As far as your question about morality and my belief in moral absolutes, of course I believe in them. That is why I feel compelled to challenge bigotry against homosexuals; because I find it immoral.

Oh and I challenge you Servant to present me with an example of one atheist who is anti-gay.

So it says "respecting any establishment of religion". The word "any" is there too. Therefore, Congress shall make no law in relation to any establishment of religion, establishment as in an established religion, not the establishment of a religion in government. My more literal interpretation says a similar thing, that Congress shall not make a law that respects a certain religion, that is, favors it. Same idea.

And I understood your arguement well. You already told MAN that Westgate had the right to protest and take a stand, as it is in their constitutional rights. However, seperation of church and state is still a myth in my head, so I think even if the government was Christian, it would not be against the Constitution. But I can assure you that they do not want to establish supremacy so they can rule and have power. I think I already covered that subject earlier. You seem to have not read that part.

So, you believe in moral absolutes; that is, absolute right and wrongs. If I may, I have another question. What defines morality? How do you know what is genuinely right and wrong?

And you're right, I shouldn't have used that atheist-antigay arguement. I have no evidence to back that up. Atheists believe that homosexuality is OK as part of their belief system. There are, though, non-Christians that do believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I have no evidence for that one either, but I don't think even you can deny that they are out there.

Just because you say that conservative Christians (who are active in the political arena) "do not want to establish supremacy" doesn't make it so. And it doesn't mean that I believe it.

As for the side issue of moral absolutes, I believe that society and individuals in society define those limits. I believe that we are taught those limits by our parents, teachers, governments, and fellows.

So in a way moral absolutes are a created by man, if they weren't then why they do they need to be taught?

Even if they were handed down by God to man through scripture (take your pick of brand), people (sinners all) are the ones reading interpreting and teaching God's laws. Historically speaking, that has changed over time.

I believe in right and wrong, and I make-up my own mind about it. I am free to do so.

Oh, and are you an atheist then?

So you're saying that Christian's alleged establishment of supremacy is true for you but not for me?

So you're saying that society AND individuals define absolute morality, or are you saying that it is up to the individual to decide what is right and wrong, because you just said both arguements. Pick one.

As far as Christian morals (whatever my "pick of brand" means), they all follow the same Bible, which contains the same morals, and it is all consistent. Even over all this time it hasn't changed one bit. It is still the same text that it has always been, and interpretation has nothing to do with it. I guarentee you. That's because there have been such a large quantity of Bible's (rather, manuscripts that had the Bible written on them) found from ancient era's that agree with each other and are consistent. Translation problems are not an issue either, it just helps to further understand the point already made in the Bible to study the Greek equivalents of some of the words used. But, as a Christian, I can assure you that none of these Greek equivalents contradict any English text in the Bible.

First of all I am saying I disagree with you about the establishment of Christian supremacy.

Second if you define absolute morality as defined by God via the Bible. Then no, I do not believe in that. But I do believe that killing is wrong. I believe that breaking my vows to my wife and having an affair would be wrong. I believe that discriminating against people based on sexual behavior (between consenting adults) is wrong.

I will put aside the history of the Bible for now, and say that there are vast differences between various sects of Christianity. That is why they are split into sects.

Within each sect there are internal theological debates and interpretations of the Bible. Also I have yet to come across a church that follows everything in the Bible 100%.

So I find your assertion that absolute morality is defined by what is in the Bible to be absurd.

First, you didn't answer my question. You say that Christian's are trying to establish supremacy. Is that truth for you?

Secondly, you didn't answer my other question. You believe killing is wrong, that breaking your vows to wife by having an affair is wrong, and that discrimination is wrong. Why do you believe these are wrong? How do you know that they are absolutely wrong, hence the name "moral absolutes"?

And there are not vast differences. Just small disagreements, but nothing that seperates us as the Church of Christ initially. C.S. Lewis believed that we needed to set aside our little differences (in the Church, that is) and all rally for Jesus, not letting our little differences in opinion create dissension between. One thing we need as Christians is unity. That's why Pastor Alec said we need to unite in heart, in prayer focus, and unite to stand for biblical righteousness.

And if you haven't come accross a church that follows the Bible, try Westgate. Goodness, you seem to bash them all you want from a pdf file you found, but you have never been there. I challenge you to check it out a little more deeply than that. Interview Pastor Alec or something. It's not hard.

And why do you find my assertion of absolute morality as defined by the Bible to be absurd? You didn't give a reason why.

As to your first question, it isn't truth for me. It is an opinion that I believe to be true.

Secondly I know that they are wrong because I think it and believe it.

Yes, there are vast difference between the sects of Christianity. Compare Greek Orthodox chruches to Souther Baptist ones. Pastor Alec's stand for Biblical righteousness has nothing to do with one taken by the Pastor of Trinity Lutheran in Seattle.

It seems we have basic philosophical differences that are not likely to be overcome.

Hold on I'm not finished yet.

So you define morality for yourself? Do you believe that that should apply to everyone? You still haven't defined a religion that you consider yourself a part of. Where do you think we came from? Where are we going when die; do you believe that we are going anywhere at all?

Although I still disagree about the "vast differences", I admit that it has not much bearing on this debate. Let's set that aside for now.

God bless,

~a servant of the Lord

We all define morality for ourselves. It's called free will. That doesn't mean that I don't believe in moral absolutes, but I know that it is me believing in them.

As to your other questions, welcome to the great mysteries of life, from which the strength of faith flows.

If you have all the answers via your fundamentalism, then I would have to ask you to prove it. Scientifically.

Well, at this point I will apologize if I may have seemed a bit aggressive earlier. I wasn't trying to be aggressive, but I understand I may have come accross that way.

But anyhow, I have a question for you. If we all define morality for ourselves, do believe that what Hitler did was right? Is the Holocaust justified and morally the right thing to have done?

Since the beginning of time there has not been one shred of evidence to strike down the idea that God created everything in 7 days. If we're talking about the big bang theory, I don't see how that works. In my mind, you can believe that an atom exploded to create the universe or whatever it was, but I think that just postpones the question of where the atom came from. Just a thought.

There is a lot of evidence that the Biblical version of how the world was created isn't accurate.

Oh, and have you noticed that there are TWO distinctly different and separate stories of creation in the Bible?

Of course Hitler was immoral and wrong. But at the time in Germany the ruling elites justified (or hid) what they were doing as totally moral.

The invasions that the Nazis undertook were entirely defensive and justified, according to themselves.

But the most elementary ethical logic would show us that it was not.

People made a decision to oppose their immoral and murderous state. That is what life is about making decisions.

Like deciding if you are going to discriminate against other human beings on the basis of who and how they like to have sex with others.

No, there are not two distinctly different or seperate stories of creation. Please show me, if you can.

Actually, Hitler thought he was doing the right thing. He defined what he was doing as morally good. But you just said that it was immoral and wrong, so how can it be both?

Where does this elementary ethical logic come from that tells us that what he did was wrong? Because apparently Hitler did not have it. In Germany, the ruling elites justified what they were doing as totally moral, so why wasn't it? They decided what was right for themselves. That was not a moral absolute for them because they decided it wasn't.

So how do you know that homosexuality (apart from the discrimination) is morally ok? Do you believe there is a way to know? What if the Christians are right, that it is morally wrong?

Because Hitler thought it was.

If it was wrong because Hitler thought it was right, how does that apply to us? If all men are created equal, and all have the same rights to opinion, and everyone defines morality for themselves, how is Hitler an exception? That doesn't sound fair or equal to me. How do we know if we are an exception to that rule? Why are Christians exceptions just like Hitler was? Why aren't homosexuals and people like you exceptions?

Okay morality is a social convention that people use to define acceptable actions between others. Most often it is viewed from a perspective of doing harm, and aiding our fellow persons.

I do believe in moral absolutes. Like killing is wrong. But if someone breaks into my house and attempts to harm my children, it is not wrong for me to stop them, nor is it wrong if I kill the person in attempting to stop them.

So does that mean that I don't believe in moral absolutes because I find exceptions to the "killing is wrong" absolute. Not at all. Life is full of exceptions. Morality is constantly redefined on a case by case basis. Hence the need for courts so that each case can be examined in a legal sense

You are positing that moral absolutes flow from God and receive them via the Bible. So if it is in the Bible that is that, and it never changes. But it isn't, there are numerous Biblical laws that modern Christians don't follow. Leviticus is full of the religious laws to an ancient desert people that have no relation to us or the modern world. Prohibitions against homosexuality among them.

Now you are trying to compare the immorality of Hitler to the "immorality" of homosexuality. How is the act of two people of the same gender behaving sexually even remotely close to one of worst mass murderers in history?

Also if homosexuality is immoral, who does it harm? I have found no credible evidence that homosexuality harms anyone, in and of itself.

So the question returns why do you find homosexuality immoral? I think it is because you have been taught that by folks like Pastor Alec.

I was never comparing those two immoralities. They are not remotely near each other. I was using Hitler as an example to show you that we cannot define morality for ourselves, which by the way you just completely changed your mind. I find that interesting.

If moral absolutes are consistently redefined, than they are not moral absolutes. A moral absolute is something that is genuinely right or wrong, 100% sure, no gray areas, always has been right or wrong, and always will be the same.

I believe homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says it is wrong. The Bible says it is detestable in the eyes of the Lord. But the Bible never says that the homosexuals are detestable. The Bible says God loves the world--that means he loves homosexuals too. He just despises their sin.

Homosexuality does harm--STD's are rampaging through our country like never before as a result of fornication and homosexuality. Syphylis is homosexual STD, to name one. That is a great harm to the individual, which is a direct result of homosexuality. So if you define homosexuality as moral or immoral based on whether or not it harms someone, it is immoral in that respect as well.

So you don't believe in moral absolutes at all, is what I have found so far.

I believe that moral absolutes are created and by human society.

STD's affect both heterosexual and homosexual demographics. STD's have more to do with unsafe sexual practices, and the number sexual partners.

All of my gay friends are in committed relationships and have no problems with that.

I do have a straight friend who has herpes that they got during college from an unfaithful partner.

Go ahead and use all the FRC and Focus on the Family "evidence" you want to; just about all of it has been discredited.

You still have yet to prove that the "moral absolutes" you believe in are, in fact, absolutes. If they are by society, then they are always changing, in which case they are no longer absolutes, but simply moral opinions. And I don't think moral opinions are very reliable. If what have said is true, morals are very unreliable. It seems like the entire world is unreliable to you, like there is nothing that can be proven true or false, and everyone lives with everything hanging in thin air. No one knows what is right or wrong. I'm getting the idea that you're saying that we can all believe whatever we want, and we are all right. That can't possibly be though, because of the Law of non-Contradiction. The Law of non-Contradiction says that something can't be both X and not X at the same time, that either X or not X has to be the right answer. If the Law of non-Contradiction goes away, knowledge disappears because everything is right. Morals based on society are too unreliable. You can't ever know for sure if what you believe is right or wrong actually is right or wrong. And if they change they are not absolute.

So it's your turn again. How can you be 100% sure that homosexual is morally OK?

Your straight friend recieved herpes because of his partner's sin. I'm not crediting him with that being his fault, but he suffered because of his partner's sin. If his partner hadn't sinned, it wouldn't have turned out that way. That's what the Bible says to keep your vows and says fornication is wrong--because sex outside of marriage makes it easy to have sex with another person, which leads another person, until you finally contract an STD. The Bible is preventing this, and STD's are the consecuences of sinful behavior.

And I believe there is something I forgot to address. The laws in the Old Testament were in order for people to stay righteous--atonement for sins and such. However, all that changed when Jesus died and rose again. The New Testament has none of these laws because after the perfect sacrifice (Jesus) had been given, the sins no longer required offering or sacrifice for atonement. All they needed was repentance and to ask God for forgiveness. Christianity became a personal relationship with God. If you have any more questions about the Old Testament laws, don't hesitate to ask.

I don't know what "evidence" you're talking about because I had no intentions of using any, but if you're saying it's discredited I am now interested. Why is it discredited?

Servant you are quite right to say that Jesus brought a new covenant that changed the old laws. And Gospels don't say a darn thing about homosexuality. Romans mentions it, but that isn't the Gospels.

But it was you who asserted that Christians follow the Bible 100%. And Leviticus is in the Bible. So put down that shrimp and sacrifice a bull you heathen.

Since my argument isn't that Christianity forbids homosexuality, but instead what gives Christians the right to thrust their belief on to society as a whole, it might be better to deal with that rather than a philosophical difference that is unlikely to be resolved.

I am in complete disbelief that all of this energy, on either side of the issue, is being wasted in this way. As a Christian, I am saddened that we are putting so much emphasis on everybody else's "issues". Are we not told to love our neighbors as ourselves? The time, not to mention the money, spent in organizing anti-homosexuality forums seems to have satan's hands all over it. He is winning when we are warring. Let's spend out time and efforts loving people to Christ, not judging them. How on earth are we to show them the way when we are discriminating and bashing? Let God judge the sins of people. We need only to love and embrace the lost in hopes to bring anyone and everyone to Christ before it's too late. This whole thing just makes me sad. I pray that Jesus will forgive, especially believers, all the focus we have taken away from Him by contributing to judge, condemn, and ultimately push away those who we could have pulled in. Don't we have better things to do?

Well, the Gospels does mention it actually. One last thing to say before I disappear forever. Matthew 15 Jesus talks about clean and unclean, and mentions that the sexually immoral are unclean (Matthew 15:19). Sexually immoral, by the rest of the new testament, includes homosexuality. Jesus didn't skip it.

But I agree with "I'm a Believer". I don't seem to have convinced you of anything, except that I know my apologetics. I am sorry. Andy, I love you just as Jesus loves you. That's not in a homosexual way either. You are welcome to check out Westgate any time you want. I was never discriminating though.

Sound the Alarm is not an organization made out of a lust for power. Pastor Alec has no secret intentions or motives. Interview him...don't just make propositions about him. How would you like it if someone made something up like that about you?

I hope that I possibly may have clarified a lot for you. Clarified about Sound the Alarm's motives, etc. Andy, Jesus loves you. Check that out for yourself sometime. Come to Westgate.

Goodbye.

Why did you feel the need to say "not in a homosexual way though"?

Because you seem to think in an interesting way. I felt I should clarify. I'm straight of course, and I believe homosexuality is a sin. But that doesn't mean that I don't love you. Of that Jesus doesn't love you.

We are all sinners, we share similiar sins, and have our own individual sins. As christians we should not be judging others' sins, but embrace one another. Corinthiams 5:12 says: It isn't my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning. God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, "You must remove the evil person from among you". I don't think that homesexuality was put on the top ten worst list of sins by God, so why do we waste out time on this? Why on earth would any homosexual ever consider coming to Christ when we are pushing them away by trying to take away the things they think it is their right to have? As Christians, do we react this way to other sins like adultery, abuse, coveting, drug/alcohol abuse? No, we certainly do not. We love these people to Christ or back to Christ. I think we must reconsider our intentions if we want to save those who are not already saved. In Romans 2 Paul says that whenever we find ourselves feeling justifiably angry about someone's sin, we should be careful. We need to speak out against sin, but it must be in a spirit of humility. It is important that we examine our hearts to see if we are actually doing this. In my Life Application Study Bible, as a footnote to Romans 2:1 it says: When Pauls letter was read in the Roman church, no doubt many heads nodded as he condemned idol worshippers, homosexual practices, and violent people. But what surprise his listeners must have felt when he turned on them and said in effect, "You are just as bad, and you have no excuse!" Paul was emphatically stressing that we have sinned repeatedly, and there is no way apart from Christ to be saved from sin's consequences. Was Jesus not full of humility and Grace and forgiveness? I guess what I am saying is that as Christians we cannot be labeled by non-Christians as being "better than thou". Jesus wasn't like this. He forgave the paralyzed man, the woman caught in adultery, the woman who annoited his feet with perfume, Peter- for denying he knew Jesus, the criminal on the cross, the people who crucified Him. Let us not oppress homosexual people for their sins by wasting our time and energy by preventing them certain "rights" they feel are theirs, but rather by loving them and showing them Jesus and bringing them to Christ through that love. We will never be able to do it the other way, never. We need to pray not only for the lesbian daughter of the congregation, but also for the woman she is involved with. Isn't that what Jesus would do? Maybe I am way off base here, but I really think this is something worth thinking about.

I understand that I may have come across in the wrong way. I may have misrepresented Christianity. Let me explain.

Believer, I think there is something questionable in what you are saying. You're expressing beliefs very similar to that of HUMAN. You seem to be coming down on Sound the Alarm like Andy is, saying that it is unjust enforcement of a moral code on society. God doesn NOT have a top 10 list of the worst sins. God sees all sin the same. Sin is SIN. No ands, buts, or hows. Homosexuality is viewed the same as drug addictions, swearing/cursing, disrespecting people in authority, pornography, pride, selfishness, even murder. I repeat; SIN IS SIN. Sound the Alarm is raising awareness among Christians, and trying to establish morally right statutes into our country's law system, and trying to put righteous leaders into government positions for our great nation. It's not condemning, judging, hating, or discriminating against homosexuals.

so why we do not react this way about adultery, abuse, coveting, and drug/alcohol abuse? These are not protected by our government as "rights". They are against the law, in the case of abuse and drug/alcohol abuse, and in the other cases, they are not particularly protected by a United States law. Coveting is a personal issue, between you and God, and adultery is an altogether complex problem. We can't take away divorce, because the Bible permits divorce in the case of marital unfaithfulness. The different rights to divorce are something else, and I have to admit that no one has taken the stand against that. Fornication is not condoned (nor discouraged) by the government, although prostitution happens to be illegal, and there is an age requirement to buy pornagraphy or go to strip clubs. No one has stood against that either, but it is nevertheless treated the same WITHIN the church. At my church, at least.

I said nothing about being better than Andy. I'm not. To God, we're all the same. I can't deny that. I don't deserve anything that God has given me. That's why he is so gracious. That's why I praise and glorify him; because he loves me no matter what I look like, what I've done, or anything else. The only difference is that I accepted Jesus as my Savior; I confess with my mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in my heart that God raised him from the dead. I'm saved. That's what I have tried and failed to extend here. I apologize.

But Believer, this complacency you perhaps may believe (I don't really know for sure) is deadly to Christians. American Christians seem to believe that our faith belongs in the church and in the home, and that we are not to bring our faith outside those boundaries. That's not true. I understand you may not have expressed that, but I am shattering that propaganda right now. It's not true.

So in conclusion, we do not "oppress homosexual people." We love them, but hate the sin. The sin is detestable in the eyes of God, and in our eyes too. We can accept the person and love them like Jesus, but we are NOT to accept the sinful lifestyle. You may call that judging, but the truth is that it is sin, but the person is valuable. Thank you for your interesting points, believer.

I apologize, I said I would be gone forever. Haha. Oops. Goodbye. I love you all.

Servant says that "We love them, but hate the sin," and that conservative Christians are "not condemning, judging, hating, or discriminating against homosexuals;" but that isn't the truth from where I am sitting.

Denying people legal protection for housing, employment and from violence and harassment is judging them and discriminating against them.

Servant's comparison of homosexuality to drug abuse is completely out of line and is meant to once again draw us back into thinking and feeling that being gay is some kind of perverse dark behavior, when the truth is that it is nothing of the kind.

How do I know? Well I have gay friends and they are not any of those things, and their sexuality is not a destructive or compulsive force like drug addiction is. However homophobia most certainly can be, especially since I have yet to find one rational reason to support it.

The basic question that Servant fails to answer is what business is it of his (assuming that Servant is male) who and how people behave sexually?

What gives him, Dobson, and the rest of the theocrats the right to interpret the Bible for us, and to tell us that on the basis of that interpretation, laws must be enacted to reflect it?

These folks do not, and if I have anything to say about it, will not have the power to make those decisions for other people.

Ok, I'm back, assuming that you want me to answer that question that I "failed" to answer. I have no recollection of being asked that, but I can be forgetful sometimes.

We're not trying to dictate who and how people behave sexually. We're fighting against gay marriage. Just the marriage. You can behave however sexually you want, especially because society doesn't seem to believe that sex is something to be enjoyed within the parameters of marriage. Society believes you can have sex whenever you want, wherever you want, with whoever you want. We believe that you can only have sex within the boundaries of marriage, and we are fighting that marriage is to be between one man and one woman.

So you're right. It's none of my business. But that's not what me/we're doing. We're not trying to pass a law that will make it illegal to be homosexual. We are fighting homosexual marriage. So it's not judging the sins. I think I mis-conveyed that. It's the marriage.

Atheism, Andy, is a religion just as much as Christianity. It says that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable. Now I ask you, what right do Atheists have to dictate the laws for our country? See, you can't seperate church and state. Atheism, I think, has become truly the religion of government. That has to stop. Why should our countries laws reflect Atheism? Because church and state are to be "seperated". You have to have one religion or the other in the government.

It is equally easy for me to say that I will not allow atheists to dictate the laws of my country. Sound the Alarm is uniting Christians to take a stand against that. Not that specifically, of course, but part of the empowerment of atheism is the legality of homosexual marriage.

Servant ignores the fact that StA and FFN have both opposed the recent addition of sexual orientation to the Washington State discrimination code.

Atheism is not a religion. I will concede that it is a belief, since there is no rational way to prove or disprove the existence of God. So Servant's arguments that atheism "has become truly the religion of government," are just not true.

Servant also seems to ignore having a society where church and state are separate gives him the freedom to practice his religion without fear of state intervention.

As is usual for conservative Christians with theocratic intentions, Servant paints their attack on this secular society, as society attacking them.

What they see as an "attack on marriage" is nothing more than people wanting to seek the same legal rights as everyone else.

Your claim that Alec Rowlands can barely contain his open lust for power is completely false, this is a man who has devoted his life to serving God. He has given up his personal freedom to do what he wishes when he wishes it, and become a slave to Christ. He is one of the most self-less men I've ever met, and I've had the priviledge of knowing him personally since he first came to Westgate some twenty years ago. He's not a politician using Christ and His Word (The Bible) to become elected to a place of power. He's taking a stand for what he believes in, for what he has dedicated his life to serving, the Word of God. Salt and Light Ministries serves the same purpose as this blog, to inform anyone who is interested and encourage them to take a stand also. You're attacking the messenger because you don't like or agree with the message. There are alot of so called "Christians" who use God only to further their own quest for power or personal agenda, when really they are nothing more than hypocrites in every definition of the word, but Alec is not one of them. He teaches what Christ said that we (Christians) are no better than anyone else and God loves and died for all of us, regardless of whether we accept Him or even believe He exists. Being Agnostic I understand you probably won't come to Westgate to meet Dr. Rowlands so I offer this instead send me an e-mail and I will pass it on to him, I'm sure he would be interested in talking to you. I believe you mis-understand Westgate's and his unwillingness to condone homosexuality as a attempt to strip them of their right to free will.

Jeff, Everything I assert about Rowlands is based on his own words and actions. The same words and actions that you base your opinions on.

But you didn't look at it all in context. You took snippets here and there, but you didn't examine it as a whole. Me and Jeff base our opinions at least on the whole story.